What do you think?
Rate this book
The Leather Boys
Librarian note: First published in 1961 by author Eliot George, a pseudonym for Gillian Freeman, all later editions use her real name
From the First Edition dustjacket:
The leather boys are the boys on the bikes, the boys who do a ton on the by-pass. For their expensive machines, they need expensive leather jackets. They are an aimless, lawless, cowardly and vain lot with a peacock quality to their clothes and hair style.
The problem of these working-class boys with big wage packets and nothing to do is the background to The Leather Boys which is the story of two of them, Dick who lives with his widowed grandmother and Reggie who married Dot when he was 17.
After a row with his wife Reggie goes to stay with Dick in his grandmother's house; their friendship develops into love and they break away from their gang to rob a local cinema together.
The author of The Leather Boys does not treat homosexuality as a personal or social problem but takes for granted that the love between these two inarticulate young men could exist between two human beings at any time at any place.
The climax of the story is impelled by the forces of the times and the place in which they move—the psychological pressures and the transient, indefinite air of the South London suburbs.
From the First Edition dustjacket:
The leather boys are the boys on the bikes, the boys who do a ton on the by-pass. For their expensive machines, they need expensive leather jackets. They are an aimless, lawless, cowardly and vain lot with a peacock quality to their clothes and hair style.
The problem of these working-class boys with big wage packets and nothing to do is the background to The Leather Boys which is the story of two of them, Dick who lives with his widowed grandmother and Reggie who married Dot when he was 17.
After a row with his wife Reggie goes to stay with Dick in his grandmother's house; their friendship develops into love and they break away from their gang to rob a local cinema together.
The author of The Leather Boys does not treat homosexuality as a personal or social problem but takes for granted that the love between these two inarticulate young men could exist between two human beings at any time at any place.
The climax of the story is impelled by the forces of the times and the place in which they move—the psychological pressures and the transient, indefinite air of the South London suburbs.
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1961
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
February 19, 2023
"Read anything you want," my brother-in-law said to me. He was proud of his wall of books, but seemed disturbed when my incipient teenage gaydar homed in on The Leather Boys. When he saw what I had selected, he suggested it was not really a good book for me to be reading, but I was unstoppable.
Only years later did I wonder why he even had a copy, if he thought it was so inappropriate.
I've never seen the book since, but I'd read it again if I found a copy. "Eliot George" is a cheeky British pseudynom, once again offering a male disguise for a female writer.
Recently watched the 1964 movie, which brought it all back: The unexpected discovery of this book, my brother-in-law's disapproval, the strange insular world of these motorcycle fanatics who worshipped their powerful throbbing machines and sported leather for protection— and advertisement. (Oliver Sacks's memoir On the Move: A Life covers some of the same territory: young men, impulsive daring, leather, the need for speed and desire to cover great distances.)
I'll offer a better book review if I ever see this book again. 4 stars because I remember it, all these years later.
Only years later did I wonder why he even had a copy, if he thought it was so inappropriate.
I've never seen the book since, but I'd read it again if I found a copy. "Eliot George" is a cheeky British pseudynom, once again offering a male disguise for a female writer.
Recently watched the 1964 movie, which brought it all back: The unexpected discovery of this book, my brother-in-law's disapproval, the strange insular world of these motorcycle fanatics who worshipped their powerful throbbing machines and sported leather for protection— and advertisement. (Oliver Sacks's memoir On the Move: A Life covers some of the same territory: young men, impulsive daring, leather, the need for speed and desire to cover great distances.)
I'll offer a better book review if I ever see this book again. 4 stars because I remember it, all these years later.
April 20, 2024
It’s so fascinating reading really old gay books. The Leather Boys was first published in 1961 and follows the relationship between two working class teenage guys in England in the early 60s. I became really interested in reading this after seeing the 1964 film adaptation of the story. Because of the film censor board at the time the queer content had to exist more in subtext rather than being the main driving force of the plot like it is within the book.
Reggie and Dick are both complex characters. Reggie has an unfaithful wife who he doesn’t really want to be married to, but felt the societal pressure to get into the relationship. Dick has taken over caring for his grandma so he can stay in her house away from his parents. It makes it easier for him to go out at night away from their prying eyes. When Reggie and Dick first meet they’re instantly connected to one another, spending all night hanging out and riding around on Reggie’s motorcycle. Reggie soon starts spending every night at Dick’s house instead of going home to his wife.
They’re surrounded by a larger group of guys who engage in crimes like vandalism and robberies. Reggie and Dick have complicated feelings about going along with the rest of the gang. But it also seems like an easy way for them to make some money to hopefully be able to run off together. This is a harsh story dealing with poverty and violence, not just a fluffy story about a romance. Knowing the time period and community the story exists in makes it apparent that this isn’t going to be an easy story full of sunshine. It’s definitely a compelling read, especially for people who have already seen the movie since the stories go in completely different ways. It’s an interesting look into queer stories from the early 60s.
Reggie and Dick are both complex characters. Reggie has an unfaithful wife who he doesn’t really want to be married to, but felt the societal pressure to get into the relationship. Dick has taken over caring for his grandma so he can stay in her house away from his parents. It makes it easier for him to go out at night away from their prying eyes. When Reggie and Dick first meet they’re instantly connected to one another, spending all night hanging out and riding around on Reggie’s motorcycle. Reggie soon starts spending every night at Dick’s house instead of going home to his wife.
They’re surrounded by a larger group of guys who engage in crimes like vandalism and robberies. Reggie and Dick have complicated feelings about going along with the rest of the gang. But it also seems like an easy way for them to make some money to hopefully be able to run off together. This is a harsh story dealing with poverty and violence, not just a fluffy story about a romance. Knowing the time period and community the story exists in makes it apparent that this isn’t going to be an easy story full of sunshine. It’s definitely a compelling read, especially for people who have already seen the movie since the stories go in completely different ways. It’s an interesting look into queer stories from the early 60s.
June 9, 2010
The book is an essential read for anyone who might be interested in the late 50′s and the youth of that time, it may come over as rather quaint to Americans, because I’m sure that American bikers were never quite that shy and gauche as some of the characters here. Although – sorry to disappoint you once again – this isn’t exactly about biker boys either. Hell, could a book and a blurb and a cover BE more misleading?
Anyway, there’s not much to the story, really. Reggie is married but dissatisfied. His wife has told him that she’s pregant with another man’s child so he leaves her. He meets up with Dick, another biker, who lives with his ailing grandmother in a typical two up two down terraced house with no loo but the one outside.
When the two young men do get together it’s not accompanied by pages of pre-kiss angst. They are friends, and neither of them see much further than that. Reggie has moved in with Dick, and as was more common in those more innocent times they sleep in the same bed. One night it just seems right and they kiss. Any sexual conduct is off screen, but is clearly alluded to afterwards. Dick is the one who asks “is this love? And do you think of me as a girl?” and Reggie, who is far more pragmatic simply says “of course not – you aren’t the right shape.” Dick voices his confusion by saying that he thinks it’s strange that neither of them want to start playing the girl, by putting on lipstick and stuff like that. There’s none of the questioning of self and identity that we see more often in more recent coming out books. Dick loves Reggie and that’s it, really. For better or worse.
They decide-not just for the sake of their relationship, which they are aware they can’t share with anyone-but also to get away from Reggie’s wife, and Dick’s grandmother, and the book winds to a terrible conclusion, sadly in keeping with most gay novels of the time. It is interesting to note that the film – which is well worth seeking out if you can get hold of a copy – has a completely different ending and one that disgusted me more than the end of the book. In the film (as in the book) Dick goes to the naval yard to inquire about signing up with the Merchant Navy, and while he is there he meets up with a few of the other homosexuals who band together and all know who’s who. In the book Dick simply wonders at these men – almost like a different species. He realises then that although he is homosexual – that he’s not like these camp men, neither is Reggie and hopes they’ll be left in peace onboard ship. However – in the film, the director makes that the end – Dick decides that he can’t accept that camp lifestyle and walks away from Reggie forever.
This doesn’t ring true with the depth of feeling in the book, and I don’t know why they changed it. Perhaps it was the only way to get the film made – in 1964(!) Dick was far too much in love with Reggie to have done this, and the last few pages of the book convince any reader that he never would have done that.
It’s a lost world – Britain’s Gone with the Wind. There are no more leather clad gangs who frequent coffee bars. The day of the outside toilet are gone forever and Britain has lost that tang of innocence. I remember the early sixties (just) but it takes the film to put it clearly in the mind of anyone who wasn’t around then. The empty roads, the way people lived, I don’t often advise reading the book and watching the film, but for anyone interested in the social history of this time, I highly recommend doing both.
The book is – in its way – comparable with Renault’s Charioteer, and certainly deserves to be as popular and as lauded as that book. Perhaps the prose isn’t quite as beautiful, perhaps the heroes are dirty, criminally minded and working class – far far below the lofty heights of Ralph and Laurie, but for my money it’s every bit as good and deserves to be back in print, not labelled as pulp – but a modern classic.
Anyway, there’s not much to the story, really. Reggie is married but dissatisfied. His wife has told him that she’s pregant with another man’s child so he leaves her. He meets up with Dick, another biker, who lives with his ailing grandmother in a typical two up two down terraced house with no loo but the one outside.
When the two young men do get together it’s not accompanied by pages of pre-kiss angst. They are friends, and neither of them see much further than that. Reggie has moved in with Dick, and as was more common in those more innocent times they sleep in the same bed. One night it just seems right and they kiss. Any sexual conduct is off screen, but is clearly alluded to afterwards. Dick is the one who asks “is this love? And do you think of me as a girl?” and Reggie, who is far more pragmatic simply says “of course not – you aren’t the right shape.” Dick voices his confusion by saying that he thinks it’s strange that neither of them want to start playing the girl, by putting on lipstick and stuff like that. There’s none of the questioning of self and identity that we see more often in more recent coming out books. Dick loves Reggie and that’s it, really. For better or worse.
They decide-not just for the sake of their relationship, which they are aware they can’t share with anyone-but also to get away from Reggie’s wife, and Dick’s grandmother, and the book winds to a terrible conclusion, sadly in keeping with most gay novels of the time. It is interesting to note that the film – which is well worth seeking out if you can get hold of a copy – has a completely different ending and one that disgusted me more than the end of the book. In the film (as in the book) Dick goes to the naval yard to inquire about signing up with the Merchant Navy, and while he is there he meets up with a few of the other homosexuals who band together and all know who’s who. In the book Dick simply wonders at these men – almost like a different species. He realises then that although he is homosexual – that he’s not like these camp men, neither is Reggie and hopes they’ll be left in peace onboard ship. However – in the film, the director makes that the end – Dick decides that he can’t accept that camp lifestyle and walks away from Reggie forever.
This doesn’t ring true with the depth of feeling in the book, and I don’t know why they changed it. Perhaps it was the only way to get the film made – in 1964(!) Dick was far too much in love with Reggie to have done this, and the last few pages of the book convince any reader that he never would have done that.
It’s a lost world – Britain’s Gone with the Wind. There are no more leather clad gangs who frequent coffee bars. The day of the outside toilet are gone forever and Britain has lost that tang of innocence. I remember the early sixties (just) but it takes the film to put it clearly in the mind of anyone who wasn’t around then. The empty roads, the way people lived, I don’t often advise reading the book and watching the film, but for anyone interested in the social history of this time, I highly recommend doing both.
The book is – in its way – comparable with Renault’s Charioteer, and certainly deserves to be as popular and as lauded as that book. Perhaps the prose isn’t quite as beautiful, perhaps the heroes are dirty, criminally minded and working class – far far below the lofty heights of Ralph and Laurie, but for my money it’s every bit as good and deserves to be back in print, not labelled as pulp – but a modern classic.
November 8, 2016
Set in the time in which it was written – the 1950s - and in South London. It is the story of 2 eighteen year old working class lads, Reggie and Dick, both emotionally starved to a greater or lesser extent. One is trapped in an unhappy marriage, the other lives with his doting, elderly grandmother, the preferred alternative to living with emotionally cold and materialistic parents.
It is an easy, fairly undemanding read and follows the relationship between these 2 lads – a friendship which develops into more. It is written in an almost terse, matter of fact style which is certainly lacking in sentimentality and syrupy -ness. It is certainly not intrusive (I felt almost uncomfortable as voyeur and reader, grounded in 2016). It is therefore perhaps very much of its time.
That time provides additional interest for me: post war, written at the time of the Wolfenden Report (1957) which recommended the decriminilisation of homosexual acts between consulting adults (legalised 10 years later in 1967) in private. This was the time of the “Coffee Bar” which closed around midnight, the motor bike with the must have leather accessories, the mark of the rebel.
I knew nothing of the author before reading this. It seems that after graduating, Gillian Freeman wrote a number of novels, many well received at the time, particularly the Leather Boys – first published as written by Elliot George! - and non fictional work - including the story of Mayerling, used by Kenneth MacMillan for his ballet of the same name.
I want to know whether G. F. saw the film, “The Wild One” starring Marlon Brando, prior to writing this novel? At any rate she wrote the screen play for the film Leather Boys, based on the novel and released in 1964.
I hesitate to recommend a book I've given only 3*s to but for those who might be interested in the themes it covers I'll be brave and do so.
It is an easy, fairly undemanding read and follows the relationship between these 2 lads – a friendship which develops into more. It is written in an almost terse, matter of fact style which is certainly lacking in sentimentality and syrupy -ness. It is certainly not intrusive (I felt almost uncomfortable as voyeur and reader, grounded in 2016). It is therefore perhaps very much of its time.
That time provides additional interest for me: post war, written at the time of the Wolfenden Report (1957) which recommended the decriminilisation of homosexual acts between consulting adults (legalised 10 years later in 1967) in private. This was the time of the “Coffee Bar” which closed around midnight, the motor bike with the must have leather accessories, the mark of the rebel.
I knew nothing of the author before reading this. It seems that after graduating, Gillian Freeman wrote a number of novels, many well received at the time, particularly the Leather Boys – first published as written by Elliot George! - and non fictional work - including the story of Mayerling, used by Kenneth MacMillan for his ballet of the same name.
I want to know whether G. F. saw the film, “The Wild One” starring Marlon Brando, prior to writing this novel? At any rate she wrote the screen play for the film Leather Boys, based on the novel and released in 1964.
I hesitate to recommend a book I've given only 3*s to but for those who might be interested in the themes it covers I'll be brave and do so.
June 3, 2014
Here's a very quick enjoyable summer beach read (two hours) validating same-sex love and desire from the Dark Ages of 1961. I read the first edition so was not misled by the ridiculous cover copy of the two or three later editions which denigrated the "strange and dangerous" relationship between the two teenage boys by suggesting they would be better off with leather clad biker women. That is not at all the content of the book. The love affair between Dick and Reggie is presented naturally, even if precipitously. It is not a spoiler to reveal that not all ends well, anyway obvious from the first page, but it's refreshing that their sexuality is not the proximate cause. Although not completely free of negative stereotypes, those wanting an early sympathetic read won't be disappointed. It was reprinted in 2014 here: The Leather Boys so it's deservedly readily available.
April 1, 2020
Written when homosexuality was illegal and was first book with gay relationship between ordinary working class young men. Very gritty and vivid portrayal of 60s life. And a love story.
July 15, 2016
An interesting piece of historical gay lit, but unfortunately beholden to the tropes and limitations of the time, so don't expect a happy ending.
April 2, 2018
I loved this little book. First, it has one of the most beautiful scenes of same-sex intimacy I have read in any book. Secondly, and remarkably for a mid-century gay-themed novel, the love between the two main characters is almost entirely angst-free (in the sense that the lovers, refreshingly, don’t waste much time agonising about its same-sex nature). The author seems to be addressing neither an implicly homophobic audience (by selling them a gay story that appeals to values of tolerance), nor a gay readership interested in novels reflecting their own inner struggles for self-acceptance. The author is, quite simply, writing a book about love and loss. Yes, there is the tragic ending you would expect of a gay-themed novel written at that time, but it doesn’t *read* as the tragic ending of a mid-century gay novel. It is, rather, the natural conclusion of a tragic love story in the best Shakespearean tradition - one that happens to feature gay protagonists. The sort of novel that confirms my belief that some of the very best books about male same-sex relationships come from the pens of women authors!
May 22, 2014
This is a tightly written page-turner about working-class same-sex love, small-time heists, and domestic life in postwar London. The narration is concise and compellingly conveys the discovery of desire, the pressure of family and marital commitments, and the frequent difficulty of imagining a future when one has few examples to go on. There is also leather: Freeman bears witness to the pleasurable roar of motorcycles, the euphoria of buying new leather pants, and crowd of young men at a late night cafe. Leather Boys (1961) is a must read for those with an interest in British queer history and postwar fiction.
August 25, 2024
3.5 stars. watched the movie this week and after learning that it was a (quite influential!) book first i had to look into it. very sad and sweet, a plaintive portrait of mid-century queer life in a similar vein to brokeback mountain. it’s short enough that you can just devour it in a single sitting too. very worth the read.
May 31, 2022
fucking hell i love this book. i wish it wasn't so rushed though like i need more back story because that ending attacked me.
October 20, 2021
It's obvious how this was going to end, still it was a really good story.
Because we have a secret gay love affair in a normal working class setup almost 60 years ago. In some way I feel this was very explicit without being it. I saw the movie like a year ago and yeah if you are gay (or clever(?)) you can see how there was a 'queer' aspect to the story and the protagonists relation, but if you read the novel there is no room for interpretation. The relationship it's what it is.
But also witout so many clichés on nowadays lgbt stories. And even here this relationship it's kind of more related to the idea of a guy and his desire to be free of the patriarchy, or just enyoing being young and his desire to live.
The plot isn't like a very big story or something but it was kinda refreshing to read. If you wanna go deeper, you can see many symbolisms of the "normal" way of living and what it's expected from being a man, a marriage, being old, being a workingclass someone and even what's about being on a gang.
And very, very british. Posh.
Because we have a secret gay love affair in a normal working class setup almost 60 years ago. In some way I feel this was very explicit without being it. I saw the movie like a year ago and yeah if you are gay (or clever(?)) you can see how there was a 'queer' aspect to the story and the protagonists relation, but if you read the novel there is no room for interpretation. The relationship it's what it is.
But also witout so many clichés on nowadays lgbt stories. And even here this relationship it's kind of more related to the idea of a guy and his desire to be free of the patriarchy, or just enyoing being young and his desire to live.
The plot isn't like a very big story or something but it was kinda refreshing to read. If you wanna go deeper, you can see many symbolisms of the "normal" way of living and what it's expected from being a man, a marriage, being old, being a workingclass someone and even what's about being on a gang.
And very, very british. Posh.
January 3, 2017
thoroughly enjoyed this book which I'd asked for in my Christmas stocking together with the film version. Freeman's writing style is plain simple and refreshing yet the content of the book was groundbreaking for its time. Set and written in the very early 1960s, Freeman deals sensitively with the subject of love between two young working class teenagers. Also authentically describes the culture of 1950s teenage bikers. I couldn't put this down and devoured it in two days flat. I have also seen the film version which is terribly disappointing, despite starring Rita Tushingham and bears little relation to the novel, in its efforts to avoid confronting the taboo subject of homosexuality at that time. I believe Freeman also wrote the screenplay for this and can't help feeling she must have cringed as she did so.
October 16, 2021
Another title suggested by a friend as worthy of reading and it definitely was. Takes place in England in the 1950s. Two young men who are part of the leather-boy set fall for each other and there are disastrous consequences as one has to take care of his ailing Gran and one splits up with his wife with whom he has fallen out of love. They are eighteen and this has the sound of a YA novel but written for more mature audiences. It crosses the line of the times and apparently Gillian Freeman, the author, had to use a pseudonym at the time of publication but was able to use her own name when writing the screenplay for a film made from the novel. In any case, it is so well-written and absorbing for me it was a one-day read. Really enjoy discovering new authors and titles in this way. Highly recommended.
July 7, 2014
Not my usual read, this short novel was a real pleasure. Whilst the main (and subtle) theme is of an unexpected gay romance between two relative strangers, the book is as much about post-war London and working class life. I'm rarely touched by any kind of romantic book or film, but here the author's skill in simply describing the thoughts and feelings that Reggie and Dick have for each other communicates an honesty that is genuinely sweet; they simply fall in love, and they don't really wonder too much about why.
Delicate, short and bitter-sweet, this is an unexpected favourite.
Delicate, short and bitter-sweet, this is an unexpected favourite.
April 7, 2021
It's a very interesting book that is one of those rare post-war England novels that surrounds two homosexual characters without focusing on a coming out story or being overly camp. The way these two characters are both struggling with confronting their sexuality while both having very different experiences was compelling.
February 8, 2023
This book claimed to “spotlight the problem of today’s motorised delinquents”. But then they were all riding around on motorbikes tightly clutching each other and enjoying their intimate yet manly friendship. Apparently the problem is that they are gay.
June 19, 2024
A quick, easy read, with such a heart wrenching story. Dick and Reggie’s characters had so much depth and potential, and I really enjoyed how real everything felt. Such a sad ending, but even so, I adore this little book.
October 29, 2020
So sad. The author writes without a lot of frills or psychology; she just writes about the true, deep, and simple feelings of the heart.
February 23, 2024
I loved this. It's not perfect, but it tugged at my heartstrings in a way I haven't felt from any media in a while.
July 14, 2026
Picked this one up because I wanted a pulpy, motorcycle story —not the more modern image of bikers as a sort of mafia on wheels, but that image from the 50's and 60's of "out of control youth!". However, that sort of cultural image does not feature very strongly in The Leather Boys. We sort of get that in a few scenes depicting acts of extreme vandalism, but the biker aspect is conspicuously absent. Sometimes, the two protagonists are riding around, and that's kind of it.
The whole story is sort of framed around the changing fortunes of one of the main character's grandmother. In the beginning, the grandfather dies, and Dick (the protagonist) will end up moving in with her to help out. This gets him away from his cold, domineering mother, and will also move him to a different part of town where he will fall in with a crew of reckless youngsters, including our other main character, Reggie, an 18-year-old married biker. There is as much content in the story about old age, retirement homes, and the grandmother's hernia, as there is about motorcycles. More so, in fact. Now, the story of the grandmother going through all these upheavals towards the end of her life is interesting to compare against Reggie's coming-of-age, but I'm not sure what the real themes are here. It becomes all the more confusing when Dick seems to entirely shift priorities towards the end of the story (His grandmother is seemingly the one relative he actually loves and gets along with, but by the end, he is completely dismissive of her, with little believable explanation).
There's a promising framework for a story here, but I don't think we really get one. The story is extremely brief and could stand to be fleshed out much more. Also, the writing is a master class in how to "tell, not show". If Reggie is frustrated, the author will tell us that Reggie is frustrated. If Dick is feeling wistful, you better believe the author isn't going to waste ink with any pesky environmental story-telling. Nope, he'll just tell us if we need to know. Considering this is supposed to be a love story between two confused and frustrated young men (when that sort of thing wasn't considered as cool as it is nowadays) there is a shocking lack of depth to anything that happens between them. Or, at least, that depth is not rendered to any degree. They meet, are drawn towards each other, become each other's confidantes, and begin a sexual relationship, presumably (this is a British book published in the 60s, so I guess they were forced to be vague about such details. We know that they kiss, at least). Where the author *does* dare and try and turn a phrase, he's just describing women as being physically and mentally disgusting. Frankly, it's rather hilarious, and I'm tempted to say that this is not a story about confused young men realizing they love other men, but rather a story about men realizing they are repulsed by women. I mean, listen to this description of Reggie looking at his wife:
That wife character, by the way, ends up being far more interesting than either of the protagonists, because more effort is spent writing her to be a horrible person than is ever put into either of the two men.
So, the story sucks. But, the book was tolerable to read because it's short and something of a cultural artifact (queer fiction from 60 years ago, and all).
Oh, the leader of the gang is a cruel ogre of a kid, and is, like the terrible wife, far more interesting to read than either of our main characters.
So, I don't know. Not worth a read on its merits as a story, but the book is interesting for what it is and when it came out.
The whole story is sort of framed around the changing fortunes of one of the main character's grandmother. In the beginning, the grandfather dies, and Dick (the protagonist) will end up moving in with her to help out. This gets him away from his cold, domineering mother, and will also move him to a different part of town where he will fall in with a crew of reckless youngsters, including our other main character, Reggie, an 18-year-old married biker. There is as much content in the story about old age, retirement homes, and the grandmother's hernia, as there is about motorcycles. More so, in fact. Now, the story of the grandmother going through all these upheavals towards the end of her life is interesting to compare against Reggie's coming-of-age, but I'm not sure what the real themes are here. It becomes all the more confusing when Dick seems to entirely shift priorities towards the end of the story (His grandmother is seemingly the one relative he actually loves and gets along with, but by the end, he is completely dismissive of her, with little believable explanation).
There's a promising framework for a story here, but I don't think we really get one. The story is extremely brief and could stand to be fleshed out much more. Also, the writing is a master class in how to "tell, not show". If Reggie is frustrated, the author will tell us that Reggie is frustrated. If Dick is feeling wistful, you better believe the author isn't going to waste ink with any pesky environmental story-telling. Nope, he'll just tell us if we need to know. Considering this is supposed to be a love story between two confused and frustrated young men (when that sort of thing wasn't considered as cool as it is nowadays) there is a shocking lack of depth to anything that happens between them. Or, at least, that depth is not rendered to any degree. They meet, are drawn towards each other, become each other's confidantes, and begin a sexual relationship, presumably (this is a British book published in the 60s, so I guess they were forced to be vague about such details. We know that they kiss, at least). Where the author *does* dare and try and turn a phrase, he's just describing women as being physically and mentally disgusting. Frankly, it's rather hilarious, and I'm tempted to say that this is not a story about confused young men realizing they love other men, but rather a story about men realizing they are repulsed by women. I mean, listen to this description of Reggie looking at his wife:
He looked at her in her rather grubby but elaborate nightdress. Her emergent feet weren't very clean. Yesterday's make-up was still on her face. Little crusts of sand, dirtied by mascara, were visible in the corners of her eyes. He could never kiss her again. However desperately she wanted him, however necessary to mend their marriage, he couldn't.
That wife character, by the way, ends up being far more interesting than either of the protagonists, because more effort is spent writing her to be a horrible person than is ever put into either of the two men.
So, the story sucks. But, the book was tolerable to read because it's short and something of a cultural artifact (queer fiction from 60 years ago, and all).
Oh, the leader of the gang is a cruel ogre of a kid, and is, like the terrible wife, far more interesting to read than either of our main characters.
So, I don't know. Not worth a read on its merits as a story, but the book is interesting for what it is and when it came out.
June 6, 2017
I've finished the book, but I don't know how to react to it quite yet. The blurb on the back says: "They're Britain's 'Wild Ones'-the motorcycle cow-boys who live for fast machines and faster girls.
Who ton-up along the Motorways, terrorising drivers and defying the law. Who experience sex too young, marry unthinkingly and live only for the next kick-whatever or wherever it is.
THE LEATHER BOYS is a savage, brilliantly told novel of these aimless young men and women. It is also the story of Dick and Reggie and the strange, twisted love that developed between them."
Hmm, where do I start with that? I know the book was marketed as sleazy pulp fiction, as that's what was selling at the time, but this blurb really angered me; and for a few reasons. Firstly, it alludes that the characters in the story are British versions of characters from The Wild One (a 1953 Marlon Brando film); then it says that these characters ‘terrorise drivers’ on motorways, yet none of that happens in the book; and the story of Dick and Reggie is the main story of the whole book, so I don’t understand why that is given such little precedence. I’m also upset by the description of their love as strange and twisted, but I realise I’m looking back at it from 2010, and attitudes are very different now.
Okay, the writing isn't as bad as I was expecting. I was expecting it to be a lot more sensationalist, sleazier somehow than it was. The writing focused on telling the reader what a particular character was feeling, “Dick was anxious”, “He was happy here. He liked the friends he had made, or at least he liked Reggie. He was looking forward to going out with Reggie tomorrow”, “Reggie felt lonely and depressed. What a mess life was.” Gillian Freeman obviously hadn’t heard ‘show don’t tell’ when she wrote this book. It’s actually a novella, and only 125 pages long; I read most of it in a few hours. The writing is not great, but there are some lovely stylistic quirks, and the speech is brilliant. The character of Gran especially, she is often hilarious; and old lady’s funny little ways are captured beautifully.
I just didn’t believe the characters: they weren’t developed, and weren’t given the time (both time together, and not many pages) to develop. The film is about Reggie and Dot’s life and their marriage failing, and Pete (Dick in the book) coming into Reggie’s life and turning everything upside down. The book is much more about Dick’s life and Reggie coming into it. In both versions, Dick/Pete is obviously gay; in the book he hasn’t yet accepted it, in the film he has. Freeman’s explanation of what makes a gay man, and how to make a gay story acceptable is to have characters not 'realise' they are gay until they find the right man. Up until he meets Reggie, Pete feels no sexual attraction at all; and when they finally kiss and have sex in Gran's house that's the first time he's ever felt like that. It was obviously written by a straight person, and meant for a straight audience.
All that said, I did enjoy it - but I enjoyed the film more than the book.
Who ton-up along the Motorways, terrorising drivers and defying the law. Who experience sex too young, marry unthinkingly and live only for the next kick-whatever or wherever it is.
THE LEATHER BOYS is a savage, brilliantly told novel of these aimless young men and women. It is also the story of Dick and Reggie and the strange, twisted love that developed between them."
Hmm, where do I start with that? I know the book was marketed as sleazy pulp fiction, as that's what was selling at the time, but this blurb really angered me; and for a few reasons. Firstly, it alludes that the characters in the story are British versions of characters from The Wild One (a 1953 Marlon Brando film); then it says that these characters ‘terrorise drivers’ on motorways, yet none of that happens in the book; and the story of Dick and Reggie is the main story of the whole book, so I don’t understand why that is given such little precedence. I’m also upset by the description of their love as strange and twisted, but I realise I’m looking back at it from 2010, and attitudes are very different now.
Okay, the writing isn't as bad as I was expecting. I was expecting it to be a lot more sensationalist, sleazier somehow than it was. The writing focused on telling the reader what a particular character was feeling, “Dick was anxious”, “He was happy here. He liked the friends he had made, or at least he liked Reggie. He was looking forward to going out with Reggie tomorrow”, “Reggie felt lonely and depressed. What a mess life was.” Gillian Freeman obviously hadn’t heard ‘show don’t tell’ when she wrote this book. It’s actually a novella, and only 125 pages long; I read most of it in a few hours. The writing is not great, but there are some lovely stylistic quirks, and the speech is brilliant. The character of Gran especially, she is often hilarious; and old lady’s funny little ways are captured beautifully.
I just didn’t believe the characters: they weren’t developed, and weren’t given the time (both time together, and not many pages) to develop. The film is about Reggie and Dot’s life and their marriage failing, and Pete (Dick in the book) coming into Reggie’s life and turning everything upside down. The book is much more about Dick’s life and Reggie coming into it. In both versions, Dick/Pete is obviously gay; in the book he hasn’t yet accepted it, in the film he has. Freeman’s explanation of what makes a gay man, and how to make a gay story acceptable is to have characters not 'realise' they are gay until they find the right man. Up until he meets Reggie, Pete feels no sexual attraction at all; and when they finally kiss and have sex in Gran's house that's the first time he's ever felt like that. It was obviously written by a straight person, and meant for a straight audience.
All that said, I did enjoy it - but I enjoyed the film more than the book.
May 16, 2021
[Update to my review: To clarify what I just wrote here, I'll point out that I'm reviewing the Kindle edition, which replicates the Valancourt Books edition from 2014. You may be seeing a different cover.]
First point: Goodreads really ought to identify the author by her real name and not the pseudonym which ceased to be on the cover of this book decades ago. Her name is Gillian Freeman. She used the pseudonym Eliot George for contractual reasons when the book was first published in 1961. Note that Goodreads's default image of the Kindle edition says "Gillian Freeman." The introduction also explains that the pseudonym was used because Gillian freeman had an obligation to a "rival publisher." Given that homosexual behavior was a punishable offense in Britain in 1961, it would be natural to think the pseudonym was used because of the fear of controversy. But Freeman's own name was used when she wrote the screenplay for the 1964 movie of THE LEATHER BOYS. Homosexuality wouldn't be decriminalized in Britain until 1967.
THE LEATHER BOYS is a relatively short novel and it is written in clear prose. It was commissioned by the literary agency Anthony Blond, which became a publishing house. Gillian Freeman had been a reporter, and it shows. The agency told her they wanted a "Romeo and Romeo" story and that it should be in a working-class setting. (I got a lot of information from Michael Arditti's introduction to the 2014 Valancourt Books edition and from reviews of the movie, which I was lucky enough to see in an online showing recently. The movie's getting a lot of attention lately.)
The characters make horrible decisions, as in every Kitchen Sink drama, but everything is described realistically and the pacing is swift. The book depicts London just as it was about to swing. So, it does not swing here. The characters are feeling the post-World War Two restraints and they are in a dead-end financially. But there is humor and, in moderate doses, tenderness. The courtroom drama is very believable. The book is a time-capsule but it is not dated. It's quite good. Above all, it is a perceptive work. The last paragraph is just right.
First point: Goodreads really ought to identify the author by her real name and not the pseudonym which ceased to be on the cover of this book decades ago. Her name is Gillian Freeman. She used the pseudonym Eliot George for contractual reasons when the book was first published in 1961. Note that Goodreads's default image of the Kindle edition says "Gillian Freeman." The introduction also explains that the pseudonym was used because Gillian freeman had an obligation to a "rival publisher." Given that homosexual behavior was a punishable offense in Britain in 1961, it would be natural to think the pseudonym was used because of the fear of controversy. But Freeman's own name was used when she wrote the screenplay for the 1964 movie of THE LEATHER BOYS. Homosexuality wouldn't be decriminalized in Britain until 1967.
THE LEATHER BOYS is a relatively short novel and it is written in clear prose. It was commissioned by the literary agency Anthony Blond, which became a publishing house. Gillian Freeman had been a reporter, and it shows. The agency told her they wanted a "Romeo and Romeo" story and that it should be in a working-class setting. (I got a lot of information from Michael Arditti's introduction to the 2014 Valancourt Books edition and from reviews of the movie, which I was lucky enough to see in an online showing recently. The movie's getting a lot of attention lately.)
The characters make horrible decisions, as in every Kitchen Sink drama, but everything is described realistically and the pacing is swift. The book depicts London just as it was about to swing. So, it does not swing here. The characters are feeling the post-World War Two restraints and they are in a dead-end financially. But there is humor and, in moderate doses, tenderness. The courtroom drama is very believable. The book is a time-capsule but it is not dated. It's quite good. Above all, it is a perceptive work. The last paragraph is just right.
October 25, 2019
I am finally out of my reading drought for the year, and I am so happy I was able to finish this was I was on vacation as it is absolutely adorable. A novel that might as well be considered erased, since it's so damn hard to find, The Leather Boys is the kind of story Call Me By Your Name should have been. The storytelling is very simple, in a way that is quite delectable. A third person narrator tells the story of Reggie and Dick, two middle class men that find themselves attracted to each other where they had no point of reference to what they were doing. They only had the clothes on their backs.
If Reggie and Dick were alive today, they might call themselves "masc4masc," or be heavily involved in their local leather scene. Dick has a scene where he runs into some old queens on a boat. Except he doesn't call them that, like I would. Instead, he calls the old man in makeup and sun-bleached hair a "homosexual," something he doesn't see him or Reggie as. Dick spends most of the novel assuming the role of caregiver for his grandmother, which I found endearing and relatable. Reggie on the other hand is in a loveless marraige. Dot, his wife, isn't the roundest character and is villain-esque. Her story probably isn't what Freeman was looking to tell, and I'm sure that what Dot does wasn't considered a trope while writing the book, but, oh honey, this is a tale as old time.
Since this is a story about two gay men, you know the ending isn't happy. But it takes place prior to the HIV epidemic, so the ending feels fresh than most gay guy tales published in the last few years. I read most of this on a beach but the paperback is light enough to take anywhere. Small press or Big 5 publishers: this book needs to be more accessible! Don't let this get swept under the rug.
If Reggie and Dick were alive today, they might call themselves "masc4masc," or be heavily involved in their local leather scene. Dick has a scene where he runs into some old queens on a boat. Except he doesn't call them that, like I would. Instead, he calls the old man in makeup and sun-bleached hair a "homosexual," something he doesn't see him or Reggie as. Dick spends most of the novel assuming the role of caregiver for his grandmother, which I found endearing and relatable. Reggie on the other hand is in a loveless marraige. Dot, his wife, isn't the roundest character and is villain-esque. Her story probably isn't what Freeman was looking to tell, and I'm sure that what Dot does wasn't considered a trope while writing the book, but, oh honey, this is a tale as old time.
Since this is a story about two gay men, you know the ending isn't happy. But it takes place prior to the HIV epidemic, so the ending feels fresh than most gay guy tales published in the last few years. I read most of this on a beach but the paperback is light enough to take anywhere. Small press or Big 5 publishers: this book needs to be more accessible! Don't let this get swept under the rug.
February 13, 2026
Pros:
• Two young sympathetic gay protagonists that the audience grow to like.
• The book is an interesting snapshot into 1960s Great Britain.
• This is the first gay novel that featured a romance between two working class people and not members of the upper class.
Cons:
• There's a brief scene that punches down at outwardly effeminate and/or camp gay men. As long as you aren't harming someone or doing anything illegal, there is no wrong way to be gay.
• The novel employs the "Bury Your Gays" trope for one of it's protagonists. It was part of this weird compromise that writers and publishers seemed to make in the old days (pre-1970s) that you could depict a sympathetic LGBT+ protagonist but they couldn't live to the end of the book. Imre: A Memorandum, The Well of Loneliness, The Price of Salt, & The Charioteer are the exceptions that prove the rule.
• Two young sympathetic gay protagonists that the audience grow to like.
• The book is an interesting snapshot into 1960s Great Britain.
• This is the first gay novel that featured a romance between two working class people and not members of the upper class.
Cons:
• There's a brief scene that punches down at outwardly effeminate and/or camp gay men. As long as you aren't harming someone or doing anything illegal, there is no wrong way to be gay.
• The novel employs the "Bury Your Gays" trope for one of it's protagonists. It was part of this weird compromise that writers and publishers seemed to make in the old days (pre-1970s) that you could depict a sympathetic LGBT+ protagonist but they couldn't live to the end of the book. Imre: A Memorandum, The Well of Loneliness, The Price of Salt, & The Charioteer are the exceptions that prove the rule.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 27, 2023
A very moving story, from 1961, about two young men in South London, Dick and Reggie, who are mixed up in a small-time criminal gang of bikers. Written sparingly and with a directness that conveys the intensity of first love and gives a vivid impression of working class life. The secondary characters are also brilliantly done, especially Dick's grandma whose awful children are plotting to send her off to a retirement home.
Unlike in a lot of gay novels, the main characters in The Leather Boys don't seem to suffer from much self-pity or angst. The novel is described as unsentimental, but it's not a bleak kitchen sink drama, it's often quite warm and funny. The last few pages are heartbreaking.
Deserves to be much more widely read!
Unlike in a lot of gay novels, the main characters in The Leather Boys don't seem to suffer from much self-pity or angst. The novel is described as unsentimental, but it's not a bleak kitchen sink drama, it's often quite warm and funny. The last few pages are heartbreaking.
Deserves to be much more widely read!
January 2, 2020
It is a good, important and authentic book. However what I didn't like was that it always fades out when the scene would be very important and interesting for the development of the characters.
Given the fact it was written in the sixties, while homosexuality was still illegal, it becomes understandable though...
Yet again, it could have been better in some respect.
All in all a really good novel.
Big plus here - the historic accuracy. The unpretentious language.
Definitely made me curious of the author.
Given the fact it was written in the sixties, while homosexuality was still illegal, it becomes understandable though...
Yet again, it could have been better in some respect.
All in all a really good novel.
Big plus here - the historic accuracy. The unpretentious language.
Definitely made me curious of the author.
November 11, 2025
A poignant depiction of two young, working class men who don't really know themselves or what they want in life. They discover they love each other and struggle (unsuccessfully) to break free of their circumstances.
Significant when it was released, but I would still recommend it to readers nowadays as there still aren't that many literary explorations of gay, working class couples. (And in contemporary genre romance, many LGBT romances feature couples where either one or both of the characters are financially secure.)
Significant when it was released, but I would still recommend it to readers nowadays as there still aren't that many literary explorations of gay, working class couples. (And in contemporary genre romance, many LGBT romances feature couples where either one or both of the characters are financially secure.)
October 21, 2025
Read this for the historical accuracy of the MC's and the biker gangs, since it was wrote on the 60's and was not dissappointed. Great value in its words even if the story or romance was not as developed. Understandable though, given the context, and Riggie and Dick's moments together were cute.
They did indeed loved each other and the world should know about it <3
They did indeed loved each other and the world should know about it <3
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews