I dont know what it is about these books, but there's something.... that i just purely enjoy about them. The swash buckling, old school hand-to-hand fighting of monsters and devil spawn is just awesome. I feel my 13 yr old boy (don't lie everyone has one - no matter your actual gender) come out and cheer in delight every time an amazing feat is committed in the nick of time to stop the good guys from getting be-headed or skewered, though i must admit quite a few good guys went down in this book - at least 4, 5? but that just adds to the feeling or dread and excitement!!

 

Armand the french duelist is by far my favorite character, every time he's in a scene, getting into mischief or boasting his good looks, i feel my self smiling in delight. He's just such a character! and he's well rounded, while he's fighting skills may be at times unbelievable, he's not the best, he has his moments of weakness, and he hides behind a front of french courtliness, claiming how all the ladies chase after him, but when the time calls for it he's savage and loyal and wise. pretty sure I'm in love with a fictional character that spends a good chunk of his time flapping around a handkerchief (how low i have fallen - i need to read more cassie palmer books, and rekindle my mental affair with pritkin.....lol).

The main character of this book, Jakob is also pretty great, its fun to run around as him, he's young and not always brave but he is loyal and smart (though i totally figured out the puzzle before him! Yes I'm proud of that, don't judge me) and resourceful, his faith in god and his brothers-in-arms is admirable (plus with this shit he's seen i can't blame him!) he's just a really good lad, and you can see him - as a character - just brimming with potential. I also really appreciated the add of a great female character in this book - who was seen as a crucial part of the team, while being not only exceptionally clever, could kick ass better than jakob. which is impressive due to the era this book takes place in.

 

Speaking of which, the setting for this book is fantastic! i love how it is set so many years ago, where the thought of terrifying creatures from hell is actually (somewhat) believable, and they don't have the modern weapons to fight the monsters with, that we today do, and there for must use what is at hand with the best of their ability, its incredible to read about. I'm alsi a big fan of how its set with the holy roman empire in mind, and that for the most part the book is set in German, or references to it (this particular book was set physically else-where, a tomb in fact, riddle with traps! - that held all the artifacts of god - but the feeling of German-ness? never left) though it does complicate things when it comes to names. I for one have difficulty keeping track of who was who due to the unusual names and my inability to pronounce them, well the sir names - which they mainly use to refer to people - their first name (which i wish they used much more frequently) are much easier to keep track of! 

 

Anyways I'm rating this book 4 stars, my review, my rating > due to the fact that i had a blast reading it. It was fun, adventurous, puzzling and death-defying set in a period where witches and the undead seem much more reasonable and tangible. What more could i ask for??

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/39431060

Bennett at his best: witty, erudite and controversial.

This play is set in the 1980s in a boys’ grammar (selective state) school 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.

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.”

Parts are laugh-out-loud funny (Rudge defining history as “just one fucking thing after another”), whilst other parts are sad or troubling, most obviously the difficult question of 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?

A wonderful quote that I failed to note down, but then picked up from Ana's excellent review of Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four" (http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/500035264?utm_content=A&utm_medium=email&utm_source): “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.

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 in my book What Pooh Might Have Said to Dante and Other Futile Speculations