What do you think?
Rate this book
Kate Stanley #1
Interred with Their Bones
INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLER“A feverishly paced action adventure” (The New York Times) about a long-lost Shakespeare work and a killer who reenacts the Bard’s most bloody murders On the eve of the Globe’s production of Hamlet, Shakespeare scholar and theater director Kate Stanley’s eccentric mentor Rosalind Howard gives her a mysterious box, claiming to have made a groundbreaking discovery. Before she can reveal it to Kate, the Globe is burned to the ground and Roz is found dead—murdered in the strange manner of Hamlet’s father. Inside the box, Kate finds the first piece in a Shakespearean puzzle, setting her on a deadly, high-stakes treasure hunt. From London to Harvard to the American West, Kate races to evade a killer and solve a tantalizing string of clues hidden in the words of Shakespeare, which may unlock one of history’s greatest secrets. But Kate is not alone in this hunt, and the buried truth threatens to come at the ultimate cost.
444 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2007
193 people are currently reading
4202 people want to read
About the author
Jennifer Lee Carrell
4 books373 followersI've always wanted to write books; early on, my fallback career choices were ballerina and astronaut. It has something of a surprise, though, to find myself writing thrillers. I am now working on a novel of historical fiction about one of my favorite paintings, Jan Van Eyck's Arnolfini Wedding.
Learn more at my web site: www.jenniferleecarrell.com , or visit me on Facebook . I welcome interaction with readers!
A NOTE ABOUT MY REVIEWS: I include the following:
Five Stars: books of many genres that hang incandescently in my imagination
Everything else - unstarred: books that I admire in the genres of historical fiction, mystery & thriller, fantasy & fairy tales, Shakespeare, and History. For the sake of time and my sanity, I include here only those books that are in some way relevant to what I write. The exception is my Children's Book list, which lists the books I loved most as a child.
If a book is listed here, I have either read and admired it, or it's in my "must read" pile. I'll be gradually trying to say why for many of them...
Learn more at my web site: www.jenniferleecarrell.com , or visit me on Facebook . I welcome interaction with readers!
A NOTE ABOUT MY REVIEWS: I include the following:
Five Stars: books of many genres that hang incandescently in my imagination
Everything else - unstarred: books that I admire in the genres of historical fiction, mystery & thriller, fantasy & fairy tales, Shakespeare, and History. For the sake of time and my sanity, I include here only those books that are in some way relevant to what I write. The exception is my Children's Book list, which lists the books I loved most as a child.
If a book is listed here, I have either read and admired it, or it's in my "must read" pile. I'll be gradually trying to say why for many of them...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,306 reviews
July 21, 2018
A long time ago, I had heard about a theory that Shakespeare did not write the plays he is credited with. He was just a “front” for some aristocrat who was the actual author. I attributed this theory to some imaginative conspiracy buff(s) and totally forgot about it.
When I came across this book recently, it piqued my interest (the blurb helped a lot) and I borrowed it form my friend.
A young director Kate, an American who is in London to direct Hamlet at Shakespeare’s Globe is visited by her old mentor, Roz, a professor of Shakespeare at Harvard. The two had parted on unpleasant terms, and been out of touch. Roz pops out without any warning, gives Kate a box and asks for help in something big. To make all these very mysterious, the author makes Roz say “If you open it, you must follow where it leads.” Not very original, eh!
Thus, our adventure begins and we find a serial killer is on the loose, and doing what serial killers are supposed to do. But, our killer actually models his/her killings on Shakespeare’s plays. Kate is in danger, followed by an unknown enemy and depends upon a few friends to survive. Help would appear out of nowhere in the form of a handsome, strong mysterious man who claims to run a security company, the one with “guns and guards” and not with “stocks and bonds.”
Anyway, Kate would follow the clues and travel across US, UK and visit continental Europe in her quest to reveal the true identity of the bard and to find the original version of his lost play. In the story you will encounter actors, scholars, eccentric billionaire Shakespeare enthusiasts, priests, nobles and others.
There is some interesting trivia, and the best part is that the narrative at times will take you back to Shakespeare’s time. In fact, the prologue started with a crime committed during Shakespeare’s time in London. The prologue had piqued my interest and raised my expectations.
The idea behind the story was good and the author did put in her efforts; it was interesting to read about theories about the real identity of Shakespeare, but the execution did not live up to my expectations. Kate was too naïve for me, the motive behind the crimes were not convincing enough and the identity of the villain(s) were predictable, the author did not utilize the certain characters to their full potential and some of the phrases could have been improved.
The cover page says that there is “a modern serial killer hunting an ancient secret.” Now Shakespeare lived during the sixteenth and early seventeenth century, then how come secrets related to him are ancient! Maybe we can overlook the choice of word!
As a thriller, the novel was okay-ish. Publishers Weekly, as printed on the cover page, had endorsed the plot twists of this book as being “worthy of The Da Vinci Code”, but I feel it is an exaggeration.
I am giving the book a rating of 2.5 which I am rounding off to 3!
The good thing about this novel is that it made me aware of the logic why some people think or are convinced why Shakespeare couldn’t have written those magnificent plays and sonnets. Shakespeare had very humble roots and in those days it was very unlikely for an individual like him to have received a good education. Then, the question is, from where he received the education and knowledge to write his plays! It makes you think, right! On the other hand, some people are born with extraordinary intelligence; social class does not dictate a person’s abilities always. Maybe he was a gifted individual. Guess we would never know!
When I came across this book recently, it piqued my interest (the blurb helped a lot) and I borrowed it form my friend.
A young director Kate, an American who is in London to direct Hamlet at Shakespeare’s Globe is visited by her old mentor, Roz, a professor of Shakespeare at Harvard. The two had parted on unpleasant terms, and been out of touch. Roz pops out without any warning, gives Kate a box and asks for help in something big. To make all these very mysterious, the author makes Roz say “If you open it, you must follow where it leads.” Not very original, eh!
Thus, our adventure begins and we find a serial killer is on the loose, and doing what serial killers are supposed to do. But, our killer actually models his/her killings on Shakespeare’s plays. Kate is in danger, followed by an unknown enemy and depends upon a few friends to survive. Help would appear out of nowhere in the form of a handsome, strong mysterious man who claims to run a security company, the one with “guns and guards” and not with “stocks and bonds.”
Anyway, Kate would follow the clues and travel across US, UK and visit continental Europe in her quest to reveal the true identity of the bard and to find the original version of his lost play. In the story you will encounter actors, scholars, eccentric billionaire Shakespeare enthusiasts, priests, nobles and others.
There is some interesting trivia, and the best part is that the narrative at times will take you back to Shakespeare’s time. In fact, the prologue started with a crime committed during Shakespeare’s time in London. The prologue had piqued my interest and raised my expectations.
The idea behind the story was good and the author did put in her efforts; it was interesting to read about theories about the real identity of Shakespeare, but the execution did not live up to my expectations. Kate was too naïve for me, the motive behind the crimes were not convincing enough and the identity of the villain(s) were predictable, the author did not utilize the certain characters to their full potential and some of the phrases could have been improved.
The cover page says that there is “a modern serial killer hunting an ancient secret.” Now Shakespeare lived during the sixteenth and early seventeenth century, then how come secrets related to him are ancient! Maybe we can overlook the choice of word!
As a thriller, the novel was okay-ish. Publishers Weekly, as printed on the cover page, had endorsed the plot twists of this book as being “worthy of The Da Vinci Code”, but I feel it is an exaggeration.
I am giving the book a rating of 2.5 which I am rounding off to 3!
The good thing about this novel is that it made me aware of the logic why some people think or are convinced why Shakespeare couldn’t have written those magnificent plays and sonnets. Shakespeare had very humble roots and in those days it was very unlikely for an individual like him to have received a good education. Then, the question is, from where he received the education and knowledge to write his plays! It makes you think, right! On the other hand, some people are born with extraordinary intelligence; social class does not dictate a person’s abilities always. Maybe he was a gifted individual. Guess we would never know!
December 5, 2009
Man, everyone is taking this too seriously. Suspend disbelief and read the novel as a novel! This is not supposed to be literary fiction or intellectually hip nonfiction. This is essentially a murder mysteryish lit thriller! Sheesh!
I may have more warm fuzzies for this book because it kept me entertained while being sick for way too long, but I completely enjoyed it. While I get the Dan Brown comparisons as this was a run-around-the-world-and-find-out-secret-scholarly-stuff-and-other-conspiracies, that's where the similarities stop. So this might not be literary fiction, but Jennifer Lee Carrell definitely knows how to write some gorgeous prose about what the sky looks like. A.S. Byatt fans would kill me for this, but I felt like it had more in common with Possession than anything remotely da Hoo-Ha Code. Not at all like Byatt's writing, but in terms of plot and all the delicious researching of archives and libraries and such was just yay. Who cares if a lot of it was based on what-ifs? How much does anyone really know about Shakespeare? There may be thousands of scholarly works on him and his work, but hello, there's so much more that's unknown and begging to be imaginatively toyed with.
Now, if you don't think that the term "delicious" belongs in the same sentence as "researching of archives & libraries," then it may be that you'll find this story confusing/boring/frustrating. But if you're a nerd who thinks that libraries smell good and are the perfect setting for conspiracy and mayhem, then you will probably not have any trouble keeping your dates and names straight. Or find the story boring. Just sayin.
I may have more warm fuzzies for this book because it kept me entertained while being sick for way too long, but I completely enjoyed it. While I get the Dan Brown comparisons as this was a run-around-the-world-and-find-out-secret-scholarly-stuff-and-other-conspiracies, that's where the similarities stop. So this might not be literary fiction, but Jennifer Lee Carrell definitely knows how to write some gorgeous prose about what the sky looks like. A.S. Byatt fans would kill me for this, but I felt like it had more in common with Possession than anything remotely da Hoo-Ha Code. Not at all like Byatt's writing, but in terms of plot and all the delicious researching of archives and libraries and such was just yay. Who cares if a lot of it was based on what-ifs? How much does anyone really know about Shakespeare? There may be thousands of scholarly works on him and his work, but hello, there's so much more that's unknown and begging to be imaginatively toyed with.
Now, if you don't think that the term "delicious" belongs in the same sentence as "researching of archives & libraries," then it may be that you'll find this story confusing/boring/frustrating. But if you're a nerd who thinks that libraries smell good and are the perfect setting for conspiracy and mayhem, then you will probably not have any trouble keeping your dates and names straight. Or find the story boring. Just sayin.
March 23, 2008
Oh my... it didn't go well at all.... how can this possibly be the same book that some people have given 4 or 5 stars to. It really baffles me.
I am one of those poor/deluded individuals [and yes - I actually believe there are more of us than some would admit] that actually enjoyed the Da Vinci Code. Believe me.... it was a literary masterpiece in comparison to this nightmare.
Against my better judgement I continued reading long past the point where the book usually gets sent to a furnace. I am now starting to doubt my own judgement as my early fears that about the plot were confirmed - implausible and contrived spring to mind as words best fitting.
Now, don't get me wrong, it was not all bad and things definitely improved as the tale developed. I found the that if I was to divide the book into fifths that the first two were awful, the third was ok, the fourt was good and the last was partly ok and mostly awful [twee, predictable and written by someone with no experience in the thriller genre].
As the heroine/main character Kate was hopeless piled upon hopeless. Yes a brilliant academic, but where on earth was the common sense for goodness sake. I just didn't buy into her as a legitimate character at all. Come to think of it - all of the characters were somewhat shallow. There was little in the way of character development and even when it wa attempted it was desperately underdone and fumbling [rather like the stolen kiss on the plane].
The final outcome, I am sad to say, was highly predictable. it simply had to be one of the main protagonists. The lack of skill in building suspense and mystery, however, made me jump to this conclusion very early in the book. Indeed, the poor way in which the author allowed the main characters to jump between England, America and Spain with such ease [initially without passports!] and then carrying weapons and then, even better, fooling passport control as one character went between continents on a forged passport as a member of the opposite sex.... what a laugh! Added to this, the ease with which British law enforcment operated within USA was farcical.... was this copper James Bond?
Absolutely the best part of the book, were those parts historical. The moments set at the time of Shakespeare and those set around the Granvilles and Sheltons were superb. There should have been more of. Why couldn't the whole of the book have been set in the 1800's and allow the plot come to resolution then. It would have been so much better than trying to make it into a modern day thriller.
On the whole... grossly disappointing.
I am one of those poor/deluded individuals [and yes - I actually believe there are more of us than some would admit] that actually enjoyed the Da Vinci Code. Believe me.... it was a literary masterpiece in comparison to this nightmare.
Against my better judgement I continued reading long past the point where the book usually gets sent to a furnace. I am now starting to doubt my own judgement as my early fears that about the plot were confirmed - implausible and contrived spring to mind as words best fitting.
Now, don't get me wrong, it was not all bad and things definitely improved as the tale developed. I found the that if I was to divide the book into fifths that the first two were awful, the third was ok, the fourt was good and the last was partly ok and mostly awful [twee, predictable and written by someone with no experience in the thriller genre].
As the heroine/main character Kate was hopeless piled upon hopeless. Yes a brilliant academic, but where on earth was the common sense for goodness sake. I just didn't buy into her as a legitimate character at all. Come to think of it - all of the characters were somewhat shallow. There was little in the way of character development and even when it wa attempted it was desperately underdone and fumbling [rather like the stolen kiss on the plane].
The final outcome, I am sad to say, was highly predictable. it simply had to be one of the main protagonists. The lack of skill in building suspense and mystery, however, made me jump to this conclusion very early in the book. Indeed, the poor way in which the author allowed the main characters to jump between England, America and Spain with such ease [initially without passports!] and then carrying weapons and then, even better, fooling passport control as one character went between continents on a forged passport as a member of the opposite sex.... what a laugh! Added to this, the ease with which British law enforcment operated within USA was farcical.... was this copper James Bond?
Absolutely the best part of the book, were those parts historical. The moments set at the time of Shakespeare and those set around the Granvilles and Sheltons were superb. There should have been more of. Why couldn't the whole of the book have been set in the 1800's and allow the plot come to resolution then. It would have been so much better than trying to make it into a modern day thriller.
On the whole... grossly disappointing.
September 8, 2008
Good lord in heaven, this book is a train wreck. It's almost impressive that a plot this unoriginal could also be so maddeningly complicated. I'm somewhat familiar with Shakespeare's plays and the times in which he wrote them, but the jumbled cast of historical characters is impossible to keep straight. I'm surprised the affectedly plucky leading lady could keep track of her own research.
And, of course, the reader is treated to plenty of clichéd (or "classic," if you're being generous) mystery novel conventions. The last few chapters shuffle good guys/bad guys arbitrarily, throw in a few fake deaths and overwrought epiphanies, and land flatly with everything wrapped up and the leading lady in love.
In summation, the adventure/mystery aspects of the book are formulaic and boring. The Shakespeare stuff, while well-researched, is needlessly confusing and, at times, ridiculous. I don't think I could be clearer, friends who might potentially be interested in this book based on the inside flap (Kelsey): DO NOT READ!
***
I usually don't review books until I've finished, but I'm halfway through and I've got things to say.
This a lame, predictable book, based on a weak premise that grows weaker by the page. It's like a more poorly written DaVinci Code (no joke), with Shakespeare in the place of DaVinci and Queen Elizabeth instead of Jesus.
I like Shakespeare. I was an English Major. I was willing to get on board with a search for the lost play and muse about the *real* writer behind the name Shakespeare. But the book reads like the screenplay to a National Treasure sequel. The scenes alternate between dangerous action and implausible conversations about hidden clues in Shakespeare's texts. You know how The DaVinci Code weaves information about art and history into the plot? And it seems a little contrived, but you're interested enough to go along for the ride? This book is even less artful in leading its bland main characters into situations where they can talk about Shakespeare for 20 minutes before the action! begins again.
And, wow, I don't even know where to begin talking about how silly the plot itself is. Again, in a rip-off of DVC, we open with the murder of the scholarly mentor of the main character. Before the prof dies, she leaves ridiculously vague clues that lead our heroine on an implausible parade across, so far, two continents. This jet setting is funded by some fantastically wealthy and resourceful British people. Who she just happens to have connections with.
So I've spent a lot of time wanting to bang my head against a wall while reading this. But, the reason I'm not tossing it aside (and giving it a full second star[note: second star removed upon completion of book]), is that the plot, while barely even action movie caliber, is just engaging enough to make me wonder what happens next. Don't get too excited, author Jennifer Lee Carrell - that's the same reason I occasionally watch entire episodes of American Gladiators.
And, of course, the reader is treated to plenty of clichéd (or "classic," if you're being generous) mystery novel conventions. The last few chapters shuffle good guys/bad guys arbitrarily, throw in a few fake deaths and overwrought epiphanies, and land flatly with everything wrapped up and the leading lady in love.
In summation, the adventure/mystery aspects of the book are formulaic and boring. The Shakespeare stuff, while well-researched, is needlessly confusing and, at times, ridiculous. I don't think I could be clearer, friends who might potentially be interested in this book based on the inside flap (Kelsey): DO NOT READ!
***
I usually don't review books until I've finished, but I'm halfway through and I've got things to say.
This a lame, predictable book, based on a weak premise that grows weaker by the page. It's like a more poorly written DaVinci Code (no joke), with Shakespeare in the place of DaVinci and Queen Elizabeth instead of Jesus.
I like Shakespeare. I was an English Major. I was willing to get on board with a search for the lost play and muse about the *real* writer behind the name Shakespeare. But the book reads like the screenplay to a National Treasure sequel. The scenes alternate between dangerous action and implausible conversations about hidden clues in Shakespeare's texts. You know how The DaVinci Code weaves information about art and history into the plot? And it seems a little contrived, but you're interested enough to go along for the ride? This book is even less artful in leading its bland main characters into situations where they can talk about Shakespeare for 20 minutes before the action! begins again.
And, wow, I don't even know where to begin talking about how silly the plot itself is. Again, in a rip-off of DVC, we open with the murder of the scholarly mentor of the main character. Before the prof dies, she leaves ridiculously vague clues that lead our heroine on an implausible parade across, so far, two continents. This jet setting is funded by some fantastically wealthy and resourceful British people. Who she just happens to have connections with.
So I've spent a lot of time wanting to bang my head against a wall while reading this. But, the reason I'm not tossing it aside (and giving it a full second star[note: second star removed upon completion of book]), is that the plot, while barely even action movie caliber, is just engaging enough to make me wonder what happens next. Don't get too excited, author Jennifer Lee Carrell - that's the same reason I occasionally watch entire episodes of American Gladiators.
December 27, 2008
Unintelligible romp through pseudo history, December 27, 2008
By Alan A. Elsner "Alan Elsner, author" (Washington DC) - See all my reviews
I thought that this book, promising a historic romp through Elizbathan England, probing the many mysteries surrounding the life and identity of William Shakespeare, would be just up my alley. It combines several themes I love -- history, thrillers, England and Shakespeare. Unfortunately, it fell far short of its promise.
The author clearly loves her history and knows enormous amounts about Shakespeare and Shakesperean arcania, Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Cervantes, Elizabethan politics, the Old West and the theater. But she is unable to construct a coherent plot to put all this information together. The plot indeed is preposterous and quickly becomes incoherent. Bodies pile up faster than in Titus Andronicus but why they are all being killed is beyond me and eventually I stopped caring. The characters are thin. Not one of them is convincing. The heroine is brilliant but cold -- she is amazingly unmoved when completely innocent people drop dead in bizarre ways for no apparent reason. Scenes shift so quickly I got jet-lagged just reading it. We start in London, then move to Boston, to Utah, to New Mexico, back to London, to Stratford upon Avon, to Spain, back to the United States and on and on and on.
This book earns frequent flyer miles but no literary kudos from me.
By Alan A. Elsner "Alan Elsner, author" (Washington DC) - See all my reviews
I thought that this book, promising a historic romp through Elizbathan England, probing the many mysteries surrounding the life and identity of William Shakespeare, would be just up my alley. It combines several themes I love -- history, thrillers, England and Shakespeare. Unfortunately, it fell far short of its promise.
The author clearly loves her history and knows enormous amounts about Shakespeare and Shakesperean arcania, Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Cervantes, Elizabethan politics, the Old West and the theater. But she is unable to construct a coherent plot to put all this information together. The plot indeed is preposterous and quickly becomes incoherent. Bodies pile up faster than in Titus Andronicus but why they are all being killed is beyond me and eventually I stopped caring. The characters are thin. Not one of them is convincing. The heroine is brilliant but cold -- she is amazingly unmoved when completely innocent people drop dead in bizarre ways for no apparent reason. Scenes shift so quickly I got jet-lagged just reading it. We start in London, then move to Boston, to Utah, to New Mexico, back to London, to Stratford upon Avon, to Spain, back to the United States and on and on and on.
This book earns frequent flyer miles but no literary kudos from me.
August 27, 2020
Όταν ξεκίνησα να διαβάζω το συγκεκριμένο βιβλίο το βρήκα ευχάριστο. Κ ναι μέχρι ένα σημείο, πίστευα ότι τελικά θα μου αρέσει πολύ. Ανάλαφρη περιπέτεια μυστηρίου, με τον δολοφόνο της κ πολλά κουτσομπολιά για τον Ουίλιαμ Σαίξπηρ. Τι μπορεί να πάει στραβά; Το πιο σημαντικό από όλα. Αλλοπρόσαλλα, ακαταλαβιστικα στοιχεία, με ακόμα πιο ακαταλαβιστικες, άσχετες κ αφελείς λύσεις. Όλο αυτό εν τέλει, με κούρασε τόσο που στις 100 τελευταίες σελίδες δεν με ένοιαζε ποιος θα ζήσει, ποιος θα πεθάνει, ποιος είναι ο δολοφόνος, ούτε ο Σαίξπηρ.
December 22, 2008
I have a confession to make, and it is this: I am simultaneously repelled by and attracted to books that shamelessly mention The Da Vinci Code in their blurbs. I think a small part of me keeps hoping that somebody will come along that will take what Dan Brown tried to do with that book and do it again, only better.
The problem is, Interred with Their Bones doesn't do this. It has one major advantage over The Da Vinci Code in that Carrell's prose is infinitely more able than Brown's, but once you get past that, you have a plot of the "Lead Character and Love Interest Travel to Various Strange Locales in Search of Important Object That Will Change History, and Are Pursued By Bad Guys, and Oh Yes Somebody Very Close to the Lead Character is Really the Bad Guy in Disguise" variety. In this particular case, we have a former Shakespearean scholar on the hunt for one of his lost manuscripts, around which revolves the secret of who Shakespeare really was and what sort of scandals he was involved in at the tail end of his life. Our heroine, Kate, is spurred onto her quest by the death of a former mentor, who of course hands over a Mysterious Package, and then there is of course the Mysterious Yet Sexy Guy With a Gun who shows up to provide the obligatory bodyguarding. Various colorful characters come and go, and several of them die in theatrically staged ways yoinked right out of the Bard's own plays.
All very well and good, but the characters that populate this plot are all very standard--competently done, but standard, with no particular surprises of motivation or character development. Most disappointingly, infodumps fly fast and furious throughout the book, and they weren't done deftly enough to hold my interest; I found myself skimming quite a lot. I don't know if a Shakespeare geek would find them interesting or annoying. Me, the only flare of interest I had in the middle of the infodumping was when the title Love's Labours Won showed up and I immediately thought, "But hey, we know what happened to that one! Doesn't this person watch the Doctor?" ;)
Anyway, long story short, pleasant enough but without much real substance, though I'll give it an extra half a star for making me genuinely briefly unsure who the actual killer was going to turn out to be. Therefore, two and a half stars.
The problem is, Interred with Their Bones doesn't do this. It has one major advantage over The Da Vinci Code in that Carrell's prose is infinitely more able than Brown's, but once you get past that, you have a plot of the "Lead Character and Love Interest Travel to Various Strange Locales in Search of Important Object That Will Change History, and Are Pursued By Bad Guys, and Oh Yes Somebody Very Close to the Lead Character is Really the Bad Guy in Disguise" variety. In this particular case, we have a former Shakespearean scholar on the hunt for one of his lost manuscripts, around which revolves the secret of who Shakespeare really was and what sort of scandals he was involved in at the tail end of his life. Our heroine, Kate, is spurred onto her quest by the death of a former mentor, who of course hands over a Mysterious Package, and then there is of course the Mysterious Yet Sexy Guy With a Gun who shows up to provide the obligatory bodyguarding. Various colorful characters come and go, and several of them die in theatrically staged ways yoinked right out of the Bard's own plays.
All very well and good, but the characters that populate this plot are all very standard--competently done, but standard, with no particular surprises of motivation or character development. Most disappointingly, infodumps fly fast and furious throughout the book, and they weren't done deftly enough to hold my interest; I found myself skimming quite a lot. I don't know if a Shakespeare geek would find them interesting or annoying. Me, the only flare of interest I had in the middle of the infodumping was when the title Love's Labours Won showed up and I immediately thought, "But hey, we know what happened to that one! Doesn't this person watch the Doctor?" ;)
Anyway, long story short, pleasant enough but without much real substance, though I'll give it an extra half a star for making me genuinely briefly unsure who the actual killer was going to turn out to be. Therefore, two and a half stars.
April 24, 2010
While I agree with previous reviews that this book, billed as another DaVinci Code, doesnt compare, I still thought it was a pretty good read. I was fascinated by all the Shakespeare theories and liked the dual time period aspect. So life was a little too easy for the heroine (she narrowly escaped death or arrest too many times to remember) but it was still pretty entertaining.
July 9, 2022
What an unmitigated load of old twaddle. Pretentious and self indulgent. Only gets 2 stars because my one star rating was even worse. The almost 500 pages was a prime candidate for a dedicated speed read.
July 28, 2012
Abandoned because this literary cliche is really starting to irk me. Another member of the Dan Brown School of Lazy History Mysteries, "Interred With Their Bones" is irritating from the beginning. Let's follow the formula, shall we?
1a. Main Character: Literary expert in their field, especially on a specific cult author or text. Text tends to be European. In the case of Graham Moore's eyeroll-worthy book "The Sherlockian," it was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In this case, MC Kate Stanley is an expert on Shakespeare who constantly bitches about leaving academia.
1b. Stop whining about academia, white girl. MC is almost always an insufferably over-educated, spineless, and awkward white person. Might be a Stereotypical Librarian, or is assisted by a Stereotypical Librarian Sidekick. As a librarian, I find this insulting.
2. Plot: Tends to be centered on some apocrypha around said cult author or text. In "The DaVinci Code," it was the Bible. In this case, it's a lost Shakespeare play. Apocrypha in question would BLOW THE WHOLE LITERARY WORLD OPEN IF ANYONE FOUND OUT, WHICH IS WHY MURDER HAPPENS. Honestly? I don't think the world would stop turning if we found another Shakespeare play. I think we'd be excited, but libraries wouldn't crumble to the ground in horror.
3. Freshman-Level knowledge on the actual topic. Many of the authors tend to be geeks gleefully playing with sacred texts, so the history part tends to be really masturbatory. So many assholes walk away from history mysteries thinking themselves experts on the topic. At least Jennifer Carrell is a Shakespeare professor, but honestly? It's fiction. Lazy fiction, riddled with cheesy references to the topic. Rosalind Howard "becomes" Hamlet's father in the way she's murdered? "Did you get the reference, Clever Reader??" There's enough cheese in this to cause a heart attack.
4. Someone deliberately leads the MC on a ridiculous chase. They usually get murdered first, handing the mystery off to our Genius White Academic. MC's life is in danger if they reveal a centuries-old secret that some cult personality has been protecting.
5. Police tend to be completely idiotic or absent. Because clearly, the Academic with all their knowledge doesn't need the experts in detective work! In the beginning, Kate points the police towards murder, and she just waltzes out of Heathrow back to Harvard? Seriously, as if Scotland Yard isn't making sure she's in protective custody!? Try making this believable.
Horrible Payoff: Secret tends to be incredibly lame. This one got spoiled for me by the internet because I wouldn't read on, but I honestly don't think it was something I wanted to be disappointed by.
I blame you, Dan Brown. I really do.
1a. Main Character: Literary expert in their field, especially on a specific cult author or text. Text tends to be European. In the case of Graham Moore's eyeroll-worthy book "The Sherlockian," it was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In this case, MC Kate Stanley is an expert on Shakespeare who constantly bitches about leaving academia.
1b. Stop whining about academia, white girl. MC is almost always an insufferably over-educated, spineless, and awkward white person. Might be a Stereotypical Librarian, or is assisted by a Stereotypical Librarian Sidekick. As a librarian, I find this insulting.
2. Plot: Tends to be centered on some apocrypha around said cult author or text. In "The DaVinci Code," it was the Bible. In this case, it's a lost Shakespeare play. Apocrypha in question would BLOW THE WHOLE LITERARY WORLD OPEN IF ANYONE FOUND OUT, WHICH IS WHY MURDER HAPPENS. Honestly? I don't think the world would stop turning if we found another Shakespeare play. I think we'd be excited, but libraries wouldn't crumble to the ground in horror.
3. Freshman-Level knowledge on the actual topic. Many of the authors tend to be geeks gleefully playing with sacred texts, so the history part tends to be really masturbatory. So many assholes walk away from history mysteries thinking themselves experts on the topic. At least Jennifer Carrell is a Shakespeare professor, but honestly? It's fiction. Lazy fiction, riddled with cheesy references to the topic. Rosalind Howard "becomes" Hamlet's father in the way she's murdered? "Did you get the reference, Clever Reader??" There's enough cheese in this to cause a heart attack.
4. Someone deliberately leads the MC on a ridiculous chase. They usually get murdered first, handing the mystery off to our Genius White Academic. MC's life is in danger if they reveal a centuries-old secret that some cult personality has been protecting.
5. Police tend to be completely idiotic or absent. Because clearly, the Academic with all their knowledge doesn't need the experts in detective work! In the beginning, Kate points the police towards murder, and she just waltzes out of Heathrow back to Harvard? Seriously, as if Scotland Yard isn't making sure she's in protective custody!? Try making this believable.
Horrible Payoff: Secret tends to be incredibly lame. This one got spoiled for me by the internet because I wouldn't read on, but I honestly don't think it was something I wanted to be disappointed by.
I blame you, Dan Brown. I really do.
July 6, 2008
I found this book to be fast moving, action packed, and engrossing. The life of Kate Stanley, a former Shakespearean academician and current Shakespearean play director, is shaken when her former mentor, Roz, visits her and is then found dead after a fire in the theater where Kate is working. Kate was given a gift by her mentor hours before her death, and it is the first clue to solving a Shakespearean puzzle. Kate chases clues from England to Harvard University to the American southwest, and then back to England and Spain as a murderer chases her. Deaths follow in her wake, and along the way she picks up a protector, Ben Pearl, who was hired by her late mentor, Roz. Kate goes to other Shakespearean experts and collectors for help and several of them turn up dead. As the bodies pile up, Kate no longer knows who to trust.
I enjoyed this book. I really liked Kate and a few of the other characters (don't want to say who and give away the good guys), and I was satisfied by the conclusion of the book. I did begin to get tired toward the end of all of her fast paced globe hopping, but overall, I thought it was a great story. I can't resist books about books, so this was right up my alley. I look forward to seeing what this author comes out with next.
I enjoyed this book. I really liked Kate and a few of the other characters (don't want to say who and give away the good guys), and I was satisfied by the conclusion of the book. I did begin to get tired toward the end of all of her fast paced globe hopping, but overall, I thought it was a great story. I can't resist books about books, so this was right up my alley. I look forward to seeing what this author comes out with next.
June 19, 2022
Πολύ αμερικανιά. Η συγγραφέας θύμιζε θηλυκό Dan Brown. Κάποια πράγματα ήταν τελείως τραβηγμένο απ’τα μαλλιά. Αλλά ναι to έβαλα τρία γιατί μου κράτησε πολύ καλή συντροφιά και ήταν διασκεδαστικό. Η αλήθεια είναι όμως ότι ανακύκλωνε όλες τις θεωρίες συνωμοσίας για τον Σαίξπηρ.
April 26, 2021
There are many who regard William Shakespeare, often called the “Bard of Avon” or simply “the Bard”, as the greatest writer in the English language. There are others, however, who believe that Shakespeare’s works are not his, but were written by another writer—or perhaps a group of writers. These two schools of thought belonged to Stratfordians who recognized Shakespeare as the true author of his works and Oxfordians who believed the rightful author to be Edward de Vere. While history may look upon this as mere conspiracy theory, others loyal to Shakespeare are willing to die—even kill—to keep the truth from ever surfacing. No one knows this better than Kate Stanley, Shakespeare scholar and theater director who finds herself thrown into a complex and dangerous mystery after her mentor leaves her with a box and a warning: “If you open it, you must follow where it leads.” Where it leads is a journey tangled with secrets, lies, danger, and death, but Kate must rely on her wits and her knowledge of the Bard to help her navigate the clues and to stay alive.
Like most, I am aware of William Shakespeare and I’ve read many of the Bard’s works—sadly, all while I was in either high school or college. Although I appreciate his work, I never fully reached “fan” status and so it was difficult to totally immerse myself in this book. However, I was unaware of the controversy surrounding Shakespeare’s credibility and so I found this topic to be extremely compelling and thought provoking (I may never look at the man born in Stratford-upon-Avon in the same way again). Shakespeare and Hamlet devotees will appreciate the numerous references made to the tragic play about power and revenge while those of us on the respectful fringe might find that parts of the story seem to languish at times under the burden of historical facts and literary details. Also, readers are taken on an exhaustive trek from Europe to America and back again with many stops in between. It’s a lot to take in, but the story’s momentum quickly gains steam and reaches a heart-racing pace near the end. That and several twists and turns will ensure that your tenacity is well rewarded.
As the story’s protagonist, I liked Kate Stanley and will probably read Carrell’s sequel Haunt Me Still which focuses on Shakespeare’s Macbeth. However, I did find it somewhat irritating that whenever Kate found herself in a potentially dangerous and unfamiliar situation, her first instinct was to let anyone and everyone know her exact location by saying, “Is anyone there?” Several times I found myself shushing her from the safety and security of my living room couch. Aside from this and a few other questionable choices, I give Kate props for her intellect, loyalty, and all-around mettle. She’d make a fine Shakespearean heroine. Her mistakes and miscalculations only reinforce her humanness and vulnerability and make her a believable, relatable, and likeable character.
I think the one thing that Carrell points out in the book that is worthy of highlighting—and perhaps remembering—is that you should never judge a book by its cover. This may seem an oversimplification of what Carrell is conveying with her novel, but this is the main crux behind Shakespeare’s detractors: how can a simple man who came from nowhere and had nothing author some of the world’s greatest plays and sonnets? But it was the story’s Sir Henry Lee, a legend of the British stage, who reminded Kate of the unpredictable and serendipitous nature of greatness: “Like your Abraham Lincoln in his log cabin, the Stratford boy’s story illustrates a point that matters a great deal: Genius can strike anywhere. Anyone can be great.” So, whether you’re a Stratfordian, an Oxfordian, or just a lover of suspense novels, I think we can all come together and agree on that.
Like most, I am aware of William Shakespeare and I’ve read many of the Bard’s works—sadly, all while I was in either high school or college. Although I appreciate his work, I never fully reached “fan” status and so it was difficult to totally immerse myself in this book. However, I was unaware of the controversy surrounding Shakespeare’s credibility and so I found this topic to be extremely compelling and thought provoking (I may never look at the man born in Stratford-upon-Avon in the same way again). Shakespeare and Hamlet devotees will appreciate the numerous references made to the tragic play about power and revenge while those of us on the respectful fringe might find that parts of the story seem to languish at times under the burden of historical facts and literary details. Also, readers are taken on an exhaustive trek from Europe to America and back again with many stops in between. It’s a lot to take in, but the story’s momentum quickly gains steam and reaches a heart-racing pace near the end. That and several twists and turns will ensure that your tenacity is well rewarded.
As the story’s protagonist, I liked Kate Stanley and will probably read Carrell’s sequel Haunt Me Still which focuses on Shakespeare’s Macbeth. However, I did find it somewhat irritating that whenever Kate found herself in a potentially dangerous and unfamiliar situation, her first instinct was to let anyone and everyone know her exact location by saying, “Is anyone there?” Several times I found myself shushing her from the safety and security of my living room couch. Aside from this and a few other questionable choices, I give Kate props for her intellect, loyalty, and all-around mettle. She’d make a fine Shakespearean heroine. Her mistakes and miscalculations only reinforce her humanness and vulnerability and make her a believable, relatable, and likeable character.
I think the one thing that Carrell points out in the book that is worthy of highlighting—and perhaps remembering—is that you should never judge a book by its cover. This may seem an oversimplification of what Carrell is conveying with her novel, but this is the main crux behind Shakespeare’s detractors: how can a simple man who came from nowhere and had nothing author some of the world’s greatest plays and sonnets? But it was the story’s Sir Henry Lee, a legend of the British stage, who reminded Kate of the unpredictable and serendipitous nature of greatness: “Like your Abraham Lincoln in his log cabin, the Stratford boy’s story illustrates a point that matters a great deal: Genius can strike anywhere. Anyone can be great.” So, whether you’re a Stratfordian, an Oxfordian, or just a lover of suspense novels, I think we can all come together and agree on that.
February 5, 2009
INTERRED WITH THEIR BONES (Suspense-Kate Stanley-Int’l-Cont) – G
Carrell, Jennifer Lee – 1st novel
Dutton, 2007, US Hardcover – ISBN: 9780525949701
First Sentence: From the river, it looked as if two suns were setting over London.
Kate Stanley is a Shakespeare scholar who has left the halls of academia for the boards of the Globe Theatre. Her Harvard mentor and friend, Rosalind “Roz” Howard, comes to see her as Kate is preparing her debut of “Hamlet,” giving her a wrapped present and asking that they meet later.
While waiting for Roz, who is very late, Kate sees smoke and realizes it is coming from the Globe. Although the theatre itself is fine, she finds some of the ancillary buildings have burnt and that Roz has been murdered in a way that echoes the death of Hamlet’s father.
The death sets Kate off on an international journey away from a killer and on a search for a missing Shakespearian play, an answer as to who really wrote the plays.
This is a book for those who love literature, Shakespeare in particular, books and libraries. There are wonderful descriptions of library stacks and the idea of a library filled with old and rare manuscripts burning is appalling to me. I hate to be cliché, but it is the “Da Vinci Code” for Shakespeare aficionados. Others would probably find it fairly boring.
Kate is not my favorite protagonist. It seems she is immune to jet lag and surprisingly unaffected by the deaths that mount around her. Ben, her protector, is one of the more interesting characters and provides some mild humor to the story. Most of the other characters comes and go so quickly, they barely make a mark.
It is clear Ms. Carrell has done her research and knows her subject thoroughly. The story is fascinating, particularly all the history included and the conjecture of both the missing play and the question of who did write the plays. I certainly learned a lot, even about the writing of the St. James Bible. But I did feel there were times when the history overwhelmed the story. This is one of those books where the inclusion of illustrations and maps would have been particularly helpful as I spent considerable time going to the internet.
The suspense was well done and the ending surprising, which was even better. I did enjoy it and will be interested to see what else Ms. Carrell does.
Carrell, Jennifer Lee – 1st novel
Dutton, 2007, US Hardcover – ISBN: 9780525949701
First Sentence: From the river, it looked as if two suns were setting over London.
Kate Stanley is a Shakespeare scholar who has left the halls of academia for the boards of the Globe Theatre. Her Harvard mentor and friend, Rosalind “Roz” Howard, comes to see her as Kate is preparing her debut of “Hamlet,” giving her a wrapped present and asking that they meet later.
While waiting for Roz, who is very late, Kate sees smoke and realizes it is coming from the Globe. Although the theatre itself is fine, she finds some of the ancillary buildings have burnt and that Roz has been murdered in a way that echoes the death of Hamlet’s father.
The death sets Kate off on an international journey away from a killer and on a search for a missing Shakespearian play, an answer as to who really wrote the plays.
This is a book for those who love literature, Shakespeare in particular, books and libraries. There are wonderful descriptions of library stacks and the idea of a library filled with old and rare manuscripts burning is appalling to me. I hate to be cliché, but it is the “Da Vinci Code” for Shakespeare aficionados. Others would probably find it fairly boring.
Kate is not my favorite protagonist. It seems she is immune to jet lag and surprisingly unaffected by the deaths that mount around her. Ben, her protector, is one of the more interesting characters and provides some mild humor to the story. Most of the other characters comes and go so quickly, they barely make a mark.
It is clear Ms. Carrell has done her research and knows her subject thoroughly. The story is fascinating, particularly all the history included and the conjecture of both the missing play and the question of who did write the plays. I certainly learned a lot, even about the writing of the St. James Bible. But I did feel there were times when the history overwhelmed the story. This is one of those books where the inclusion of illustrations and maps would have been particularly helpful as I spent considerable time going to the internet.
The suspense was well done and the ending surprising, which was even better. I did enjoy it and will be interested to see what else Ms. Carrell does.
April 3, 2009
I had warned myself long ago about avoiding books that tried to jump on the DaVinci Code bandwagon, since they seemed to be slapped together without much care in hopes of capturing the attention of one of the millions of people who had spent money on Dan Brown's blockbuster. I let down my guard with Interred with Their Bones - it was about Shakespeare, not mysterious religious texts, after all. Missing Shakespeare plays! The secret identity of the playwright! Should be excellent.
Except, not.
I wanted it to be so much better than it was, but it just had so many problems. The sheer number of blown up buildings and murder victims just felt absolutely unbelievable. I was never convinced that any of this mayhem was necessary. I'm sure the author was going for "exciting" - but in reality, it was just a little bit silly.
Another thing that was unbelievable was the secret-keeping and the necessity of the main character's involvement. She brings up a few times that she specialized in occult Shakespeare ('occult' meaning secret, not supernatural, she explains), but never once was it demonstrated to me that she possessed some knowledge that everyone else lacked. All of the other Shakespeare scholars seem to be right there with her in deducing things. Also, there is no practical reason for the main character's mentor to hide nearly-indecipherable clues in sneaky spots. In the beginning of the novel, the mentor gives the main character a package to open that contains the first clue and then is murdered before she can explain it. Why did she hide the clues in the first place? Why didn't she stick a letter explaining everything in the package instead of a vague clue?
Having read all of Dan Brown's books, I knew already who the villain would be. Note to anyone hoping to be the next Dan Brown: please note his pattern and then do the opposite in your book.
I write all of this with a sigh of disappointment, since I love mysteries about books. I wonder if someone else has done anything with this idea minus all the explosions.
Except, not.
I wanted it to be so much better than it was, but it just had so many problems. The sheer number of blown up buildings and murder victims just felt absolutely unbelievable. I was never convinced that any of this mayhem was necessary. I'm sure the author was going for "exciting" - but in reality, it was just a little bit silly.
Another thing that was unbelievable was the secret-keeping and the necessity of the main character's involvement. She brings up a few times that she specialized in occult Shakespeare ('occult' meaning secret, not supernatural, she explains), but never once was it demonstrated to me that she possessed some knowledge that everyone else lacked. All of the other Shakespeare scholars seem to be right there with her in deducing things. Also, there is no practical reason for the main character's mentor to hide nearly-indecipherable clues in sneaky spots. In the beginning of the novel, the mentor gives the main character a package to open that contains the first clue and then is murdered before she can explain it. Why did she hide the clues in the first place? Why didn't she stick a letter explaining everything in the package instead of a vague clue?
Having read all of Dan Brown's books, I knew already who the villain would be. Note to anyone hoping to be the next Dan Brown: please note his pattern and then do the opposite in your book.
I write all of this with a sigh of disappointment, since I love mysteries about books. I wonder if someone else has done anything with this idea minus all the explosions.
November 15, 2010
Concept: great. Execution...well. I started out enjoying the book well enough. True, the characters were kind of flat. True, the plot twists were predictable and kind of tedious. Two things were dealbreakers for me.
1. Charming older gay man in the role of mentor to the heroine turns out to actually be the villain! Awesome. Arturo Perez-Reverte did this in The Flanders Panel, too, and it infuriated me there. At least here his motives have nothing to do with his sexuality, and his sexuality is written about in a somewhat less problematic way (aside from the implication that he more-or-less hooked his way out of the gutter, into a theatre career, and to a knighthood--what, a working-class gay boy can't work his way up without using sex?). However, I do not think we as a society are at a point where the token gay character in a novel can be the villain without it bringing up shades of the Celluloid Closet.
2. The explanation for who Shakespeare really was. SERIOUSLY? Right, okay, I admit I'm a Stratfordian, and I think a lot of the anti-Stratford arguments show a really poor understanding of the Elizabethan education and class systems. But I'm totally open to fictionalized versions of other theories. This one was the kitchen-sink/committee theory, and I'm sorry, but I do not buy that Shakespeare's plays were written by committee. I can certainly buy that he had proteges who contributed (particularly to his later plays), making an attempt to imitate his style. But a committee of assorted aristocrats? Please.
In the end, disappointing. The silver lining is that I've got plans to go to the Shakespeare festival in Cedar City, Utah, some time.
1. Charming older gay man in the role of mentor to the heroine turns out to actually be the villain! Awesome. Arturo Perez-Reverte did this in The Flanders Panel, too, and it infuriated me there. At least here his motives have nothing to do with his sexuality, and his sexuality is written about in a somewhat less problematic way (aside from the implication that he more-or-less hooked his way out of the gutter, into a theatre career, and to a knighthood--what, a working-class gay boy can't work his way up without using sex?). However, I do not think we as a society are at a point where the token gay character in a novel can be the villain without it bringing up shades of the Celluloid Closet.
2. The explanation for who Shakespeare really was. SERIOUSLY? Right, okay, I admit I'm a Stratfordian, and I think a lot of the anti-Stratford arguments show a really poor understanding of the Elizabethan education and class systems. But I'm totally open to fictionalized versions of other theories. This one was the kitchen-sink/committee theory, and I'm sorry, but I do not buy that Shakespeare's plays were written by committee. I can certainly buy that he had proteges who contributed (particularly to his later plays), making an attempt to imitate his style. But a committee of assorted aristocrats? Please.
In the end, disappointing. The silver lining is that I've got plans to go to the Shakespeare festival in Cedar City, Utah, some time.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 7, 2024
I thought that from the resume on the back of this novel, it would be on a par with the likes of Dan Brown etc., but I was sorely disappointed. It was slow in parts and not much action. It's basically about "who really was Will Shakespeare" with a bundle of writers who were or weren't actually the writer of Shakespeare's plays. It may just have been me, but this is my lowly opinion.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 30, 2017
I've just re-read this book. I don't re-read many mysteries, but this was worth reading a second time. I'm passionate about the works of Shakespeare and any good books about them. If you're also a Shakespeare nerd, you must read this book. But even if you're not, it's a good read.
Kate Stanley, the "detective," is a Shakespearean scholar turned director of his plays. The mystery is about deaths of people who are also involved in work about Shakespeare.
Some of them are deeply concerned about the question of who wrote Shakespeare. Some believe that William Shakespeare is the true author, others are uncertain, and others are eager to prove that he didn't.
I'm a Stratfordian: I believe that he wrote the plays, and even if he didn't, I care far more about the plays themselves than about the authorship question. I believe that James Shapiro's book Contested Will showed that the authorship question, which wasn't raised until 200 years after Shakespeare died, is simply the wrong question.
However, I'm willing (read: "Will"ing) to read about the question, and relish seeing it raised in fiction. Carrell is both deeply knowledgeable about the field and able to write a lively book about interesting characters who are committed to it -- and at least one who is willing to kill over it. This is a book full of adventure.
Kate Stanley, the "detective," is a Shakespearean scholar turned director of his plays. The mystery is about deaths of people who are also involved in work about Shakespeare.
Some of them are deeply concerned about the question of who wrote Shakespeare. Some believe that William Shakespeare is the true author, others are uncertain, and others are eager to prove that he didn't.
I'm a Stratfordian: I believe that he wrote the plays, and even if he didn't, I care far more about the plays themselves than about the authorship question. I believe that James Shapiro's book Contested Will showed that the authorship question, which wasn't raised until 200 years after Shakespeare died, is simply the wrong question.
However, I'm willing (read: "Will"ing) to read about the question, and relish seeing it raised in fiction. Carrell is both deeply knowledgeable about the field and able to write a lively book about interesting characters who are committed to it -- and at least one who is willing to kill over it. This is a book full of adventure.
August 24, 2018
I listened to this on audio and it was a good recording. The reader kept pace well and distinguished the various voices.
The storyline, though, leaves a lot to be desired. It's twisted, convoluted and jumps direction in obvious efforts to make the story fit, rather than the author letting the story lead the way. It's contrived and stilted because of this.
The use of descriptively flowery similies was awful and they were everywhere. "Smoke swept down the side of the building like luxurious tresses of hair" (gag me)….. (I'm paraphrasing the simili but not by much)
The heroine was a dumb kind of headstrong. She caused danger to herself and others by her actions.
I won't be continuing with the series.
The storyline, though, leaves a lot to be desired. It's twisted, convoluted and jumps direction in obvious efforts to make the story fit, rather than the author letting the story lead the way. It's contrived and stilted because of this.
The use of descriptively flowery similies was awful and they were everywhere. "Smoke swept down the side of the building like luxurious tresses of hair" (gag me)….. (I'm paraphrasing the simili but not by much)
The heroine was a dumb kind of headstrong. She caused danger to herself and others by her actions.
I won't be continuing with the series.
July 5, 2019
Molto ben congegnato...troppo!
December 28, 2008
In Interred With Their Bones, author Jennifer Lee Carrell plunges you without delay into a suspenseful story revolving around Shakespeare and the burning of The Globe Theatre. In the present day Globe, Kate Stanley is directing soon to be premiered Hamlet when Rosalind Howard, her mentor not seen for many years, asks her to take a gift - an adventure, a secret - and follow when it leads…The Globe Theatre is on fire, the same day when The Globe Theatre burned in 1613 and Rosalind Howard is found dead within.
I think Jennifer Lee Carrell must have done a mind-boggling amount of research, with the amount of knowledge and historical content of Shakespeare required within all of the details in the story. It would have been daunting to keep all the back-story organized. I did like that the story was convoluted with layer upon layer of plotlines, but reading was confusing and challenging at times, doubly so since the last time I had any familiarity with Shakespeare was in high school. The plot skipped from idea to idea a little to quickly for me, but those who have read any Shakespeare recently, especially Hamlet, would enjoy Interred With Their Bones and doubtless find the story progressing more smoothly than it did for me.
I also liked the partitioning of the novel into Acts and historical Interludes. I found the shorter chapters particularly effective; giving you enough time to absorb what was just read before the story twisted and turned again.
There are a limited amount of characters in the present day story, so with this being a suspense/murder mystery…you know at least one of the characters must be a murderer, otherwise the character is superfluous to the story. It wasn’t that difficult to figure out the whodunits but it was difficult determining motives.
A couple of things that grated on my nerves were that Kate Stanley’s character has an abundance of thought but not an abundance of emotion, leaving me with little sense of who the character was until toward the very end of the book; I did not like the dichotomy that Kate is supposed to be intelligent but she cannot reason out who her killer is; And why have her kiss Ben and then Matthew kiss her?
I did like the book a lot but I didn’t absolutely love it so I have to rate it 4.0. I am left with a lot of questions about Kate Stanley and will look out for the sequel released in 2009 “Haunt Me Still” (probably why the author held back so much detail on the character).
My Rating: 4.0
http://myobsessionwithbooks.blogspot....
I think Jennifer Lee Carrell must have done a mind-boggling amount of research, with the amount of knowledge and historical content of Shakespeare required within all of the details in the story. It would have been daunting to keep all the back-story organized. I did like that the story was convoluted with layer upon layer of plotlines, but reading was confusing and challenging at times, doubly so since the last time I had any familiarity with Shakespeare was in high school. The plot skipped from idea to idea a little to quickly for me, but those who have read any Shakespeare recently, especially Hamlet, would enjoy Interred With Their Bones and doubtless find the story progressing more smoothly than it did for me.
I also liked the partitioning of the novel into Acts and historical Interludes. I found the shorter chapters particularly effective; giving you enough time to absorb what was just read before the story twisted and turned again.
There are a limited amount of characters in the present day story, so with this being a suspense/murder mystery…you know at least one of the characters must be a murderer, otherwise the character is superfluous to the story. It wasn’t that difficult to figure out the whodunits but it was difficult determining motives.
A couple of things that grated on my nerves were that Kate Stanley’s character has an abundance of thought but not an abundance of emotion, leaving me with little sense of who the character was until toward the very end of the book; I did not like the dichotomy that Kate is supposed to be intelligent but she cannot reason out who her killer is; And why have her kiss Ben and then Matthew kiss her?
I did like the book a lot but I didn’t absolutely love it so I have to rate it 4.0. I am left with a lot of questions about Kate Stanley and will look out for the sequel released in 2009 “Haunt Me Still” (probably why the author held back so much detail on the character).
My Rating: 4.0
http://myobsessionwithbooks.blogspot....
May 24, 2012
This book was just all around fantastic. When I was finished with all Dan Brown had to offer for Robert Langdon, I found myself at a loss when it came to finding such a thrilling, intelligent plot. Interred With Their Bones was just was I was looking for. The adrenaline rush, the intrigue, the historical info - it was just incredibly well rounded. I found it really difficult just to put it down.
The plot was unlike anything I'd ever seen before. It toyed with the mysteries around the famous poet and playwright, not only giving you an idea of who he was, but of the world he lived in. The esoteric facts about Shakespeare that Carrell brought to light gave a feeling (in a way not dissimilar to Brown's style) that things are not always as they seem, and there's more to every story that we just never knew before. It opened up a whole subculture of people who are obsessed with the bard, and showed that there has always been a long-time following.
The twists of this book left me guessing and there was hardly a point where I thought, "Hey, saw that coming." The ending was fantastic, in that you were never quite sure who was on Kate's side or not.
The only thing I disliked about this book was that it was a bit hard to keep track of characters, especially the historical ones. Though I can't really fault Carrell on that, as history has always been a long affair full of too many names, places, and faces.
I would certainly recommend this to anyone - in fact, I already have.
The plot was unlike anything I'd ever seen before. It toyed with the mysteries around the famous poet and playwright, not only giving you an idea of who he was, but of the world he lived in. The esoteric facts about Shakespeare that Carrell brought to light gave a feeling (in a way not dissimilar to Brown's style) that things are not always as they seem, and there's more to every story that we just never knew before. It opened up a whole subculture of people who are obsessed with the bard, and showed that there has always been a long-time following.
The twists of this book left me guessing and there was hardly a point where I thought, "Hey, saw that coming." The ending was fantastic, in that you were never quite sure who was on Kate's side or not.
The only thing I disliked about this book was that it was a bit hard to keep track of characters, especially the historical ones. Though I can't really fault Carrell on that, as history has always been a long affair full of too many names, places, and faces.
I would certainly recommend this to anyone - in fact, I already have.
February 21, 2014
Several months back I happened on a book called Codex which I had hoped to follow in the footsteps of other books I enjoyed about lost manuscripts and literary mysteries. Codex disappointed me severely, but at last I seem to have gotten my wish with Interred with Their Bones.
If such a comparison were necessary, I'd call it a cross between Possession and The DaVinci Code. It is not quite the page-turner that Dan Brown's book is, but then it doesn't have that cheesy "tv-movie-of-the-week" feel either. Likewise, Carrell's prose is not as fluid - nor as cerebral - as Byatt's.
I give this one 4 stars because it's about Shakespeare and therefore one of my soft spots. But to be fair, this book follows the same plot formula as The DaVinci Code (maybe a little too closely), and therefore stumbles a couple of times on the same suspension of disbelief issues. I enjoyed the handful of "asides" that peek back into Shakespeare's day, but I also felt they were a bit distracting. If the intent was to make clearer all the courtly intrigue and the cast of Elizabethan characters, it did not succeed for me.
All in all though, a really fun read, recommended for all lovers of Shakespeare.
If such a comparison were necessary, I'd call it a cross between Possession and The DaVinci Code. It is not quite the page-turner that Dan Brown's book is, but then it doesn't have that cheesy "tv-movie-of-the-week" feel either. Likewise, Carrell's prose is not as fluid - nor as cerebral - as Byatt's.
I give this one 4 stars because it's about Shakespeare and therefore one of my soft spots. But to be fair, this book follows the same plot formula as The DaVinci Code (maybe a little too closely), and therefore stumbles a couple of times on the same suspension of disbelief issues. I enjoyed the handful of "asides" that peek back into Shakespeare's day, but I also felt they were a bit distracting. If the intent was to make clearer all the courtly intrigue and the cast of Elizabethan characters, it did not succeed for me.
All in all though, a really fun read, recommended for all lovers of Shakespeare.
February 28, 2014
Theatre director Kate Stanley receives a gift from her mentor, who later is found murdered. Kate follows the clues in the package and is soon on the verge of discovering something extraordinary.
Being an interesting story in general, the book still runs the risk of loosing the reader's attention. There's a lack of generous descriptions and first hand perspective. Kate's feelings isn't always clear. She often seems unaware, or even ignorant, of the danger she is in, which only serves as a diminishing factor of the thrilling dimension. When the reader gets to enter her mind, it's during the constant Shakespeare reasoning that mark the novel. The characters are overshadowed by academic speculations, and the book gives the impression of a report of arguing and reasoning about a missing play and Shakespeare's true identity, rather than a thrilling story with characters.
My review
http://www.thereaderdiary.blogspot.se...
Being an interesting story in general, the book still runs the risk of loosing the reader's attention. There's a lack of generous descriptions and first hand perspective. Kate's feelings isn't always clear. She often seems unaware, or even ignorant, of the danger she is in, which only serves as a diminishing factor of the thrilling dimension. When the reader gets to enter her mind, it's during the constant Shakespeare reasoning that mark the novel. The characters are overshadowed by academic speculations, and the book gives the impression of a report of arguing and reasoning about a missing play and Shakespeare's true identity, rather than a thrilling story with characters.
My review
http://www.thereaderdiary.blogspot.se...
April 24, 2022
I finally found almost equal to Da Vinci code!
December 2, 2017
I've mixed feelings about this book. The idea of a modern serial killer hunting an ancient secret while dispatching his victims in ways from Shakespeare's plays certainly appealed to me & while the plot certainly runs at a cracking rate I somehow felt disappointed. The "clues" seemed to be solved with no effort at all by the heroine, who also had no problems evading the police & zipping back & forth over the Atlantic, & managing not to get herself killed in the process.
In truth, I found some of the historical aspects & the connections between people difficult to follow but maybe I just wasn't concentrating enough. Also I found some of the "action" scenes very difficult to visualise in my mind but all in all it was an enjoyable read.
Oh, but as a true Yorkshire lass I object to the comment on page 318, crookedbacked Richard the Third, the original Tricky Dicky. Shakespeare has a lot to answer for in that respect - all lies!
In truth, I found some of the historical aspects & the connections between people difficult to follow but maybe I just wasn't concentrating enough. Also I found some of the "action" scenes very difficult to visualise in my mind but all in all it was an enjoyable read.
Oh, but as a true Yorkshire lass I object to the comment on page 318, crookedbacked Richard the Third, the original Tricky Dicky. Shakespeare has a lot to answer for in that respect - all lies!
October 13, 2019
Autoarea e bine informată și adună în mod interesant la un loc diverse speculații despre autorul sau autorii presupuși ai operei lui Shakespeare (pe unele nu le știam nici eu), dar mi se pare că a cam exagerat cu crimele, iar motivul comiterii lor nu este suficient de convingător.
May 20, 2016
Boy, this book was tough. I almost wanted to boost it up to 2 stars because I did make it to the end, but during the last 3 discs, I was wishing I was doing anything else. I am a Shakespeare maniac. I studied Shakespeare in grad school, have taught it to actors, stage managed Shakespeare productions, and I have a blog. It takes a lot to make me uninterested in something Shakespeare-adjacent, but Interred with Their Bones managed it.
I listened to the audio version because I have a long commute. The reader did well enough most of the time, which had to be difficult, with the lack of variety in sentence structure. This writer loves to write Gerund Phrase, Independent Clause sentences over & over & over again. I have nothing against that, until it becomes so overused as to be noticeable. I do have one complaint with the reader, though, and that is the ill-advised accent work. I understand when doing audio, you need to be able to create distinction with voices. But there must have been some other way to do it. I could deal with the faulty English accents of Ben and Henry, but when we got to the guy who was described as having a northern accent and what came out of my CD player was so horribly garbled as to be near unintelligible, I almost quit listening. Then when I made it to disc 10, and Mr & Mrs Jiminez showed up, the reader busted out the most offensive Mexicans speaking English accent I have heard in almost my entire life. It was like one of Speedy Gonzales's slow-speaking friends. I almost quit again, but then I thought, let me just keep going. Otherwise all this torture has been for naught.
Unfortunately, the book was a total miss. I have nothing against Da Vinci Code type books, if they are well written and engaging. I am willing to forgive a lot of things, even genius college professors who have to travel between hemispheres to figure out something I already know. I love Shakespeare, but I spend just as much time on popular fiction as I do on classics. There is a lot of time devoted to the authorship question in this book, which I find duller than dishwater, but if it had been made exciting, I would have probably forgiven it. It was not exciting. Just silly. The heroine is an awful human being, who thinks of nothing but solving her mystery, regardless of how many dead bodies have to fall on her way. I probably wouldn't have cared about this either, if she had been presented as an unapologetic antihero, but she's not. We're supposed to be on her team and understand - nay, even identify with - her. Needless to say, I didn't.
The writer clearly knows her Shakespeare; I'll give her that. I almost added a second star simply for the depth of knowledge of the plays. But it just didn't make up for the writing and the character/story issues. I guess there is at least one other book in this series, but I really don't think I'll be reading it. Then again, who knows. Maybe I'll try hate-reading it, but I will probably skip the audio version if it's read by the same narrator.
I listened to the audio version because I have a long commute. The reader did well enough most of the time, which had to be difficult, with the lack of variety in sentence structure. This writer loves to write Gerund Phrase, Independent Clause sentences over & over & over again. I have nothing against that, until it becomes so overused as to be noticeable. I do have one complaint with the reader, though, and that is the ill-advised accent work. I understand when doing audio, you need to be able to create distinction with voices. But there must have been some other way to do it. I could deal with the faulty English accents of Ben and Henry, but when we got to the guy who was described as having a northern accent and what came out of my CD player was so horribly garbled as to be near unintelligible, I almost quit listening. Then when I made it to disc 10, and Mr & Mrs Jiminez showed up, the reader busted out the most offensive Mexicans speaking English accent I have heard in almost my entire life. It was like one of Speedy Gonzales's slow-speaking friends. I almost quit again, but then I thought, let me just keep going. Otherwise all this torture has been for naught.
Unfortunately, the book was a total miss. I have nothing against Da Vinci Code type books, if they are well written and engaging. I am willing to forgive a lot of things, even genius college professors who have to travel between hemispheres to figure out something I already know. I love Shakespeare, but I spend just as much time on popular fiction as I do on classics. There is a lot of time devoted to the authorship question in this book, which I find duller than dishwater, but if it had been made exciting, I would have probably forgiven it. It was not exciting. Just silly. The heroine is an awful human being, who thinks of nothing but solving her mystery, regardless of how many dead bodies have to fall on her way. I probably wouldn't have cared about this either, if she had been presented as an unapologetic antihero, but she's not. We're supposed to be on her team and understand - nay, even identify with - her. Needless to say, I didn't.
The writer clearly knows her Shakespeare; I'll give her that. I almost added a second star simply for the depth of knowledge of the plays. But it just didn't make up for the writing and the character/story issues. I guess there is at least one other book in this series, but I really don't think I'll be reading it. Then again, who knows. Maybe I'll try hate-reading it, but I will probably skip the audio version if it's read by the same narrator.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,306 reviews