Scan barcode
spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition
3.0
Can you, for a moment, imagine how depressing it is to teach five centuries of masculine ineptitude? Why do you think there are no women historians on TV? I’ll tell you why; because history is not such a frolic for women as it is for men. Why should it be, they never get around the conference table? In 1919, for instance, they just arranged the flowers, then gracefully retired. History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind. With the bucket. Now, Mr. Rudge. How do you define history?
sophiemgprice's review against another edition
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Have always loved the film of this play and listening to the audiobook was a lovely experience
lulahwithcon's review
4.0
fully convinced that rating plays just off of reading them is basically impossible but here i am doing it anyway. yes, I'm giving this four stars. no, i don't know if i actually enjoyed it.
woolfardis's review against another edition
5.0
[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
kshelena's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
hopeful
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
joypouros's review against another edition
2.0
At its least troubling, the play is about privileged young men who are trying to get into a good college. Not just good. Only the best will do. And it's full of quotes from poetry and literature. There's one whole scene that's predominantly in French. Ah, the witty banter of the elite intellectuals. Do we really need a play about that? Who is it serving? It's clearly not meant for a diverse audience.
And that's the best aspect of this play.
Now add in a teacher who is molesting the students and one student who is sleeping with the school secretary. And it's all done as a plot device or a punchline. No trauma. The students joke about it.
The boys seem to get along fine, with none of them really minding getting occasionally hit, or getting fondled by their teacher. One is gay, and they all seem to know that and tease him about his crush (another student) but they are all just a great group of friends.
I'd consider the dialogue to be an elistist version of Gilmore Girls - speaking in quotes and references.
Plot (WITH SPOILERS):
An older teacher, who molests the boys while "driving them home" on his motorcycle, teaches for the sake of education. He doesn't believe in teaching to pass an exam. They should learn for the love of it. The ambitious headmaster hires a younger teacher to help get the boys into better college, and his approach is to teach the boys how to say whatever will get them noticed in their essay - even if they don't believe it themselves. The lone female character is a teacher who believes in teaching more traditionally, and has a couple of controversial lines to make her seem important to the story. The teacher molesting the students is caught, and so is encouraged to retire early. Until the students convince the headmaster to let him stay.
The playwright intended for this to be about the purpose of education. How you teach it, what you take from it. It was supposed to focus on students who feel like the possibilities are endless and the teachers who have somehow found themselves going from those endless possibilities to the depressingly restrictive world of teaching students.
Parts are funny. Most of it's out of touch. It's not believable, but is entirely self-serving. And if you feel differently, just read the massive introduction where Alan Bennett discusses his college experience. It seems he believes in the good ol' days.
And that's the best aspect of this play.
Now add in a teacher who is molesting the students and one student who is sleeping with the school secretary. And it's all done as a plot device or a punchline. No trauma. The students joke about it.
The boys seem to get along fine, with none of them really minding getting occasionally hit, or getting fondled by their teacher. One is gay, and they all seem to know that and tease him about his crush (another student) but they are all just a great group of friends.
I'd consider the dialogue to be an elistist version of Gilmore Girls - speaking in quotes and references.
Plot (WITH SPOILERS):
An older teacher, who molests the boys while "driving them home" on his motorcycle, teaches for the sake of education. He doesn't believe in teaching to pass an exam. They should learn for the love of it. The ambitious headmaster hires a younger teacher to help get the boys into better college, and his approach is to teach the boys how to say whatever will get them noticed in their essay - even if they don't believe it themselves. The lone female character is a teacher who believes in teaching more traditionally, and has a couple of controversial lines to make her seem important to the story. The teacher molesting the students is caught, and so is encouraged to retire early. Until the students convince the headmaster to let him stay.
The playwright intended for this to be about the purpose of education. How you teach it, what you take from it. It was supposed to focus on students who feel like the possibilities are endless and the teachers who have somehow found themselves going from those endless possibilities to the depressingly restrictive world of teaching students.
Parts are funny. Most of it's out of touch. It's not believable, but is entirely self-serving. And if you feel differently, just read the massive introduction where Alan Bennett discusses his college experience. It seems he believes in the good ol' days.
esme_rose's review against another edition
emotional
funny
inspiring
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
asclepeion's review against another edition
3.75
read for school, surprisingly good. my thoughts as of now are in the journal on here.
leightonv's review against another edition
challenging
funny
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0