The Roses of Eyam (Heinemann Plays)

The only merit of 'The Roses' as a piece for children, I suppose, is that the parts are easy to play (with the possible exception of the Bedlam). They do not develop, and require no subtle acting skill. Youngsters can turn up on the night, say the lines, and the production will come off. Similarly, the script demonstrates many dramatic devices: the opening exophoric reference ˆ la 'Othello', pathetic fallacy, soliloquy, et al. Whilst useful for pedagogical purposes, these are included in a slapdash manner, merely to show what these techniques are. They are not employed to any theatrical or artistic effect.
Due to its overtly 'educational' nature, the play is automatically constrained to mediocrity. Although this is to its detriment as a serious work, it also means that it contains none of the interest or energy that appeal to students - some may even find it patronising - and so 'The Roses' fails in its intended aim via the 'mechanical' nature of its means.

Besides the flaws inherent in the educational approach, though, the whole play is sullied by the sheer banality of the writing. The conversations are wooden, lacking verbal interplay, and do not sound realistic (that is, for today - none of the characters speak in the dialect of the 17th Century, for understandable reasons). None of the speech sounds natural in its rhythms, merely monotonous, and the fact that there is no 'energy' behind the writing makes what at first might seem passable almost unbearable to listen to. Taylor's translation of Euripides' 'Iphigenia at Aulis' displays a similarly bad ear for dialogue - it is perfectly proficient, but has no impulse or power - and this is quite a disability for any playwright!
The actual speech aside, there is no dramatic tension at any point in the play. This is partly a product of the otiose prose, and partly one of bad construction. There are rivalries and growing fear amongst the characters, but none of it is displayed in a way that engages the audience (of all the devices that Taylor packs in, he ignores dramatic irony!). A chain of events unfolds before the audience in a literal, chronological fashion. From the structure as a whole down to the structure of individual exchanges, the guiding principle seems to be expediency - getting this scene out the way so as to get on to the next one - rather than good writing.

Of course, this will only ever be put on by amateur groups who aren't looking for a challenge, or in schools. Bored parents, numbed by the night-time temperatures in school halls, the tawdry plastic chairs and the whole miserable experience will greet it with perfunctory applause. This cynical view of school drama is not one that should be propagated, yet it will be the very result of teachers' choosing to put on 'The Roses of Eyam'.
If we wish to teach children what a soliloquy is, then we should show them one in the context of a serious play, not one that has merely been constructed for the purpose of showing what a soliloquy is! In a play with as little drama as this, the very effects that could be achieved with a soliloquy are eclipsed by an annotation in the margin: "This is a soliloquy."
Should we choose to introduce pathetic fallacy, we certainly can do better than the likes of, "A dark cloud has come over the sun. I fear there will be no more dancing today."
Above all, if we want to interest children in drama, then we should show them plays that are written well, that contain lively dialogue and subtle characterisation. These are not incompatible with an educational work. We should not underestimate the young in their capacity to interpret literature; we should challenge them and show them the satisfaction and insight that can be gained from a supposedly 'difficult' text.

You can't appreciate a good play until you've seen a bad one, so at least 'The Roses of Eyam' can remind you what literature should be about. Nevertheless, there's enough bad writing around as it stands!
Hence, I urge people who are thinking of using this play in schools to choose instead something engaging, packed with rich language, and - above all - fun, from the canon of great literature. I urge anybody else not to bother at all, and to read something worthwhile.

Also, the picture on the cover is frightfully bad.


Good, dramatic and well written play.   November 23, 2000
 8 out of 8 found this review helpful

This play is about a village in Derbyshire in 1665, and starts when a new, Royalist rector, William Mompesson is installed in the village. The old parliamentarian rector, Thomas Stanley still lives in the village and this causes a lot of tension. When a box of clothes arrives from London for the tailor, George Vicars, the clothes are wet so Vicars leaves them in front of the fire. The next day George Vicars dies of a mysterious disease with scabs on his body and a ring of red blotches on his neck. Over the next few months many more people die in the village, and it is a while before anybody realises that this disease is the plague, brought from London. The severity of the disease calls for the two rectors to come together as some of the villagers do not respect Mompesson, and want Stanley as their rector, and some villagers are the opposite. In the end, the village is enclosed for fourteen months to stop it spreading aroung the countryside.

The play is well written and historically accurate, encorporating a large cast that shrinks during the course of the play. It is quite heavy going, but there are characters and scenes that provide humour. It is easy to understand and written in modern day language, but this does not seem unappropriate when watching. The play is quite long when staged (about 2 1/2 to 3 hours) but as long as the audience is not too young, this is not too long. With good direction, this play can really grip the audience, and leave them sitting on the edge of their seats.


Deeply moving, touches the heart, written with shear talent.   March 11, 2000
 6 out of 8 found this review helpful

This is a true story of the village of Eyam stricken with the plague through the arrival from London of a box of dress patterns. Only very few people escape death. Each character comes to life off the page and the reader cries and laughs and is scared along with the character. Don Taylor is a talented and gifted writer, a writer who has touched my heart through his writing in this play. This is well worth reading or watch it being performed- I have done both. My eyes were fixed to the text throughout the script and Iwill read this again and again throughout my life. When performing this I could do nothing but feel it and thus, I am performing it in the festivals of festivals-Leeds:November 4,5,6,7 2000.