The History Boys

In this essay I shall be comparing Tristam Hunts critique of The History Boys to Micheal Billingtons critique of The History Boys. Hunts thesis is that The History Boys though a good play “it’s satire is misplaced” (Hunt,P1) and is a lot more negative about the text. This is in contrast to Billington who writes nothing but positive things about The History Boys but also has a romanticised view of what the play means and he writes; “It’s not just about history. It also makes it” (Billington P1) which is a grand statement. One big difference between the two critical approaches is that one is from a literary critic and the other a theatrical critic so they will both be looking for different things in the text and would have experienced it in different ways.
Tristan Hunts analysis takes a more factual approach than Billingtons article, he goes into details about statistics about the education system stating; “A Recent study by the school of economics of eight comparative countries closely correlated social mobility with educational attainment – and put Britain lower than anywhere except the US” (Hunt P2). This gives the article a less emotional approach than Billingtons, but also backs up one of the main themes of The History Boys which is the elitism that exists in the school system. This can be seen in The History Boys when the headmaster says ; “Well taught, indubitably. But a little… ordinaire?” (The History Boys P9) which reflects the headmasters scepticism that these boys from this working class background though smart are too dull and not well bred enough for a Oxbridge education.
Even though Hunts review is a lot more fact based than Billingtons it still has very strong opinion though he says that he enjoys the play and he refers to it’s “brilliance” (p1 Hunt). He has strong objections with some of the ways that Bennet portrays the education system when he writes “Bennet seems off-beam” (Hunt p3) he tells us if we didn’t have the education system the way it was then we would have the “Patriotic narrative” that happens round the world. One of the strongest statements that he makes when analysing the play is calling the villain of the play Mrs Lintott who is the only strong female character in the book. Hunt says that Mrs Lintotts classes “neither inspired nor revolted”(P4,Hunt). I think this is not the way she was meant to be portrayed in The History Boys as I think in the book she is meant to be portrayed as an unappreciated character which you can see when she snaps at the boys saying “History is women following behind with the bucket” (P85,The History Boys). This portrays a character who is doing as much as she can but is now wary of life and doesn’t actually believe that the social structure will allow these boys to follow there dreams of an Oxbridge education.
Hunts review is much more of a literary review compared to Billingtons review. Billington is a theatre critic while Hunt is a literary critic and you can tell this from the way they approach the play. As the book is a play you would expect the theatre review to have the most authority but in my opinion the literary review has the most authority and the one I would select out of the two. This is because Billingtons review of the play is romanticised and at times he is almost gushing; “The History Boys defies categorisation” (p3,Billington). He acts more like a fan and a fan cannot be seen to subjective on the subject matter. He tells us that Bennet shows us; “Teaching at its best” which I disagree with because I feel that The History Boys tells us about the pressures and what is wrong with the school systems as they focus on only getting the best grades instead of actually producing a love for learning. This can be seen in The History boys when Hectors lessons are called by Dakin “A waste of time” (P41,The History Boys). This is a reflection of Irwins teaching style who represents the modern, no nonsense approach to teaching where as Hector is far more interested in the romance of literature and the joy of learning for the sake of learning. Alan Bennet even says that he has “No nostalgia for my Oxford Days” (P5,Alan Bennet London Review Of Books) and so I think in The History Boys he was trying to make a point about how the fact that the Oxbridge system is isn’t as fulfilling as it makes out to be if you don’t enjoy what you are doing. This reflects negatively on Billingtons review because he states in the first paragraph that he was public schooled so it comes across that he has a jaded romanticised view of what the grammar school life was like.
Micheal Billington does portray Hector is a positive light which is reflective of what I think Bennet was trying to achieve in the book. He talks about “Heroic Hector” (p1,Billington)and the use of alliteration has placed him as a tragic hero especially with his death in the end it was like he sacrificed his happiness for the education of these boys. Overall I feel like Billington makes some very valid points about how the mood of the piece is but he is jaded by being a big fan of Bennets work already.
In class I feel that through class discussions that a lot of my opinions of characters in the play have changed and I have given some characters more of a chance like Irwin and Dakin who before I little sympathy for but through listening to peoples opinions in class I have changed my views.
In conclusion I feel that the two pieces are both praising of the play overall but Tristan Hunts had a lot more negative connotations and in my opinion a lot more honest about the school system where as Billington speaks like he knows a lot about the school system when in my opinion he had a fantasy view of what things were like. I also think that Hunts version had more authority as it had some facts and statistics in it where as Billingtons critique was a lot more emotional.





:)