What do you think?
Rate this book
LES GARCONS
Dans un collège de l'enseignement libre, un élève de philo, Alban, tente une ''réforme'' de l'établissement où règne l'indiscipline. Il échoura dans sa tentative, mais son renvoi - dû en partie à un excès de zèle - ouvrira les yeux du superieur qui, par une vaste épuration, fera, lui, la réforme qui a été manquée par son élève. Et le collège deviendra un établissement exemplaire.
552 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1969
5 people are currently reading
184 people want to read
About the author
Henry de Montherlant
145 books110 followersHenry de Montherlant (1895-1972) fut romancier, dramaturge, essayiste et poète. Il était membre de l’Académie française et peut être considéré comme un des plus grands écrivains du XXe siècle, à l’égal d’un Proust ou d’un Céline.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
October 23, 2017
It's tough to talk about this novel since the subject matter, especially from the point of view of a modern audience, is profane and even borderline repulsive. But the characters, and their relationships with each other, are fascinating.
Here's the gist: It is 1913. A group of senior students at a Catholic boys college in France take on certain juniors as protégés and carry on illicit affairs with them. The optimistic and naive Father Superior, Father de la Halle, allows this go on under his watch. However, scandal bubbles to the surface when Father de Pradts, a priest whose only interest is young boys (it is left ambiguous in the novel whether this is a purely platonic love or if it has.. other dimensions, so to speak) and who is also secretly an atheist, becomes jealous of the relationship of the senior Alban de Bricole and the junior Serge Souplier, who is Father de Pradts favorite. Father de la Halle finds himself forced to reform the college and butts heads with Alban's meddling mother, who is dying of tuberculosis, and senior student Linsbourg, who is driven only by pedophillic lust but has an influential father on the board of directors.
If you can get past the setting of the plot, this is well worth your time. The interaction between the atheist Father de Pradts and the true, unquestioning believer Father de le Halle are especially interesting and at times even touching.
Here's the gist: It is 1913. A group of senior students at a Catholic boys college in France take on certain juniors as protégés and carry on illicit affairs with them. The optimistic and naive Father Superior, Father de la Halle, allows this go on under his watch. However, scandal bubbles to the surface when Father de Pradts, a priest whose only interest is young boys (it is left ambiguous in the novel whether this is a purely platonic love or if it has.. other dimensions, so to speak) and who is also secretly an atheist, becomes jealous of the relationship of the senior Alban de Bricole and the junior Serge Souplier, who is Father de Pradts favorite. Father de la Halle finds himself forced to reform the college and butts heads with Alban's meddling mother, who is dying of tuberculosis, and senior student Linsbourg, who is driven only by pedophillic lust but has an influential father on the board of directors.
If you can get past the setting of the plot, this is well worth your time. The interaction between the atheist Father de Pradts and the true, unquestioning believer Father de le Halle are especially interesting and at times even touching.
March 6, 2019
A very sensitive book, not because of the subject ( a gay relationship between two teenagers) but because of the amount of emotions inside it. I don't think I am sensitive enough for this book, is quite overwhelming. I didn't like the theatrical vibe here and there, but the book is impeccable written.
April 26, 2026
What is this novel about? I am stealing this synopsis from a GR review:
"It is 1913. A group of senior students at a Catholic boys college in France take on certain juniors as protégés and carry on illicit affairs with them. The optimistic and naive Father Superior, Father de la Halle, allows this go on under his watch. However, scandal bubbles to the surface when Father de Pradts, a priest whose only interest is young boys (it is left ambiguous in the novel whether this is a purely platonic love or if it has.. other dimensions, so to speak) and who is also secretly an atheist, becomes jealous of the relationship of the senior Alban de Bricole and the junior Serge Souplier, who is Father de Pradts favorite. Father de la Halle finds himself forced to reform the college and butts heads with Alban's meddling mother, who is dying of tuberculosis, and senior student Linsbourg, who is driven only by pedophillic lust but has an influential father on the board of directors."
Which is both true but misses the point and I would draw your attention to the following:
'"Les Garcons" (The Boys in English) is a novel with a “vaguely” autobiographical basis, Montherlant wrote in Le Monde on April 12, 1969…
'He would later develop in detail the themes of his play *The City Whose Prince Is a Child* , published in 1951. These themes are adolescence at boarding school, moral reform, and sacrifice. In this novel, in addition to the school and its students, the characters of Madame de Bricoule, ill and soon to die, and Abbé de Pradts, an unbeliever who loves the boys in his care with a platonic love, are superbly described. Nowhere in this book does Montherlant mention any criminal acts allegedly committed by Abbé de Pradts against these young students.
'The first drafts of this book date from 1914. A first handwritten version was produced in 1947. The manuscript was completed twenty years later, between 1965 and 1967. It can be said that Montherlant worked on this book for fifty years. The complete version was published the year after his death. This novel should not be taken as a fully realized account of Montherlant's experiences. It is a work of fiction, in which Montherlant's imagination is given free rein.
'“Fiction writers never dare to take the plunge and frankly admit that their art is very similar to that of an actor. They create a character that they may be more or less themselves, that they may not be at all, but that they feel. The public doesn't grasp the role of imagination, of pure invention, in the work of a fiction writer, when he is truly a creator. Even Philippe de Saint Robert (…) seems to me to be venturing too far when he claims that I put a lot of myself into Alban and the Abbé de Pradts. That is only very vaguely autobiographical, and most often, not at all.” (Montherlant in Le Monde , April 13, 1969).
'Any sensible person should understand that in 1912, a Catholic school would never have tolerated this ballet of lovestruck boys, the "brothers" with all the intrigues, the seduction maneuvers, the protégés, the game of Tenderness, the numerous nicknames (Bonbon, Cuicui, Bébé, Jambes douces, Bibi Lolo, la Fauvette etc…)
'This is therefore a fictional story based on a real event: the tender affection of the young Montherlant (a 16-year-old philosophy student) for Philippe G. (aged 14). In the novel, it is Alban de Bricoule, “sixteen years and six months old, a notable of the school, and just beginning his philosophy studies,” the very good student, sensitive and conscientious, respectful of discipline, an only child, who discovers his first love in the person of Serge Souplier, the dunce, the cheeky, the eccentric and the lazy, “a boy of about fourteen (…) His hair falling over his forehead seemed to have never seen a comb in his life . ”
'Montherlant would never forget his first love. Loving the adult world, Montherlant created a fairy tale to serve as the setting for his first stirrings of emotion. He erased the grim atmosphere of the school, the old, poorly maintained buildings, the prefects, the discipline, and created an unreal, poetic world where some of the students became the characters in this love story.
'There is no suffering in this school, as long as this love is not thwarted by adults. Everything is idealized, everything is gentle. To take the story at face value shows a great deal of naiveté on the part of those who were not raised in the strict discipline of Catholic schools at the beginning of the century. While the subject of the book may seem risqué, there is never any vulgarity or gratuitous descriptions.
'The December 2006 issue of Magazine littéraire, number 459, in an issue dedicated to the 40 greatest books of the last 40 years of world literature, selects Montherlant and Les Garçons for the year 1969 (see also issue number 28 of May 1969 of Magazine littéraire ).
'Montherlant says in this interview that there are three subjects in his book:
'The story is that of an unbelieving priest who takes the tonsure while remaining an unbeliever, a rarely explored subject. This is the Abbé de Pradts, a complete atheist. This abbé feels a very strong, yet platonic, attraction to the boys he educates.
'The story of a mother and her son. The son is 16 years old in 1912. He is (Alban de Bricoule), the character from *Les Bestaires * and *Le Songe*. *Les Garçons* is thus part of a series of three books. The reader will discover the very tumultuous relationship between mother and son. Montherlant insists that Madame de Bricoule not be considered a model for his own mother. No connection whatsoever, he writes!
'The third subject is that of the play The City Whose Prince Is a Child, but this time treated for the novel, in depth and in detail, "taken completely from the inside".
'Montherlant always felt that his novel, despite its commercial success, had been misunderstood by the public. The description of Abbé de Pradts, a complex and unsettling character, in a cassock and an atheist, attracted to boys yet never engaging in sexual acts with them—at least, this is neither written nor suggested in the book—everything taking place in his mind, never having caused a scandal, and ending his life in the public eye as a good priest who remained faithful throughout! Montherlant achieved a masterful portrait. The pages on Madame de Bricoule, ill and dying, are worthy of an anthology of French literature. This book will only gain in importance with time. For it is very “modern” and very audacious despite its great restraint. And the style is admirable.'
[From: https://www.montherlant.be/biographie...]
'The Boys' by Motherlant although covering some of the same territory as 'Les Amitiés particulières' (1944) by Roger Peyrefitte is, as the above should make obvious, a much more complex novel in subject matter and intent and of course de Montherlant was a much better writer than Peyrefitte - though the enormous popularity of both books shows that literary novels about schoolboy 'love affairs' were popular with French readers. But whatever was the case in 1969 when first published I doubt if the same could be said today. For a start no one in France reads de Montherlant anymore while only one of his novels remains in print in English (Chaos and Night). There are plenty of his novels translated into English and available second hand but I am afraid the days when UK or USA readers read foreign authors has long vanished. But the over riding problem is that we now know too much about the sexual abuse of adolescent boys by Catholic priests to ever read a novel like this with characters like the Abbe de Pradts and not feel uncomfortable.
I think for people today the distaste for the subject matter of the novel carries over to a distaste for those closeted grand French literary figures like de Montherlant and Julien Green who 'everyone' knew were queer or pederasts but nobody said anything (see my footnote *1 below). Now all the reality of de Montherlant's extensive secret homosexual affairs are known and it makes the unsympathetic reactions of Alban de Bricule - Motherlant's doppelganger in the novel - to a homosexual schoolmate deeply problematic; particularly as this was written sometime between 1967 and 1969.
Personally I rather enjoyed 'The Boys' - it is a fascinating insight into a different type of schoolboy erotic activity as opposed to what we read in English school stories - I intend to read more of de Montherlant - but I doubt he will ever recover his reputation in France, let alone Englsih speaking countries.
*1 Oddly enough Jean Cocteau, although equally closeted in many ways [he refused to acknowledge authorship of his early homosexual novel 'White Stains' although he included in his complete works].
"It is 1913. A group of senior students at a Catholic boys college in France take on certain juniors as protégés and carry on illicit affairs with them. The optimistic and naive Father Superior, Father de la Halle, allows this go on under his watch. However, scandal bubbles to the surface when Father de Pradts, a priest whose only interest is young boys (it is left ambiguous in the novel whether this is a purely platonic love or if it has.. other dimensions, so to speak) and who is also secretly an atheist, becomes jealous of the relationship of the senior Alban de Bricole and the junior Serge Souplier, who is Father de Pradts favorite. Father de la Halle finds himself forced to reform the college and butts heads with Alban's meddling mother, who is dying of tuberculosis, and senior student Linsbourg, who is driven only by pedophillic lust but has an influential father on the board of directors."
Which is both true but misses the point and I would draw your attention to the following:
'"Les Garcons" (The Boys in English) is a novel with a “vaguely” autobiographical basis, Montherlant wrote in Le Monde on April 12, 1969…
'He would later develop in detail the themes of his play *The City Whose Prince Is a Child* , published in 1951. These themes are adolescence at boarding school, moral reform, and sacrifice. In this novel, in addition to the school and its students, the characters of Madame de Bricoule, ill and soon to die, and Abbé de Pradts, an unbeliever who loves the boys in his care with a platonic love, are superbly described. Nowhere in this book does Montherlant mention any criminal acts allegedly committed by Abbé de Pradts against these young students.
'The first drafts of this book date from 1914. A first handwritten version was produced in 1947. The manuscript was completed twenty years later, between 1965 and 1967. It can be said that Montherlant worked on this book for fifty years. The complete version was published the year after his death. This novel should not be taken as a fully realized account of Montherlant's experiences. It is a work of fiction, in which Montherlant's imagination is given free rein.
'“Fiction writers never dare to take the plunge and frankly admit that their art is very similar to that of an actor. They create a character that they may be more or less themselves, that they may not be at all, but that they feel. The public doesn't grasp the role of imagination, of pure invention, in the work of a fiction writer, when he is truly a creator. Even Philippe de Saint Robert (…) seems to me to be venturing too far when he claims that I put a lot of myself into Alban and the Abbé de Pradts. That is only very vaguely autobiographical, and most often, not at all.” (Montherlant in Le Monde , April 13, 1969).
'Any sensible person should understand that in 1912, a Catholic school would never have tolerated this ballet of lovestruck boys, the "brothers" with all the intrigues, the seduction maneuvers, the protégés, the game of Tenderness, the numerous nicknames (Bonbon, Cuicui, Bébé, Jambes douces, Bibi Lolo, la Fauvette etc…)
'This is therefore a fictional story based on a real event: the tender affection of the young Montherlant (a 16-year-old philosophy student) for Philippe G. (aged 14). In the novel, it is Alban de Bricoule, “sixteen years and six months old, a notable of the school, and just beginning his philosophy studies,” the very good student, sensitive and conscientious, respectful of discipline, an only child, who discovers his first love in the person of Serge Souplier, the dunce, the cheeky, the eccentric and the lazy, “a boy of about fourteen (…) His hair falling over his forehead seemed to have never seen a comb in his life . ”
'Montherlant would never forget his first love. Loving the adult world, Montherlant created a fairy tale to serve as the setting for his first stirrings of emotion. He erased the grim atmosphere of the school, the old, poorly maintained buildings, the prefects, the discipline, and created an unreal, poetic world where some of the students became the characters in this love story.
'There is no suffering in this school, as long as this love is not thwarted by adults. Everything is idealized, everything is gentle. To take the story at face value shows a great deal of naiveté on the part of those who were not raised in the strict discipline of Catholic schools at the beginning of the century. While the subject of the book may seem risqué, there is never any vulgarity or gratuitous descriptions.
'The December 2006 issue of Magazine littéraire, number 459, in an issue dedicated to the 40 greatest books of the last 40 years of world literature, selects Montherlant and Les Garçons for the year 1969 (see also issue number 28 of May 1969 of Magazine littéraire ).
'Montherlant says in this interview that there are three subjects in his book:
'The story is that of an unbelieving priest who takes the tonsure while remaining an unbeliever, a rarely explored subject. This is the Abbé de Pradts, a complete atheist. This abbé feels a very strong, yet platonic, attraction to the boys he educates.
'The story of a mother and her son. The son is 16 years old in 1912. He is (Alban de Bricoule), the character from *Les Bestaires * and *Le Songe*. *Les Garçons* is thus part of a series of three books. The reader will discover the very tumultuous relationship between mother and son. Montherlant insists that Madame de Bricoule not be considered a model for his own mother. No connection whatsoever, he writes!
'The third subject is that of the play The City Whose Prince Is a Child, but this time treated for the novel, in depth and in detail, "taken completely from the inside".
'Montherlant always felt that his novel, despite its commercial success, had been misunderstood by the public. The description of Abbé de Pradts, a complex and unsettling character, in a cassock and an atheist, attracted to boys yet never engaging in sexual acts with them—at least, this is neither written nor suggested in the book—everything taking place in his mind, never having caused a scandal, and ending his life in the public eye as a good priest who remained faithful throughout! Montherlant achieved a masterful portrait. The pages on Madame de Bricoule, ill and dying, are worthy of an anthology of French literature. This book will only gain in importance with time. For it is very “modern” and very audacious despite its great restraint. And the style is admirable.'
[From: https://www.montherlant.be/biographie...]
'The Boys' by Motherlant although covering some of the same territory as 'Les Amitiés particulières' (1944) by Roger Peyrefitte is, as the above should make obvious, a much more complex novel in subject matter and intent and of course de Montherlant was a much better writer than Peyrefitte - though the enormous popularity of both books shows that literary novels about schoolboy 'love affairs' were popular with French readers. But whatever was the case in 1969 when first published I doubt if the same could be said today. For a start no one in France reads de Montherlant anymore while only one of his novels remains in print in English (Chaos and Night). There are plenty of his novels translated into English and available second hand but I am afraid the days when UK or USA readers read foreign authors has long vanished. But the over riding problem is that we now know too much about the sexual abuse of adolescent boys by Catholic priests to ever read a novel like this with characters like the Abbe de Pradts and not feel uncomfortable.
I think for people today the distaste for the subject matter of the novel carries over to a distaste for those closeted grand French literary figures like de Montherlant and Julien Green who 'everyone' knew were queer or pederasts but nobody said anything (see my footnote *1 below). Now all the reality of de Montherlant's extensive secret homosexual affairs are known and it makes the unsympathetic reactions of Alban de Bricule - Motherlant's doppelganger in the novel - to a homosexual schoolmate deeply problematic; particularly as this was written sometime between 1967 and 1969.
Personally I rather enjoyed 'The Boys' - it is a fascinating insight into a different type of schoolboy erotic activity as opposed to what we read in English school stories - I intend to read more of de Montherlant - but I doubt he will ever recover his reputation in France, let alone Englsih speaking countries.
*1 Oddly enough Jean Cocteau, although equally closeted in many ways [he refused to acknowledge authorship of his early homosexual novel 'White Stains' although he included in his complete works].
Read
January 13, 2018Oh, the splendor of youth, and the confusion of this book...
Two boys, their love, two priests, one driven by a faith that is almost inaccessible to the reader, the other an atheist with a propensity for boys, a school, a mother. Society, schoolmates, the Schola, the Protection. The purpose of love, helping someone getting better, becoming a better whatever, through (caste) caress under the benevolent eyes of your school master who is also a priest. Your widowed mother - raising her boy with a mix of love and cruelty.
The social background is correct - sketchy but accurate. The scandal is formed in the background, whips through the our hero's family, and finally bursts open - producing the consequences one would expect - because of the intervention of another parent - one who holds true leverage - he's rich and member of the board.
Love is a series of gestures and exclamation marks. Also conflict with mom is marked with similar punctuation.
I have some reserves regarding the translation. Because the narrative is a sway between the private point of view and the objective one, a translation should follow carefully. It doesn't. It loses subject, is loses meaning.
Two boys, their love, two priests, one driven by a faith that is almost inaccessible to the reader, the other an atheist with a propensity for boys, a school, a mother. Society, schoolmates, the Schola, the Protection. The purpose of love, helping someone getting better, becoming a better whatever, through (caste) caress under the benevolent eyes of your school master who is also a priest. Your widowed mother - raising her boy with a mix of love and cruelty.
The social background is correct - sketchy but accurate. The scandal is formed in the background, whips through the our hero's family, and finally bursts open - producing the consequences one would expect - because of the intervention of another parent - one who holds true leverage - he's rich and member of the board.
Love is a series of gestures and exclamation marks. Also conflict with mom is marked with similar punctuation.
I have some reserves regarding the translation. Because the narrative is a sway between the private point of view and the objective one, a translation should follow carefully. It doesn't. It loses subject, is loses meaning.
February 21, 2019
Henry de Montherlant: Serge or Alban? Legend has it that the author hid his indentity in one of The Boys. From playing innocently, hand holding, kissing on the face, to kissing on the mouth to kissing in the mouth while creating a philosophy of life, human nature, war. A beautiful read.
June 3, 2021
Acum patruzeci de ani, am petrecut câteva zile într-o mănăstire celebră. Prietenul care mă însoţea mă prevenise că se ştia destul de bine faptul că abatele era necredincios „sută la sută”. L-am văzut ţinând slujba, om la vreo şaizeci de ani, frumos, impozant şi inspirând prin tot aerul său respectul pentru religia pe care o slăvea în acest post de vază. Am fost foarte surprins. Alai pe urmă, nu doar una, ci trei sau patru persoane mi-au spus că abatele era ateu şi că se mărturisise cam cu jumătate de gură unei fiinţe care nu putuse rezista plăcerii josnice de a divulga un secret atât de adânc.
Un preot ateu mi se părea a fi un personaj minuna t. Mi-am propus să scriu romanul unui preot ateu, nu îndrăznesc să spun preot excelent, ci preotul care îşi îndeplinea până la capăt datoria întru binele supuşilor săi şi constanta lor lămurire. Era un subiect anume făcut pentru mine, eu, cel care simt creştinismul fără a avea şi credinţa. Încă din 1929 visam la moartea preotului meu care punea în cumpănă, în clipa de pe urmă, „da”-ul şi „nu”-ul, văzând că amândouă sunt în dreaptă măsură Aceasta a fost ideea care m-a stăpânit încă înainte de a împlini treizeci de ani: moartea creştină a unui preot necredincios este un subiect care trebuia să mă bântuie toată viaţa. Dar oare nu ne încurajează papa Leon al XIII-lea să cercetăm fără teamă chiar elementul uman din Biserică, întrucât Dumnezeu „nu are nevoie de minciunile noastre”?
Tot în 1929, fără îndoială fiindcă tocmai îmi recitisem, în vederea apariţiei în prima ediţie, piesa Exilul, fapt ce mă repusese în exprimarea dramatică, pe care o neglijasem într-atât din 1914, în acelaşi an 1929, am scris două piese, Cretanii şi Don Fadrique. Aveam în sertar versiunea copilărească de la Oraşul al cărui prinţ este un copil compusă la şaptesprezece ani.
Atunci a început să mă bântuie dorinţa sau mai degrabă pofta nestăpânită de a trata acelaşi subiect în formă romanescă şi în formă dramatică. Această muncă este pasionantă pentru un tehnician al artei scrierii. Şi apoi, romanul poate şi trebuie să meargă mai în adânc decât piesa, nefiind jenat nici de constrângerile de reprezentare, nici de necesitatea de a menaja o adunare (cât şi, bineînţeles, pentru că aici nu se pot spune decât jumătăţi de adevăr, însă jumătăţile de adevăr sunt suficiente. Am spus asta în scris destul de des). Pe care dintre piesele mele schiţate să le tratez şi ca roman? Oraşul se preta cel mai bine. Iar preotul meu ateu ar fi aici abatele de Pradts!
Un preot ateu mi se părea a fi un personaj minuna t. Mi-am propus să scriu romanul unui preot ateu, nu îndrăznesc să spun preot excelent, ci preotul care îşi îndeplinea până la capăt datoria întru binele supuşilor săi şi constanta lor lămurire. Era un subiect anume făcut pentru mine, eu, cel care simt creştinismul fără a avea şi credinţa. Încă din 1929 visam la moartea preotului meu care punea în cumpănă, în clipa de pe urmă, „da”-ul şi „nu”-ul, văzând că amândouă sunt în dreaptă măsură Aceasta a fost ideea care m-a stăpânit încă înainte de a împlini treizeci de ani: moartea creştină a unui preot necredincios este un subiect care trebuia să mă bântuie toată viaţa. Dar oare nu ne încurajează papa Leon al XIII-lea să cercetăm fără teamă chiar elementul uman din Biserică, întrucât Dumnezeu „nu are nevoie de minciunile noastre”?
Tot în 1929, fără îndoială fiindcă tocmai îmi recitisem, în vederea apariţiei în prima ediţie, piesa Exilul, fapt ce mă repusese în exprimarea dramatică, pe care o neglijasem într-atât din 1914, în acelaşi an 1929, am scris două piese, Cretanii şi Don Fadrique. Aveam în sertar versiunea copilărească de la Oraşul al cărui prinţ este un copil compusă la şaptesprezece ani.
Atunci a început să mă bântuie dorinţa sau mai degrabă pofta nestăpânită de a trata acelaşi subiect în formă romanescă şi în formă dramatică. Această muncă este pasionantă pentru un tehnician al artei scrierii. Şi apoi, romanul poate şi trebuie să meargă mai în adânc decât piesa, nefiind jenat nici de constrângerile de reprezentare, nici de necesitatea de a menaja o adunare (cât şi, bineînţeles, pentru că aici nu se pot spune decât jumătăţi de adevăr, însă jumătăţile de adevăr sunt suficiente. Am spus asta în scris destul de des). Pe care dintre piesele mele schiţate să le tratez şi ca roman? Oraşul se preta cel mai bine. Iar preotul meu ateu ar fi aici abatele de Pradts!
June 5, 2012
Très bien écrit
L'univers de l'adolescence est bien transcrit, avec les angoisses de la découverte de soi, de ses envies et de ses faiblesses / mensonges.
Je recommande ce livre à tous les rétrogrades encore critiques de la mixité à l'école!
Assez lent. Personnellement j'ai préféré la quadrilogie sur les femmes, que j'ai trouvé plus acerbe et mieux rythmée.
L'univers de l'adolescence est bien transcrit, avec les angoisses de la découverte de soi, de ses envies et de ses faiblesses / mensonges.
Je recommande ce livre à tous les rétrogrades encore critiques de la mixité à l'école!
Assez lent. Personnellement j'ai préféré la quadrilogie sur les femmes, que j'ai trouvé plus acerbe et mieux rythmée.
March 12, 2018
Un roman semble-t-il semi-autobiographique dont une partie de l'intrigue est basé sur l'histoire de la pièce La ville dont le prince est un enfant du même auteur. Le récit traine ici un peu plus en longueur.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews