What do you think?
Rate this book
The History Boys
An unruly bunch of bright, funny sixth-form (or senior) boys in a British boys' school are, as such boys will be, in pursuit of sex, sport, and a place at a good university, generally in that order. In all their efforts, they are helped and hindered, enlightened and bemused, by a maverick English teacher who seeks to broaden their horizons in sometimes undefined ways, and a young history teacher who questions the methods, as well as the aim, of their schooling.
In The History Boys, Alan Bennett evokes the special period and place that the sixth form represents in an English boy's life. In doing so, he raises—with gentle wit and pitch-perfect command of character—not only universal questions about the nature of history and how it is taught but also questions about the purpose of education today.
In The History Boys, Alan Bennett evokes the special period and place that the sixth form represents in an English boy's life. In doing so, he raises—with gentle wit and pitch-perfect command of character—not only universal questions about the nature of history and how it is taught but also questions about the purpose of education today.
144 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
105 people are currently reading
8605 people want to read
About the author
Alan Bennett
272 books1,109 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
Alan Bennett is an English author and Tony Award-winning playwright. Bennett's first stage play, Forty Years On, was produced in 1968. Many television, stage and radio plays followed, along with screenplays, short stories, novellas, a large body of non-fictional prose and broadcasting, and many appearances as an actor. Bennett's lugubrious yet expressive voice (which still bears a slight Leeds accent) and the sharp humour and evident humanity of his writing have made his readings of his own work (especially his autobiographical writing) very popular. His readings of the Winnie the Pooh stories are also widely enjoyed.
Alan Bennett is an English author and Tony Award-winning playwright. Bennett's first stage play, Forty Years On, was produced in 1968. Many television, stage and radio plays followed, along with screenplays, short stories, novellas, a large body of non-fictional prose and broadcasting, and many appearances as an actor. Bennett's lugubrious yet expressive voice (which still bears a slight Leeds accent) and the sharp humour and evident humanity of his writing have made his readings of his own work (especially his autobiographical writing) very popular. His readings of the Winnie the Pooh stories are also widely enjoyed.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 558 reviews
September 23, 2014
IRWIN: So, what do we think of The History Boys then?
RUDGE: It's a classroom drama, sir. Set in Yorkshire during the early 80s. Features a clash between two different styles of teaching, embodied by the two contrasting teachers, Mr. Hector and Mr. Irwin, who...
IRWIN: Yes, yes, yes, everyone will write that. I am results-focussed, Mr. Hector teaches you the true value of culture. Perfect if you want to get into Bristol. Ideal for Sheffield. Someone else?
SCRIPPS: It's got witty and inventive dialogue, sir.
IRWIN: Such as? You need a striking example, you know.
DAKIN: Mr. Hector calls me "sad" at one point, sir. Mrs. Lintott corrects him, and says she prefers the word "cuntstruck". She points out that it's a compound adjective.
The rest of this review is available elsewhere (the location cannot be given for Goodreads policy reasons)
RUDGE: It's a classroom drama, sir. Set in Yorkshire during the early 80s. Features a clash between two different styles of teaching, embodied by the two contrasting teachers, Mr. Hector and Mr. Irwin, who...
IRWIN: Yes, yes, yes, everyone will write that. I am results-focussed, Mr. Hector teaches you the true value of culture. Perfect if you want to get into Bristol. Ideal for Sheffield. Someone else?
SCRIPPS: It's got witty and inventive dialogue, sir.
IRWIN: Such as? You need a striking example, you know.
DAKIN: Mr. Hector calls me "sad" at one point, sir. Mrs. Lintott corrects him, and says she prefers the word "cuntstruck". She points out that it's a compound adjective.
The rest of this review is available elsewhere (the location cannot be given for Goodreads policy reasons)
April 20, 2017
Bennett at his best: witty, erudite and controversial.
This play is set in the 1980s in a boys’ grammar school (no fees to pay, but students have to pass exams to gain admission) where a new head is determined to get some of his brighter history pupils into prestigious Oxford and Cambridge colleges via additional lessons by three very different teachers: Hector, Irwin and also Mrs Lintott. Hector has been there for years; Irwin is young and brought in specially to help with Oxbridge exams and interviews; Mrs Lintott is a somewhat motherly figure who wants to remind them that women exist.
Inspirational Teaching
The boys are taught to think quickly and originally, to play the system and to find new ways to be themselves. It conveys the power of inspirational and unconventional education to break social barriers, whilst fully acknowledging the continuing power of them. The importance of social mobility is a hot topic in the current political climate; the role of grammar schools to help achieve it is much more controversial.
But are they being taught style over substance – or both? Hector is passionate about imparting knowledge to make them rounded individuals (regardless of targets or quantifiable results), while Irwin teaches techniques and finding a quirky angle to make them stand out. When Irwin asks the boys about the different teaching methods, he’s told “It’s just the knowledge... the pursuit of it for its own sake... not useful... like your [Irwin’s:] lessons”. Irwin tells them “truth is no more an issue in an examination than thirst at a wine-tasting or fashion at a striptease.” and “Flee the crowd... Be perverse... history nowadays is not a matter of conviction. It’s a performance. It’s entertainment.”
Similar teachers are Felix in Atwood's retelling of The Tempest, titled Hag-Seed, which I reviewed HERE, and John Keating (Robin Williams) in Dead Poets Society
Laughter, Tears, and... The Elephant in the Room
Parts are laugh-out-loud funny (Rudge defining history as “just one fucking thing after another”), whilst other parts are sad or troubling.
The most obviously the difficult question is a theme common in Bennett's work. Here, it is whether slight inappropriate sexual behaviour by a teacher to a nearly adult pupil is as evil as current paedo-paranoia would have us believe. The boys are resigned and slightly mocking of this eccentricity. When Hector has to stop giving them lifts on his bike, Dakin and Scripps joke, “No more genital massage as one speeds along leafy suburban roads... he dropped you at the corner, your honour still intact... Are we scarred for life, do you think? We must hope so. Perhaps it will turn me into Proust.” So what should the penalty be?
Quote
“The best moments in reading are when you come across something - a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things - which you had thought special and particular to you. And now, here it is, set down by someone else, a person you have never met, someone even who is long dead. And it is as if a hand has come out, and taken yours.”
Note that the play, especially the ending, is slightly different from the film.
This play is set in the 1980s in a boys’ grammar school (no fees to pay, but students have to pass exams to gain admission) where a new head is determined to get some of his brighter history pupils into prestigious Oxford and Cambridge colleges via additional lessons by three very different teachers: Hector, Irwin and also Mrs Lintott. Hector has been there for years; Irwin is young and brought in specially to help with Oxbridge exams and interviews; Mrs Lintott is a somewhat motherly figure who wants to remind them that women exist.
Inspirational Teaching
The boys are taught to think quickly and originally, to play the system and to find new ways to be themselves. It conveys the power of inspirational and unconventional education to break social barriers, whilst fully acknowledging the continuing power of them. The importance of social mobility is a hot topic in the current political climate; the role of grammar schools to help achieve it is much more controversial.
But are they being taught style over substance – or both? Hector is passionate about imparting knowledge to make them rounded individuals (regardless of targets or quantifiable results), while Irwin teaches techniques and finding a quirky angle to make them stand out. When Irwin asks the boys about the different teaching methods, he’s told “It’s just the knowledge... the pursuit of it for its own sake... not useful... like your [Irwin’s:] lessons”. Irwin tells them “truth is no more an issue in an examination than thirst at a wine-tasting or fashion at a striptease.” and “Flee the crowd... Be perverse... history nowadays is not a matter of conviction. It’s a performance. It’s entertainment.”
Similar teachers are Felix in Atwood's retelling of The Tempest, titled Hag-Seed, which I reviewed HERE, and John Keating (Robin Williams) in Dead Poets Society
Laughter, Tears, and... The Elephant in the Room
Parts are laugh-out-loud funny (Rudge defining history as “just one fucking thing after another”), whilst other parts are sad or troubling.
The most obviously the difficult question is a theme common in Bennett's work. Here, it is whether slight inappropriate sexual behaviour by a teacher to a nearly adult pupil is as evil as current paedo-paranoia would have us believe. The boys are resigned and slightly mocking of this eccentricity. When Hector has to stop giving them lifts on his bike, Dakin and Scripps joke, “No more genital massage as one speeds along leafy suburban roads... he dropped you at the corner, your honour still intact... Are we scarred for life, do you think? We must hope so. Perhaps it will turn me into Proust.” So what should the penalty be?
Quote
“The best moments in reading are when you come across something - a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things - which you had thought special and particular to you. And now, here it is, set down by someone else, a person you have never met, someone even who is long dead. And it is as if a hand has come out, and taken yours.”
Note that the play, especially the ending, is slightly different from the film.
September 11, 2008
Utterly useless play. The occasional "witty" line, but the whole thing felt very self-serving, self-congratulatory, and mechanical. And this pile of self-consciously Teddibly Intellectual Claptrap won the Tony for Best Play over Martin McDonagh's magnificent LIEUTENANT OF INISHMORE.
The reviews I've read seem to think the play is a sort of battle of wills between Hector and another teacher for the souls of a group of boys doing an intensive cram session for their college boards. Hector supposedly represents the joy of learning for its own sake, while the other guy is all about passing the tests by any means necessary, history truth beauty be damned. The titular boys are a pretty mixed bag, but the play eventually sort of focuses on three of them: The Cute One, The Religious One, and The Gay One. The Gay One, of course, is hopelessly and predictably in love with The Cute One. There's even Fat One.
The play's lone female role is shoehorned into the story, mainly so that the women in the audience can have someone to identify with. It gets rather cloying, though, and I was frankly annoyed by her little speech about history being all about men's failures: it felt entirely too much as if Bennett had suddenly decided to pander to the women in the audience to keep them from finding the play a bore. A more interesting female character might have been Hector's wife, but that would have gone into territory that Mr. Bennett isn't going to touch, as it might be something irresolvable with a witty one-liner, and would have shifted the focus away from the Boys.
One of the major plot points is Hector's unfortunate habit of fondling his students. Mr. Bennett and his play bend over backward to present this as a harmless eccentricity, but it just doesn't wash. Sorry, I don't have a problem with someone losing their job for groping students. And I found myself wondering about the simple mechanics of it. We're supposed to believe that the morbidly obese Hector (at least as played by the brilliant but morbidly obese Richard Griffiths) plays with the genitals of students sitting behind him on a motorcycle. In broad daylight. At a public intersection. Every day. And only a woman behind the counter in a thrift shop notices.
And I was not happy with the tragic fates of the gay characters. One dead, one in a wheelchair, one a housebound emotional cripple, while the straight folks all live (more or less, this is Alan Benett's universe after all) happily and wealthily ever after. And people bitched about BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN perpetuating the myth of gayness as misery?
Down, blood pressure, down...
The reviews I've read seem to think the play is a sort of battle of wills between Hector and another teacher for the souls of a group of boys doing an intensive cram session for their college boards. Hector supposedly represents the joy of learning for its own sake, while the other guy is all about passing the tests by any means necessary, history truth beauty be damned. The titular boys are a pretty mixed bag, but the play eventually sort of focuses on three of them: The Cute One, The Religious One, and The Gay One. The Gay One, of course, is hopelessly and predictably in love with The Cute One. There's even Fat One.
The play's lone female role is shoehorned into the story, mainly so that the women in the audience can have someone to identify with. It gets rather cloying, though, and I was frankly annoyed by her little speech about history being all about men's failures: it felt entirely too much as if Bennett had suddenly decided to pander to the women in the audience to keep them from finding the play a bore. A more interesting female character might have been Hector's wife, but that would have gone into territory that Mr. Bennett isn't going to touch, as it might be something irresolvable with a witty one-liner, and would have shifted the focus away from the Boys.
One of the major plot points is Hector's unfortunate habit of fondling his students. Mr. Bennett and his play bend over backward to present this as a harmless eccentricity, but it just doesn't wash. Sorry, I don't have a problem with someone losing their job for groping students. And I found myself wondering about the simple mechanics of it. We're supposed to believe that the morbidly obese Hector (at least as played by the brilliant but morbidly obese Richard Griffiths) plays with the genitals of students sitting behind him on a motorcycle. In broad daylight. At a public intersection. Every day. And only a woman behind the counter in a thrift shop notices.
And I was not happy with the tragic fates of the gay characters. One dead, one in a wheelchair, one a housebound emotional cripple, while the straight folks all live (more or less, this is Alan Benett's universe after all) happily and wealthily ever after. And people bitched about BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN perpetuating the myth of gayness as misery?
Down, blood pressure, down...
![Profile Image for [ J o ].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1673171874i%2F4639825._UY200_CR4%2C0%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
February 9, 2017
[First read: 7th March, 2014
Second read: 22nd August, 2015]
"The best moments in reading are when you come across something — a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things — that you'd thought special, particular to you. And here it is, set down by someone else, a person you've never met, maybe even someone long dead. And it's as if a hand has come out and taken yours."
The BBC did a programme celebrating 50 years of the National Theatre in 2013 and The History Boys was one of them. It was a short scene - the French scene - that was played out and I instantly fell in love. I had not had time for the Theatre before then: my last memory of anything theatre related was seeing something called The Eye of the Storm in Leeds whilst at Primary School and since then I'd hated it. It must have been really bad, but on the other hand, back then I didn't like classical music, poetry, Cricket or classic literature and so what did I know?
It was love at first sight. I can distinctly remember it being The History Boys that did in fact lead me to my love of Theatre, though I'm sure all the others helped a lot, too. From there, it was only natural I read the book and see the film.
The History Boys is set in Sheffield, North Yorkshire, in the 1980s at an all-boys boarding school and follows the education of eight sixth form boys who are either concerned with getting in to Oxbridge or getting their next shag, or both. One of the most important things to remember about this play is the time it is set in: the 1980s. This was the time when entrance exams and essays to Universities were compulsory and very different to how they are now, and also a time when homosexuality was definitely not as welcomed with open arms as it is today by the majority of society.
There are eight pupils, three teachers and one headmaster, all of them vying for the attention of another person and each one has their own agenda, though they do not all realise what theirs is.
It is a play divided in to two acts, though this is of no consequence. It's different reviewing plays to books as I usually talk about world-building, characterisation and the flow of the words, but these are relatively meaningless in a play. Characters speak, and that is it, so the dialogue is the most important thing: fortunately the dialogue is on-point. There are no wasted words and every thing anyone says has meaning. It is poignant and supremely heart-achingly sad, funny, wise and depraved at all angles. There is comic relief but there is also tragic relief, both mingled together as life always throws it so.
Another point to remember is that Hector is not a paedophile, as I seem to recall many people thinking of him as so in other reviews I've read: the History Boys are in fact above legal age, though this does not give Hector the right to molest them. It is characteristically pathetic: a shoddy attempt at feeling that he cannot get right. He has other people's words to use instead of his own - poets and writers - yet his expressions of emotion are harmless and half-hearted. Much in the same way that Posner cannot examine his own feelings - about Dakin or anyone else - without falling in to the words of another person.
I have not read an awful lot of plays, so perhaps my view of this is purely from a novelesque view point, though I cannot say for certain that I would not have been so captivated and ultimately moved by the play had I been a connoisseur of plays in the first place. I am a ruthless reviewer of books and I rarely give out five stars, so you'd forgive my impertinence as I say that obviously anything that completely knocks me sideways like The History Boys has isn't at least some way to being a good story.
Blog | Instagram | Twitter | Pinterest | Shop | Etsy
Second read: 22nd August, 2015]
"The best moments in reading are when you come across something — a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things — that you'd thought special, particular to you. And here it is, set down by someone else, a person you've never met, maybe even someone long dead. And it's as if a hand has come out and taken yours."
The BBC did a programme celebrating 50 years of the National Theatre in 2013 and The History Boys was one of them. It was a short scene - the French scene - that was played out and I instantly fell in love. I had not had time for the Theatre before then: my last memory of anything theatre related was seeing something called The Eye of the Storm in Leeds whilst at Primary School and since then I'd hated it. It must have been really bad, but on the other hand, back then I didn't like classical music, poetry, Cricket or classic literature and so what did I know?
It was love at first sight. I can distinctly remember it being The History Boys that did in fact lead me to my love of Theatre, though I'm sure all the others helped a lot, too. From there, it was only natural I read the book and see the film.
The History Boys is set in Sheffield, North Yorkshire, in the 1980s at an all-boys boarding school and follows the education of eight sixth form boys who are either concerned with getting in to Oxbridge or getting their next shag, or both. One of the most important things to remember about this play is the time it is set in: the 1980s. This was the time when entrance exams and essays to Universities were compulsory and very different to how they are now, and also a time when homosexuality was definitely not as welcomed with open arms as it is today by the majority of society.
There are eight pupils, three teachers and one headmaster, all of them vying for the attention of another person and each one has their own agenda, though they do not all realise what theirs is.
It is a play divided in to two acts, though this is of no consequence. It's different reviewing plays to books as I usually talk about world-building, characterisation and the flow of the words, but these are relatively meaningless in a play. Characters speak, and that is it, so the dialogue is the most important thing: fortunately the dialogue is on-point. There are no wasted words and every thing anyone says has meaning. It is poignant and supremely heart-achingly sad, funny, wise and depraved at all angles. There is comic relief but there is also tragic relief, both mingled together as life always throws it so.
Another point to remember is that Hector is not a paedophile, as I seem to recall many people thinking of him as so in other reviews I've read: the History Boys are in fact above legal age, though this does not give Hector the right to molest them. It is characteristically pathetic: a shoddy attempt at feeling that he cannot get right. He has other people's words to use instead of his own - poets and writers - yet his expressions of emotion are harmless and half-hearted. Much in the same way that Posner cannot examine his own feelings - about Dakin or anyone else - without falling in to the words of another person.
I have not read an awful lot of plays, so perhaps my view of this is purely from a novelesque view point, though I cannot say for certain that I would not have been so captivated and ultimately moved by the play had I been a connoisseur of plays in the first place. I am a ruthless reviewer of books and I rarely give out five stars, so you'd forgive my impertinence as I say that obviously anything that completely knocks me sideways like The History Boys has isn't at least some way to being a good story.
Blog | Instagram | Twitter | Pinterest | Shop | Etsy
July 18, 2023
'The best moments in reading are when you come across something – a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things – which you had thought special and particular to you. Now here it is, set down by someone else, a person you have never met, someone even who is long dead. And it is as if a hand has come out and taken yours'
April 25, 2016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007g95pDescription: An unruly bunch of bright, funny sixth-form (or senior) boys in a British boys' school are, as such boys will be, in pursuit of sex, sport, and a place at a good university, generally in that order. In all their efforts, they are helped and hindered, enlightened and bemused, by a maverick English teacher who seeks to broaden their horizons in sometimes undefined ways, and a young history teacher who questions the methods, as well as the aim, of their schooling. In The History Boys, Alan Bennett evokes the special period and place that the sixth form represents in an English boy's life. In doing so, he raises—with gentle wit and pitch-perfect command of character—not only universal questions about the nature of history and how it is taught but also questions about the purpose of education today.
Adapted for radio by Richard Wortley from Nicholas Hytner's National Theatre production. More than three decades on from Forty Years On, Alan Bennett turns his attention once more to education, encompassing both the tussles of staffroom rivalry and the anarchy of adolescence.Now I need to re-watch the film...
Hector ...... Richard Griffiths
Irwin ...... Geoffrey Streatfeild
Mrs Lintott ...... Frances de la Tour
The Headmaster ...... Clive Merrison
Crowther ...... Samuel Anderson
Posner ...... Samuel Barnett
Dakin ...... Dominic Cooper
Timms ...... James Corden
Akthar ...... Sacha Dhawan
Lockwood ...... Andrew Knott
Scripps ...... Jamie Parker
Rudge ...... Russell Tovey
Solo singer ...... Samuel Barnett
Pianists ...... Jamie Parker and Tom Attwood
November 3, 2014
Subjunctive history, discussing that gets five star alone. I have to get myself a copy of the book and read it at my own pace. There is a lot covered in this play. At first, listening to the first disc, I didn't get into it, but then I concentrated on the dialogue and not the voices. I wonder if this play would translate to other countries. Plays, essays, films, or novels that are set in school usually evokes an unpleasant feeling for me, (To Sir With Love being an exception.)
The History Boys had two themes. The first, the unorthodox inspirational teacher inevitably drawing the ire of the conservative Headmaster or School Board. The second theme of Hector's 'hands-on' dodgy stuff toward the students was treated as not terribly grave. I wonder which of these two themes is meant to be the most important in this play.
This subject of an unorthodox inspirational teacher in a conservative conventional old established school has been done as a film a number of times.
I have to add something from the play that made me smile.
The teacher Mrs. Lintott remembers teaching in London in the '70s. "There was a consoling myth that not very bright children could always become artists, droves of the half educated left school with the notion that art, or some form of self-realisation was a viable option."
The History Boys had two themes. The first, the unorthodox inspirational teacher inevitably drawing the ire of the conservative Headmaster or School Board. The second theme of Hector's 'hands-on' dodgy stuff toward the students was treated as not terribly grave. I wonder which of these two themes is meant to be the most important in this play.
This subject of an unorthodox inspirational teacher in a conservative conventional old established school has been done as a film a number of times.
I have to add something from the play that made me smile.
The teacher Mrs. Lintott remembers teaching in London in the '70s. "There was a consoling myth that not very bright children could always become artists, droves of the half educated left school with the notion that art, or some form of self-realisation was a viable option."
November 2, 2020
After a few books that kind of let me down, this one was really good. Written in 2002, it takes place back in the 80s and some subjects that could be sensitive nowadays may have not been looked upon with the same concern. It's a play but it was turned into a tv adaptation that is really worth watching, with an excellent cast (but the ending is a bit different).
It is very witty and erudite, which isn't surprising with Bennett, and such fun to read with a healthy dose of emotion. Each boy has its own personality but of course a few stand out, Daikin, Posner, the underestimated Rudge, and the teachers. Their teachers have done a good job because they come from Sheffield (northern, working class England) and are capable of quoting writers and poems by heart. I come from rather northern, working class France and at their age, I couldn't ! Apart from "Mignonne, allons voir si la rose...", poem that was written by an old man trying to get a young lady into his bed on the count that he was famous (Ronsard - the lady didn't give in, it seems).
Even if you're not that familiar with British classic poetry/literature or history, I highly recommend reading this play. All those boys are full of knowledge, but they want to go to Oxbridge (Oxford/Cambridge), something that is usually out of their reach, and they have to learn to cheat to achieve that. They have to stand out from other students who are trained for that purpose since birth it seems, while they're aren't. What they write is true, but when a teacher corrects dozens of works, which will he remember, the true essays or those who hint that Stalin wasn't such a bad boy after all ? What is really worth it, telling the truth, what you think, or just saying anything that will surprise the teachers, even if you don't believe in it ? Alan Bennett apparently had to deal with this when he graduated and it left a lasting imprint on him.
I would have rated 5 stars but in 2021, having a teacher using his power on pupils to do certain things doesn't agree with us. Maybe it's not really the same because the author is gay and the boys, after all, are adults ? But it bugged me. But I loved the play ! So 4.5 stars, great read.
Quotes :
"Headmaster : There is a vacancy in history.
Irwin (thoughtfully) : That's very true.
Headmaster : In the school.
Irwin : Ah."
"Dakin : Are we scarred for life, you think ?
Scripps : We must hope so. Perhaps it will turn me into Proust."
"Mrs Lintott : History's not such a frolic for women as it is for men. Why should it be ? They never get round the conference table. In 1919, for instance, they just arranged the flowers then gracefully retired."
It is very witty and erudite, which isn't surprising with Bennett, and such fun to read with a healthy dose of emotion. Each boy has its own personality but of course a few stand out, Daikin, Posner, the underestimated Rudge, and the teachers. Their teachers have done a good job because they come from Sheffield (northern, working class England) and are capable of quoting writers and poems by heart. I come from rather northern, working class France and at their age, I couldn't ! Apart from "Mignonne, allons voir si la rose...", poem that was written by an old man trying to get a young lady into his bed on the count that he was famous (Ronsard - the lady didn't give in, it seems).
Even if you're not that familiar with British classic poetry/literature or history, I highly recommend reading this play. All those boys are full of knowledge, but they want to go to Oxbridge (Oxford/Cambridge), something that is usually out of their reach, and they have to learn to cheat to achieve that. They have to stand out from other students who are trained for that purpose since birth it seems, while they're aren't. What they write is true, but when a teacher corrects dozens of works, which will he remember, the true essays or those who hint that Stalin wasn't such a bad boy after all ? What is really worth it, telling the truth, what you think, or just saying anything that will surprise the teachers, even if you don't believe in it ? Alan Bennett apparently had to deal with this when he graduated and it left a lasting imprint on him.
I would have rated 5 stars but in 2021, having a teacher using his power on pupils to do certain things doesn't agree with us. Maybe it's not really the same because the author is gay and the boys, after all, are adults ? But it bugged me. But I loved the play ! So 4.5 stars, great read.
Quotes :
"Headmaster : There is a vacancy in history.
Irwin (thoughtfully) : That's very true.
Headmaster : In the school.
Irwin : Ah."
"Dakin : Are we scarred for life, you think ?
Scripps : We must hope so. Perhaps it will turn me into Proust."
"Mrs Lintott : History's not such a frolic for women as it is for men. Why should it be ? They never get round the conference table. In 1919, for instance, they just arranged the flowers then gracefully retired."
May 7, 2012
A wonderful, witty play. A group of eight teenage boys are in their final year of school, preparing to take scholarship examinations for university. Oxford or Cambridge admission is the big prize. Their teachers have different ideas about the role of education which seem competitive but are complementary.
The boys and teachers verbally joust and show off throughout the play as they struggle to find what they think will be the best way to succeed at the exams. Should they learn to be showmen of history, hiding their shallow knowledge with a glib and deft ability to turn a question on its side, learning how to hide their deflection by cloaking it in humour, outrageous comments and witty asides? Or should they foster an understanding and appreciation of a wider range of inquiry?
Being boys of late teenage years, they also are wrestling with their sexuality and its expression, and are further burdened by society's oppression of gays, which was only beginning to weaken in the 1980s when this is set.
Alan Bennett's style is as usual gentle, witty and incisively understanding of the human condition. Highly recommended.
Also highly recommended is Manny's funny "Digested Read" style review on Goodreads: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
The boys and teachers verbally joust and show off throughout the play as they struggle to find what they think will be the best way to succeed at the exams. Should they learn to be showmen of history, hiding their shallow knowledge with a glib and deft ability to turn a question on its side, learning how to hide their deflection by cloaking it in humour, outrageous comments and witty asides? Or should they foster an understanding and appreciation of a wider range of inquiry?
Being boys of late teenage years, they also are wrestling with their sexuality and its expression, and are further burdened by society's oppression of gays, which was only beginning to weaken in the 1980s when this is set.
Alan Bennett's style is as usual gentle, witty and incisively understanding of the human condition. Highly recommended.
Also highly recommended is Manny's funny "Digested Read" style review on Goodreads: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
September 22, 2022
I found this impossible to read as a play and almost gave up on it before turning to the audio version. The stumbling block, by the way, was the 4 or 5 pages in French, I don't read French unfortunately so I guess that's on me.
Much irked me about this play but the deal-breaker: are we just supposed to gloss over the groping of teenage boys as a harmless quirk ...??. Mrs Lincott despite her rousing monologue about history ignoring women seems very "boys will be boys" about the predatory motorcycle rides... I couldn't really get my head around it and I was obviously blinded to the rest of the play because of it.
In the end, I think I found this obnoxious, not a term I use often but seems apt here.
Much irked me about this play but the deal-breaker: are we just supposed to gloss over the groping of teenage boys as a harmless quirk ...??. Mrs Lincott despite her rousing monologue about history ignoring women seems very "boys will be boys" about the predatory motorcycle rides... I couldn't really get my head around it and I was obviously blinded to the rest of the play because of it.
In the end, I think I found this obnoxious, not a term I use often but seems apt here.
April 25, 2016
From BBC Radio 4 Extra:
Adapted for radio by Richard Wortley from Nicholas Hytner's National Theatre production. More than three decades on from Forty Years On, Alan Bennett turns his attention once more to education, encompassing both the tussles of staffroom rivalry and the anarchy of adolescence.
Hector ...... Richard Griffiths
Irwin ...... Geoffrey Streatfeild
Mrs Lintott ...... Frances de la Tour
The Headmaster ...... Clive Merrison
Crowther ...... Samuel Anderson
Posner ...... Samuel Barnett
Dakin ...... Dominic Cooper
Timms ...... James Corden
Akthar ...... Sacha Dhawan
Lockwood ...... Andrew Knott
Scripps ...... Jamie Parker
Rudge ...... Russell Tovey
Solo singer ...... Samuel Barnett
Pianists ...... Jamie Parker and Tom Attwood
Produced by David Hunter.
Musical arrangement by Richard Sissons.
Director Richard Wortley.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007g95p
Adapted for radio by Richard Wortley from Nicholas Hytner's National Theatre production. More than three decades on from Forty Years On, Alan Bennett turns his attention once more to education, encompassing both the tussles of staffroom rivalry and the anarchy of adolescence.
Hector ...... Richard Griffiths
Irwin ...... Geoffrey Streatfeild
Mrs Lintott ...... Frances de la Tour
The Headmaster ...... Clive Merrison
Crowther ...... Samuel Anderson
Posner ...... Samuel Barnett
Dakin ...... Dominic Cooper
Timms ...... James Corden
Akthar ...... Sacha Dhawan
Lockwood ...... Andrew Knott
Scripps ...... Jamie Parker
Rudge ...... Russell Tovey
Solo singer ...... Samuel Barnett
Pianists ...... Jamie Parker and Tom Attwood
Produced by David Hunter.
Musical arrangement by Richard Sissons.
Director Richard Wortley.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007g95p
April 14, 2022
The History Boys is the clever, funny, erudite play that I wanted it to be. On the surface this is a funny story about a clash in teaching styles and life in a school (which is my niche). Underneath this there’s some thoughtful observations about access to high education and the ways that exclusivity is maintained in the Oxbridge environment. Deeper still is where the sharp but subtly executed exploration of inappropriate student/teacher relationships takes place. Here, the weaving of humour with the seriousness is where this play really shines.
June 6, 2017
Not lucky with this one: ebook lacks the direction instructions and in the filmscript the scenes are extremely short, not suitable to be read as a story without the staging. Gave up.
September 22, 2022
Had to read for AS level English Literature and I hated every minute🤷🏻♀️🙅🏻♀️
September 6, 2016
Alan Bennett's dialogues have layers. Bennett uses poets, writers and artists as a subtle influencing factors to bring home a larger point. Auden is heavily quoted and acts as a metaphor for Hector's lifestyle. One of his pupils, Timms, quotes Auden and uses it outside the context to explain Hector's behavior to Irwin. Its clever and plays out as fantastic inside joke among the boys.
The boys stand on the edge that separates adolescence and adulthood. With college exams and interviews around the corner, the school headmaster invites two teachers to help the kids. What starts off as a discussion in history, it broadens the way each of the boys is allowed and made to think. In a world that relies heavily on the system that manufactures and hones intelligence to perform specific duties, one of the eccentric teachers forces the boys to step out of the mundane, the rote, the known path, the traditional way of thinking, and see history for what it can be. Not what it is but what it can be.
Coming from an all girls convent, there is a touch of nostalgia into it. There are teachers Hector and Irwin who can be both wonderful and disastrous at the same time; a touch on the shoulder too long, a glance below the neck and the discussions that follow later on. Is it all innocent under the guise of something far more sinister? It is hard to ascertain. Is it a jarring experience? Definitely.
Bennett delivers one of his best lines: Lockwood: That's why it is a work of art in the first place. You can't look at a Rembrandt and say 'in other words', can you sir?
Touche, Mr. Bennett. Touche.
The boys stand on the edge that separates adolescence and adulthood. With college exams and interviews around the corner, the school headmaster invites two teachers to help the kids. What starts off as a discussion in history, it broadens the way each of the boys is allowed and made to think. In a world that relies heavily on the system that manufactures and hones intelligence to perform specific duties, one of the eccentric teachers forces the boys to step out of the mundane, the rote, the known path, the traditional way of thinking, and see history for what it can be. Not what it is but what it can be.
Coming from an all girls convent, there is a touch of nostalgia into it. There are teachers Hector and Irwin who can be both wonderful and disastrous at the same time; a touch on the shoulder too long, a glance below the neck and the discussions that follow later on. Is it all innocent under the guise of something far more sinister? It is hard to ascertain. Is it a jarring experience? Definitely.
Bennett delivers one of his best lines: Lockwood: That's why it is a work of art in the first place. You can't look at a Rembrandt and say 'in other words', can you sir?
Touche, Mr. Bennett. Touche.
April 13, 2018
Despite the fact that I’ve read a few Alan Bennett books before, this one is the first of his plays. That’s kind of weird to me because I predominantly know of him as a playwright, but this one was worth the wait. Bennett just has a knack for writing great dialogue and so plays are the perfect medium for him to write in, and some of the lines almost reminded me of Oscar Wilde.
All in all then, this was a fun little read that I sped right through.
All in all then, this was a fun little read that I sped right through.
October 23, 2020
A really, really wonderful play. The boys are so likeable and the teachers so human, so absurdly smart and full of humour. It made me laugh out loud and feel inferior - if only I could have half the knowledge of those bright boys applying for Oxford and half their desire to jest and laugh about everything!
This play, sometimes intimidatingly 'well-read', is a triumphant portrait of human life and becoming. The teachers here have lives opposing to their professional careers, they are engaging and full of character, they hold geniune ambition for their students, they swear and jipe and make terrible, irrevocable mistakes. It is an important impression of intelligence and knowledge as being not only a tool to gain more, but something to be cherished, pushed and nurtured.
Irwin and Dakin, especially, are interesting. Dakin, presumably good looking in scholarly yet almost thuggish way - dripping with charisma - understands and gloats in his hold over people (we have all known a Dakin in our lives, painfully attractive, aware of their own intelligence, somehow pained). Irwin, who lies about his education and never feels quite good enough is devestatingly inspiring - he has such control over the class, he encourages them to think and act as true individuals. Irwin is masterful. This play is masterful.
I love how Bennett shifts between periods in time, shifts between letting the audience observe the classes and taking them into an interview format, or listening in on the teachers' gossip - all with little stage directions. Bennett is brilliant.
This play, sometimes intimidatingly 'well-read', is a triumphant portrait of human life and becoming. The teachers here have lives opposing to their professional careers, they are engaging and full of character, they hold geniune ambition for their students, they swear and jipe and make terrible, irrevocable mistakes. It is an important impression of intelligence and knowledge as being not only a tool to gain more, but something to be cherished, pushed and nurtured.
Irwin and Dakin, especially, are interesting. Dakin, presumably good looking in scholarly yet almost thuggish way - dripping with charisma - understands and gloats in his hold over people (we have all known a Dakin in our lives, painfully attractive, aware of their own intelligence, somehow pained). Irwin, who lies about his education and never feels quite good enough is devestatingly inspiring - he has such control over the class, he encourages them to think and act as true individuals. Irwin is masterful. This play is masterful.
I love how Bennett shifts between periods in time, shifts between letting the audience observe the classes and taking them into an interview format, or listening in on the teachers' gossip - all with little stage directions. Bennett is brilliant.
July 13, 2007
because i am an intellectual snob, and because i am a sucker for british accents, and because i LOVE history, and because i went to an all-girls school that decidedly wanted to get everyone into the ivies, i must admit i'm a little bit of a biased reader.
(basic plot of the play: everyone is trying to get into oxford, and are therefore studying for their major exams in history. sex plays a large role - or, really, rather, lust.)
however, i also must admit i found some of the characters annoying, and wished they had less time. dakin, for instance, just pissed me the hell off. also, i didn't like irwin, and poor hector - though. (it was really interesting to watch this play a couple weeks after seeing "doubt" - they are remarkably similiar in the crux of their subject matter, but oh, so so different.) anyway, that might be part of the reason i didn't like irwin so much.
the play reminds me of what possibly a young, not-fully-developed stoppard would have written. anyway, i think seeing it on stage kind of sold me on it, not to mention that i was in love with the guy who played lockwood. i think rudge is very overlooked character, and i also (of course) loved scripps. the film version was a little disappointed, if only because the stage version was very innovative - and yeah, they changed the ending a bit. kind of lame. still, you get to see the original actors and hear their voices, which is pretty damn cool.
(basic plot of the play: everyone is trying to get into oxford, and are therefore studying for their major exams in history. sex plays a large role - or, really, rather, lust.)
however, i also must admit i found some of the characters annoying, and wished they had less time. dakin, for instance, just pissed me the hell off. also, i didn't like irwin, and poor hector - though. (it was really interesting to watch this play a couple weeks after seeing "doubt" - they are remarkably similiar in the crux of their subject matter, but oh, so so different.) anyway, that might be part of the reason i didn't like irwin so much.
the play reminds me of what possibly a young, not-fully-developed stoppard would have written. anyway, i think seeing it on stage kind of sold me on it, not to mention that i was in love with the guy who played lockwood. i think rudge is very overlooked character, and i also (of course) loved scripps. the film version was a little disappointed, if only because the stage version was very innovative - and yeah, they changed the ending a bit. kind of lame. still, you get to see the original actors and hear their voices, which is pretty damn cool.
October 7, 2009
I've read this play at least twelve times. Same with the movie. It's a play about a group of high school boys that are in the Oxford/Cambridge group (they have the highest grades and are eligible for these two colleges.) Through out their senior year they must cram in not only facts about history, culture, and literature but they are given a new teacher who teaches them how to spice up their essays. There are many twists in the story but i'm not going to reveal them... I think that EVERYONE should read this. It's one of my favorite books of all time.
December 1, 2019
Underwhelmed. My feeling after reading this play. Especially with in mind that it won the Olivier AND Tony Award in 2005 and 2006 respectively. Too many boys. Too much talking uninteresting stuff. Too casual on serious topics.
July 5, 2019
A very nice encounter with Mr Alan Bennett. I'm looking forward to seeing the film as well.
May 31, 2020
the owls are not what they seem
May 9, 2017
The play is a great read for many reasons and all of them deeply resonated with me. Most important was the devotion to the importance of language (centered on the "dictionary" boy role of Posner) and music and ideas, more clearly emphasized in the play than in the screenplay for the film (also written by Bennett).
The play contrasts the differing perspectives on education of the two lead teachers (Hector and Irwin). Without the need to "open up" demanded by film Bennett focuses on the schoolroom and uses subtle effects to effect his dramatic purpose. One aspect of the play that stands out is the multiple narrators throughout the drama. Bennett is at his epigrammatic best and the audiences in New York showed their appreciation of this as noted by the reviews. He is successful in creating a delightful dramatic and comedic portrayal of ideas, all while evoking the spirit of bright young scholars at a key turning point in their lives. With reference to and in the spirit of Shakespeare he dramatizes events in and outside of the classroom touching on both the desires of the heart and the wonders of imaginative young minds.
The battle between educational styles centers on the approaches to teaching of the teachers Hector (the idealistic humanist) and Irwin (practical and pragmatic). The foundation for the boys is Mrs. Lintott's straightforward, perhaps old-fashioned, approach to teaching history which has produced "well taught" boys; however that is not enough to assure them success in achieving entrance to Oxford or Cambridge. The headmaster, in his "wisdom" adds into the mix a young teacher just up from Oxford to give the students an "edge". It is his, Mr. Irwin's, pragmatic method which uses paradox and the subjunctive. He aims to turn the historical facts upside-down, with little regard for the "truth" of the situation providing the "history boys" the ammunition to go to battle with the methods of Hector, the humanistic "general studies" teacher who attempts to enlist the boys into a conspiracy against the world and the "education" they are supposedly receiving.
"Mrs. Lintott: They're all clever. I saw to that.
Hector: You give them an education. I give them the wherewithal to resist it."
-
"Scripps: But it's all true.
Irwin: What has that got to do with it? What has that got to do with anything?"
With all of this battle of educational styles there added an undercurrent of eroticism, both due to the nature of education itself, as Hector points out, and due to the psychological tensions among Dakin and his two admirers, Posner and Irwin. This combination, which explodes at times to produce riveting moments of theater, is what makes this play great. That and the magnificent literary style of Bennett that has continued to inspire me to this day.
The play contrasts the differing perspectives on education of the two lead teachers (Hector and Irwin). Without the need to "open up" demanded by film Bennett focuses on the schoolroom and uses subtle effects to effect his dramatic purpose. One aspect of the play that stands out is the multiple narrators throughout the drama. Bennett is at his epigrammatic best and the audiences in New York showed their appreciation of this as noted by the reviews. He is successful in creating a delightful dramatic and comedic portrayal of ideas, all while evoking the spirit of bright young scholars at a key turning point in their lives. With reference to and in the spirit of Shakespeare he dramatizes events in and outside of the classroom touching on both the desires of the heart and the wonders of imaginative young minds.
The battle between educational styles centers on the approaches to teaching of the teachers Hector (the idealistic humanist) and Irwin (practical and pragmatic). The foundation for the boys is Mrs. Lintott's straightforward, perhaps old-fashioned, approach to teaching history which has produced "well taught" boys; however that is not enough to assure them success in achieving entrance to Oxford or Cambridge. The headmaster, in his "wisdom" adds into the mix a young teacher just up from Oxford to give the students an "edge". It is his, Mr. Irwin's, pragmatic method which uses paradox and the subjunctive. He aims to turn the historical facts upside-down, with little regard for the "truth" of the situation providing the "history boys" the ammunition to go to battle with the methods of Hector, the humanistic "general studies" teacher who attempts to enlist the boys into a conspiracy against the world and the "education" they are supposedly receiving.
"Mrs. Lintott: They're all clever. I saw to that.
Hector: You give them an education. I give them the wherewithal to resist it."
-
"Scripps: But it's all true.
Irwin: What has that got to do with it? What has that got to do with anything?"
With all of this battle of educational styles there added an undercurrent of eroticism, both due to the nature of education itself, as Hector points out, and due to the psychological tensions among Dakin and his two admirers, Posner and Irwin. This combination, which explodes at times to produce riveting moments of theater, is what makes this play great. That and the magnificent literary style of Bennett that has continued to inspire me to this day.
May 24, 2015
this is one of my favourite films and so i was wary when i bought the play. i know this is the original text and the film came after but it's the film i've seen so many times and i didn't know what differences there would be. obviously there were differences because a story told on a stage with very little props can't be told in the same way as a film but i like both versions. there were a couple of scenes in the play that weren't in the film and vice versa and the ending was slightly different. but i really loved this. i read the lines in the characters voices and looked forward for the scenes i knew to be coming. i've read that this is a popular text to be studied in schools. i can't imagine what that would be like. very glad i read this.
April 25, 2019
"Dakin: The more you read, though, the more you see that literature is actually about losers.
Scripps: No.
Dakin: It's consolation. All literature is consolation."
Absolutely brilliant and cheeky, sad and shameless. I'm astounded. Magnificent.
Scripps: No.
Dakin: It's consolation. All literature is consolation."
Absolutely brilliant and cheeky, sad and shameless. I'm astounded. Magnificent.
June 20, 2011
Honestly, this has to be one of the worst plays I have ever read. Apparently according to multiple reviews this is Bennett's best play ever. That worries me slightly.
There are so many problems with The History Boys, where should I start?
There are twelve characters (all main) in this play. None of them have defined characters. The cast could have been cut down over 50%. There are eight boys: Posner, Dakin, Scripps, Rudge, Lockwood, Akthar, Timms and Crother. Only three of these boys are really given a chance, Posner, Dakin and Scripps. The rest honestly are blob of uniformity. Rudge lies in the middle he has some character but is not given the privilege of Posner, Dakin and Scripps to be more defined. There really just needed to be Posner, Dakin, Scripps and Rudge, and have Rudge be the one you question if he needs to be there.
There's four adults in the play, three teachers and one headmaster (who by the way is just called 'Headmaster'). The play is supposed to be about the power struggle of two of these teachers, the 'eccentric' English teacher, Hector and the new by-the-book history teacher, Irwin. Who is the third teacher then? It's the only female in the entire cast, Dorothy Lintott, who is also a history teacher. Dorothy's only purpose for the play is to be a buffer zone between Irwin and Hector. That is it. Yay! That's our female character everyone! Wow, what a waste.
You might have noticed that I put the word eccentric is quotations before. The English teacher Hector happens to be a *drum roll* pedophile. He molests seven of the eight boys repeatedly. If this wasn't 'fantastic' enough Bennett decided to write Hector's molestation of his students as 'no big deal'. All of the boys rather like being fondled by Hector and the one who doesn't get molested envies his classmates. And instead of immediately firing Hector for molesting almost all of his students, the Headmaster just 'punishes' him by having him share his classes with the new history teacher, Irwin. And apparently, the new history teacher also has a taste for young boys as well since there is some sexual tension between him and Dakin and they even agree to go on a date. I mean, really? REALLY? I am the only one who sees how sick, wrong, immoral, flawed all of this is? It's ridiculous. And by the way (spoilers ahead) everyone mourns Hector at the end when he is killed. Apparently everyone forgot in a matter of pages that he was a sick pervert. I was pleased when he died. Hector is not a character whose death I cry over. He deserved to die. It was the one thing Bennett did right about this play.
Do I really have more to rant about? Why yes, yes I do. But honestly...? Do you really need me to keep going on and on about this one? I think you get the point by now.
Who do I recommend this to? No one.
I have to say one thing. The script for this is horrible. But maybe if I saw this live or even saw the movie version I might find it tolerable or even like it. Who knows?
There are so many problems with The History Boys, where should I start?
There are twelve characters (all main) in this play. None of them have defined characters. The cast could have been cut down over 50%. There are eight boys: Posner, Dakin, Scripps, Rudge, Lockwood, Akthar, Timms and Crother. Only three of these boys are really given a chance, Posner, Dakin and Scripps. The rest honestly are blob of uniformity. Rudge lies in the middle he has some character but is not given the privilege of Posner, Dakin and Scripps to be more defined. There really just needed to be Posner, Dakin, Scripps and Rudge, and have Rudge be the one you question if he needs to be there.
There's four adults in the play, three teachers and one headmaster (who by the way is just called 'Headmaster'). The play is supposed to be about the power struggle of two of these teachers, the 'eccentric' English teacher, Hector and the new by-the-book history teacher, Irwin. Who is the third teacher then? It's the only female in the entire cast, Dorothy Lintott, who is also a history teacher. Dorothy's only purpose for the play is to be a buffer zone between Irwin and Hector. That is it. Yay! That's our female character everyone! Wow, what a waste.
You might have noticed that I put the word eccentric is quotations before. The English teacher Hector happens to be a *drum roll* pedophile. He molests seven of the eight boys repeatedly. If this wasn't 'fantastic' enough Bennett decided to write Hector's molestation of his students as 'no big deal'. All of the boys rather like being fondled by Hector and the one who doesn't get molested envies his classmates. And instead of immediately firing Hector for molesting almost all of his students, the Headmaster just 'punishes' him by having him share his classes with the new history teacher, Irwin. And apparently, the new history teacher also has a taste for young boys as well since there is some sexual tension between him and Dakin and they even agree to go on a date. I mean, really? REALLY? I am the only one who sees how sick, wrong, immoral, flawed all of this is? It's ridiculous. And by the way (spoilers ahead) everyone mourns Hector at the end when he is killed. Apparently everyone forgot in a matter of pages that he was a sick pervert. I was pleased when he died. Hector is not a character whose death I cry over. He deserved to die. It was the one thing Bennett did right about this play.
Do I really have more to rant about? Why yes, yes I do. But honestly...? Do you really need me to keep going on and on about this one? I think you get the point by now.
Who do I recommend this to? No one.
I have to say one thing. The script for this is horrible. But maybe if I saw this live or even saw the movie version I might find it tolerable or even like it. Who knows?
May 20, 2012
Some plays just are better when seen performed on the stage. Sometimes just reading a play loses something in the... well, translation. I have a feeling The History Boys is one of those. I'll bet on stage it's pretty interesting. I hear there's a movie from a few years ago that probably is worth watching. (This is all not to be confused with The Emperor's Club, the 2002 movie with Kevin Kline. I can't explain why but I seriously thought it might be based on this play. It was not. Silly rabbit! Whatever, these boarding school/prep school titles all run together after a while.)
This play is about a handful of smart British boys in a boarding school who do what boys do - talk about sex and stuff. Then there are three teachers, all of whom have completely different teaching styles, but it really comes down to who has the "better" teaching style, Hector or Irwin. I don't even know what the purpose was of Lintott at all, other than she was the token female in the entire play.
Don't get me wrong, I think education is pretty spanking important, I encourage everyone to give it a try. That being said, I'm a mediocre student myself because, whatever, man, I want to learn what I want to learn, and tests and exams don't make me a smarter person, and I am a horrible test-taker anyway. What do grades really show you anyway? Not much, not in the long run, yet so much depends on those grades. The things I've learned on my own through my own reading outside of school has surpassed most of what I've learned while I was in school. And, well, that's pretty much the debate here in this play.
There's certainly more to it than just that (other stuff that we've all experienced by reading/watching other stories about boarding schools/prep schools), but it felt like there wasn't much to it. Again, I think that has more to do with the sitting-and-reading aspect, and I'd likely feel differently if I watched an actual performance. But then, I'm a visual person anyway.
I gave this an extra star just for including a part from this.
This play is about a handful of smart British boys in a boarding school who do what boys do - talk about sex and stuff. Then there are three teachers, all of whom have completely different teaching styles, but it really comes down to who has the "better" teaching style, Hector or Irwin. I don't even know what the purpose was of Lintott at all, other than she was the token female in the entire play.
Don't get me wrong, I think education is pretty spanking important, I encourage everyone to give it a try. That being said, I'm a mediocre student myself because, whatever, man, I want to learn what I want to learn, and tests and exams don't make me a smarter person, and I am a horrible test-taker anyway. What do grades really show you anyway? Not much, not in the long run, yet so much depends on those grades. The things I've learned on my own through my own reading outside of school has surpassed most of what I've learned while I was in school. And, well, that's pretty much the debate here in this play.
There's certainly more to it than just that (other stuff that we've all experienced by reading/watching other stories about boarding schools/prep schools), but it felt like there wasn't much to it. Again, I think that has more to do with the sitting-and-reading aspect, and I'd likely feel differently if I watched an actual performance. But then, I'm a visual person anyway.
I gave this an extra star just for including a part from this.
August 26, 2021
and she finishes her 100th book of the year with a re-read of one of the best plays she has ever read.
i was reminded of this book's existence when i was writing a blog post for the visualising war project on the teaching of war in history, ancient history and classical civilisation in english schools, and in which i was shocked at the lack of empathy in discussions of ancient wars. many experts i have spoken to suggested that this lack of empathy comes from a lack of sources, and i found myself quoting dakin's concept of 'subjunctive history', as an encouragement to take students back and truly imagine what it would be like to walk into the battle of thermopylae and know you are about to die - the fear, the horror, the terror. these men were human beings, not numbers, and subjunctive history will perhaps help us understand and communicate that.
anyway, now that i am a (sort of?) teacher, i find that i struggle to place myself as one of these teachers in the sense of writing style. i can see a bit of irwin in myself, with a sprinkling of hector's despair at the point-scoring games exams have become nowadays, and mrs lintott's at the masculine realm history has always been. i also see something of myself in scripps, and a little in posner. perhaps that's concerning, perhaps not.
i think if i think too much about this play it might prompt another crisis, so i'm going to leave it with the last words, from hector: 'pass the parcel. that's sometimes all you can do. take it, feel it and pass it on. not for me, not for you, but for someone, somewhere, one day. pass it on, boys. that's the game i wanted you to learn. pass it on.'
i was reminded of this book's existence when i was writing a blog post for the visualising war project on the teaching of war in history, ancient history and classical civilisation in english schools, and in which i was shocked at the lack of empathy in discussions of ancient wars. many experts i have spoken to suggested that this lack of empathy comes from a lack of sources, and i found myself quoting dakin's concept of 'subjunctive history', as an encouragement to take students back and truly imagine what it would be like to walk into the battle of thermopylae and know you are about to die - the fear, the horror, the terror. these men were human beings, not numbers, and subjunctive history will perhaps help us understand and communicate that.
anyway, now that i am a (sort of?) teacher, i find that i struggle to place myself as one of these teachers in the sense of writing style. i can see a bit of irwin in myself, with a sprinkling of hector's despair at the point-scoring games exams have become nowadays, and mrs lintott's at the masculine realm history has always been. i also see something of myself in scripps, and a little in posner. perhaps that's concerning, perhaps not.
i think if i think too much about this play it might prompt another crisis, so i'm going to leave it with the last words, from hector: 'pass the parcel. that's sometimes all you can do. take it, feel it and pass it on. not for me, not for you, but for someone, somewhere, one day. pass it on, boys. that's the game i wanted you to learn. pass it on.'
July 25, 2007
HECTOR: Uncoffined is a typical Hardy usage. It’s a compound adjective, formed by putting “un” in front of the noun or verb, of course. Unkissed, unrejoicing, unconfessed, unembraced—it’s a turn of phrase that brings with it a sense of not sharing, being out if it, whether because of diffidence or shyness, but holding back, not being in the swim of it. Can you see that?
POSNER: Yes, sir. I felt that a bit.
HECTOR: The best moments in reading are when you come across something, a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things that you’d thought special, particular to you. And there it is set down by someone else, a person you’ve never met, maybe even someone long dead. And it’s as if a hand has come out and taken yours.
POSNER: Yes, sir. I felt that a bit.
HECTOR: The best moments in reading are when you come across something, a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things that you’d thought special, particular to you. And there it is set down by someone else, a person you’ve never met, maybe even someone long dead. And it’s as if a hand has come out and taken yours.
February 6, 2008
Alan Bennett's fascinating play (which was made into a well-received motion picture starring the original cast from the West End and Tony Award-winning Broadway stage productions) about a group of English high school students studying for their Oxbridge entrance examinations, and how they are tutored by two different professors who possess contrasting teaching styles. Absolutely joyful, exuberant and bittersweet at the same time, the examination of their relationships with their tutors and each other clues us in to their seemingly disparate personalities that somehow blend them together.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 558 reviews