Angus StewartSandel

Sandel is an odd book. On one hand, it is a fairly unflinching look at a man and boy who share a tight bond of affection in a world that judges such things as inherently wrong. The good part about the book is that the author doesn't try to convince you that this is either a good thing or a bad thing; he places the protagonist (the man) a bit at odds with a good friend who very effectively plays devil's advocate with him and the jury is still out at the end of the book.Now what I didn't like about the book... Besides the circumstances of the boy being a bit fantastic, the book simply ended with nothing learned by anybody. Worse than that, it seemed like the author simply gave up at the climax of the story and ended it in a few paragraphs. The story is divided into three "books", but "book 3" is only seven pages long. The ending didn't even make sense; it was just kind of dropped. It was on the way to saying something profound perhaps, but it never got there.Another problem with the story (from my perspective) was that the author is from Great Britain. A great deal of the writing uses British phrases that mean something quite different in US English; so many of the passages that may have been enlightening to British readers appeared to me to be non-sequiturs or simply confusing. This seemed to happen at a number of pivotal points in the story; I couldn't determine if the author was being concise or whether he was indulging in the poor assumption that the reader must necessarily come to the same conclusion that he had, when in fact he was simply being lazy and unclear.

Besides dealing with a subject which is, rightfully, anathema today (child sexual abuse), although it was apparently less controversial when the novel was first published in the sixties, SANDEL is not particularly well-written or portrayed. There are, to be fair, quite sonorous sections but there are also sections that are confusing from a point of view/perspective situation.The main character - a young boy at first so charming, open and expressive - devolves into pettiness and the plot tumbles with him; the behavior of both 13-year-old Tony and 19-year-old David, especially when the latter takes up his position as a teacher, is deplorable, regardless of which decade / era it portrays."Ah - but it's just fiction, a cute love story, a reflection of more innocent times..." Not so. I am liberal, open-minded and gay, but still am be convinced that in the 20 and 21 centuries a decent novel must reflect at least a modicum of morality and realistic (not to say normative) behavior.Young love can indeed be sweet and, even if not sexually innocent, can perhaps be moving, and the first half of this book reads just so. But, although the love might be real, mutual and somewhat socially/ethically acceptable in its time and circumstance (the British prep school with all its covert sex and implied transgressions), when a young man takes up the mantle of a teacher and carries on so deplorably with the head boy, it is tough to defend or portray this in any tolerable manner. Stewart tries, but fails to do so. Much better for similar subject matter is Campbell's "Lord, Dismiss Us."

You could write a book about the characters and activities of young boys and men building friendships and relationships amid the staff oversight and educational adventures as secrets and stories are woven to obscure reality and desire. No one is safe and rumors are more rampant then the lion on a coat of arms. Church obligations and mysterious ceremonies are shrouded in tradition and symbology to meet the young boys committed to the rules to avoid punishment. Only the swallow Byrd can escape in his drugged state. Everyone else goes thru the motions repeatedly and unemotionally if the barrel is full.

Unless one was around in the sixties and went through the English education system as it was then you would probably struggle to understand why this book was deemed unpublishable when it was written. You might interpret this story as a tale of tender young love or be disgusted by the concept of an older youth captivated by one under age. Whatever your point of view I think the remarks of one American reader who could not get to grips with this book are harsh and unwarranted. Put into the context of when this was written and maybe still even today, many would be appalled at the feelings David has for Tony and vice versa. But the book and the two protagonists keep their respectability throughout - would they if it was written today ? - even when David asks Tony to undress for a photo session. It is always the younger Tony who has the salacious thoughts yet the story line remains proper and restrained. If there is any part of the book that I did not enjoy it was the ending - inconclusive but then David is.

In the current climate it is very difficult to justify Ancient Greek style love between a pubescent boy (Anthony 13) & an older man (David 19) set in the modern day (well, the sixties); however, unlike some modern day paedophiles who seek to justify their acts, Stewart manages to avoid the issues and produce a work of real quality that is spoilt by its occasional descent into pure narrative than a love story. Bruce, David's long term friend from prep school provides the balance - though I found the Jesuitical angle a little implausible but that is looking at the book in the twenty-first century. There are overtones of Mann's Death in Venice but here the book describes not so innocent activities born from the fact that David failed to commit to a similar relationship at his public school & the younger boy committed suicide. One could argue about the subject matter but in the story there is absolutely no doubt that orphan Anthony is the dominant character but in this modern day I think no one could except behaviour that goes further than paternal/fraternal love.

I believe this is considered a 'Gay Classic' from the times prior to our 'liberation' . While it is erotic in places it's not overly so, with a huge amount left to the reader's imagination. I was confused by the ramblings at the start of David's university career and the constant interruptions of his friend with unhelpful suggestions, as to finding religion as a panacea to his mental wondering. It may have been typical of university thinking in England at that time, but was decidedly foreign to my thoughts as I struggled to find myself. I suffered from a good Scottish Presbyterian upcoming, which didn't consider homosexuality as a possibility, not in mid 1960's. Tony is definitely a manipulative young man, while David is decidedly unsure, however by the final chapters all seems well. Until the final accident at the airport, which leads to everything going astray. The story ends poorly at Glenelgin school, which incidentally sounds very similar to certain school which had Prince Charles as a pupil, with Tony, reluctantly, declaring undying love for David, while still saying he might experiment first ! Odd.

This novel has almost cult status in certain quarters despite the book being out of print since the early 70s (and second hand copies going for hundreds if not thousands of pounds). I am so glad that someone has had the guts to republish this book as there is absolutely nothing to be afraid of in it at all. The topic of an older boy (for at 19 I think one is still a boy despite having one's majority) and a younger one has been done to death in countless books and is something that is natural given that many boys in their teens are still coming to terms or experimenting with their sexuality. This book shows this and does it in a touching, unpatronising and amusing way. While the text does not leave one in any doubt as to the state of the boys' relationship there is nothing graphically sexual here at all. It merely portrays two very close friends who are frank with each other and obviously love each other very much. It is this friendship and intimacy that shines through rather than any sexual exploits designed to shock, although the author does use the device of an old schoolfriend of the protagonist who is receiving instruction from the Jesuits (rather ironic I think) to shine some doubt on his motives. Anyway I will not go on as I do not want to spoil the enjoyment of this wonderful book for the potential reader.If nothing else it paints a beautifully evocative picture of Oxford and Christchurch. I went up there this summer was surprised at how accurate the book was in its description. In fact I think this book has the power to change minds and make a good case for the subject in minds liberal and balanced to give it a read. It certainly goes a long way towards answering some of the current hysteria. However I am surprised the mainstream media did not latch on to the production of the play on the Edinburgh Fringe (that inspired this re-print) and cause a fuss in the way they did when Stephen Fry's short play LATIN! was performed there some years ago. Anyway thanks to the publisher for re-issuing this. I am sure a lot of people will be very happy once the word gets out and many more people, who have heard about this book but could not afford it until now, will hopefully get a chance to read it.

I bought this exact volume when I was a young teenager and it meant so much to me for years. I treasured the book and it always looked band new - then it disappeared! When I saw this listed as a download I bought it and delighted in being able to read it again. However, the impression it made on me as a young teenager was no longer present and whilst it is an interesting story I saw rather too many flaws in the simple plot that were just not credible - oh the pain of getting older and cynical. Even so, was worthwhile reading again even though the price was ludicrously high for a download.

Having just finished reading this rather strange book – indeed persevering with it until the end – I felt quite disturbed. I also found the writer’s style quite difficult to follow and also the sense of the dialogue which was often disjointed and did not flow. At times I had to read a passage twice and was left feeling….uh??? I could relate to the story’s background having been a chorister and organist myself with a deep interest in church and classical music and could see how the mutual attraction between Tony and David sprang into being. However when David moved into the choir school as a teacher, then the story lost me. For instance the incident with the pocket knife with which Tony injured David was left hanging in the air….was there no retribution? The boy seemed to run the place - to come and go as he pleased, the staff appeared ineffectual and blinkered. And the ending was weird.I tried to like this book I really did, but I think I must have missed something somewhere judging by the glowing comments from other reviewers. The product description tells us…. “On both sides of the Atlantic, 'Sandel' became formative reading for a generation of boys growing up in the 1970s who knew their feelings fell outside the heterosexual male stereotype, and it remains a gay cult novel today, with prices on Amazon reaching thousands of dollars a copy.” Goodness knows then what teenagers made of it.

I am not going to try to compete with the existing reviews it would be a waste of time. I simply wanted to say that the aunts attitude is wise. She realized that what was happening was essentially harmless and that the protagonists would grow up, tire of one another and move on with their lives. Moreover, that would happen sooner rather than later if she simply let them work through it in their own way. In our time we have become obsessed with such relationships, involving people of different ages, which in times passed were if not condoned, were at least tactfully ignored. I can't help but think much of this is simply down to sexual jealousy dressed in the clothing of morality and happily endorsed by the religious where in fact these relationships are as often found as elsewhere.