How do you rate the book?

What you wrote is exactly what I think :)

I read this book during the winter because a lot of people in here were like: "That's an awesome movie and the book is my favorite childhood [book]!" and such stuff so I went through it. Then I had to do a summary and a review of a book for my English course and so I decided to choose TBSD and it came that way:(quoting myself)

"I expected TBSD to be much more interesting really. Perhaps does it lack "action" because it is almost exactly taken from Thomas Hughes's own misadventures at Rugby when he was young, but I reckon he should have pepped up the real things a little bit more.

First, I don't know if it is due to the fact that it was written 150 years ago, but some parts are pretty long and dull. There are a lot of never-ending descriptions about places (like 3 kilometers around the boy's house or the school), even about places where the characters don't go in the story or about things that have no importance at all, in all the possible and impossible details.

Second, the narrator is taking too much place in the story. He is always commenting and explaining everything (even if his explanations are sometimes welcome, especially concerning pastimes and games of the period such as back-swording and old rugby). Of course, the atmosphere, the realities and the customs of the Victorian era are well portrayed, but it becomes very heavy to read.

Also, the author is always drifting away from the story on religious and philosophical matters and it gets annoying. His radical positions and ideas about education are very clear and he seems to enjoy moralizing his readers (but we do not enjoy being moralized ^_^).

Still, TBSD contains very fine statements and opinions and it advocates beautiful values such as loyalty, friendship, family, courage, honesty and fairness. In truth, this book gets better from reading to reading, maybe because I know which parts to skip (true. lol :P) and because I'm getting more and more fluent in English. There are moving moments that I liked particularly, for example when Tom and the Squire part (the young lad wants to hug his father but he has made a stipulation concerning affectionate demonstrations). It's pretty cute ^_^...

In conclusion, except for the writing "style" and tedious passages, TBSD is not so bad and it shows perfectly how things worked and were in the "old time" from the point of view of someone who lived in that period what's more. We learn a lot about the origins of sports like rugby, cricket and "hare and hounds" and about early British customs."


So yeah, that's it. The book is OK when you cut down all descriptions and dull passages, but still, I find that it really misses "action". Hughes concentrated too much on the details when he should have worked more on the plotline. In fact, we do not get to know Tom very well, Hughes always skipping from year to year until he leaves Rugby (but we don't see him evolve much) and it's more of a "I-tell-you-my-life-even-if-it's-dull-and-I-don't-make-any-efforts-to-enhance-it" story. I hope the movie's better...
Isa

I've read this many times (for the poster below looking for the 'correct' copy, it's downloadable from the internet, as it's now in the public domain), and have it on my Palm Pilot (I was playing around with the download site). It's a very quick read, barely a novella.

I happen to think it's a very good work, if not at the very top tier of Thackeray, Richardson, or Dickens. I think it's important to remember how early this work really is. It is seminal to so many successive 'bildungsroman' themed books. It also clearly comes out of the tradition of the English gentleman, who might publish a detailed account of his 'Grand Tour' of Europe or a personally published memoir of his life. An activity that was quite common in that era. Sometimes, one can even find these books, essentially 'vanity press,' personally published books, in used bookstores.

The Rugby match is a bit 'boring,' but obviously essential as the sport was actually invented at Rugby (hence the name of the sport). It also serves as exposition to various characters, the roles they play, the hierarchy of the school, and the import of sport.

I thought this version was fairly decent. As mentioned, it was definitely harder-edged than the earliest B&W version (1939 I think). I haven't seen the 1951 version, so I can't judge that. However, I could quibble with some of the changes made to the story.

SPOILERS:

The subplot of Flashman's ravishing of the porter's daughter was unnecessary; but I guess it ups the ante in a day that doesn't quite get the 'fagging' experience or the impact of the hazing.

In the book, Arthur doesn't die from influenza or fever; another boy does. It also drops a fairly important character in Martin, who helps Arthur bond with Tom Brown.

This is probably the rare movie where it could easily have used 120 minutes plus. I do think Pettyfer did a very good job in portraying the early callowness, development, and maturity of Tom Brown; and Stephen Fry was his usually excellent self.

It was Karl Marx and Frederick Engels who wrote that line about the workers of the world uniting in 1848 in "The Communist Manifesto", not Lenin.

Blaine in Seattle

I agree. The book was very dull and the movie kept the same, plot but added so much more to make it interesting.

Idiots are fun. No wonder every village wants one.

I absolutely adored the book! In fact, I had to find the sequel and read it also before I could get a good night's sleep (I also loved it - much tighter and faster paced) Of course there are some slow parts that can be skipped on second readings (what Victorian novel doesn't have these - especially Dickens and Bronte? But otherwise I find the book full of humor charm and surprising spiritual insights. This would be on my "must read list" for sure!