Retro Reads discussion

Book Five, The Hirren Minar.

I was ready to start this section when work got in the way. I am really surprised at how unputdownable this is for me, considering it wasn't that long ago I read it, and I do recall the ending.

Misfit wrote: "I was ready to start this section when work got in the way. I am really surprised at how unputdownable this is for me, considering it wasn't that long ago I read it, and I do recall the ending."

It's been decades since I read it, and about all I remembered was Winter's name and that it was pretty historically accurate. But, I agree, I'm finding it hard to put down!

The small portion devoted to Lottie's labor and the fact that the women had absolutely no idea of what to do (they had never even seen kittens born!)was poignant. Ignorance is never a good thing, and it is never bliss.

Karlyne wrote: "The small portion devoted to Lottie's labor and the fact that the women had absolutely no idea of what to do (they had never even seen kittens born!)was poignant. Ignorance is never a good thing, a..."

Poor Lottie.

Hey! I just realized that my book isn't following these headings! My Chapter 35 is entitled The Gulab Mahal and the entire novel finishes up with Chapter 37. Is this right, I hope?!?

Well, for Pete's sake! I just dragged out the giant copy of SotM that was given to me a few months ago and that I presumed was the large print version and it's dated 1979. The old copy that I just read has a published date of 1957 by Julian Messner. The newer version is definitely longer, and just thumbing through it, I see small scenes that were not in mine. Did Kaye revise it after the success of Far Pavillions? Research is in order...

Yes, she did! She put back all the stuff her editors took out.
I have both books too. The Messner starts, "The chill wind that was driving...", which is ch 6 in the 1979. I posted about it somewhere here. The page count here on GR for the Messner version is incorrect as well, but I don't know how to change it.

The page count in my Messner is 351.

Diane Lynn wrote: "The page count in my Messner is 351."

If you post the ISBN # or direct link to the Messner version, I'll fix the page count on the GR page for that edition.

Well, that certainly explains why I didn't understand the complaints about the history being dry! If I had time, I'd read them back to back, but I don't think I'm up for that at the moment...
My page count is 351, too. It's a good copy that was discarded by the Wallowa City library ages ago.
Well, this was a chuckle, anyway!

Misfit wrote: "Diane Lynn wrote: "The page count in my Messner is 351."

If you post the ISBN # or direct link to the Messner version, I'll fix the page count on the GR page for that edition."

I hope this works from my phone:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6...

iirc it doesn't have an isbn

It doesn't have an isbn because it's OLD!!! Oh, well, I really am still chuckling...

It does have a nice DJ with the little inset!
I've been reading the 2 versions together because I was curious what the editors did to it and why it didn't do well the first time.

Fixed.

Much thanks, Misfit. :)

No worries. I think it's time to revisit that gorgeous stepback.

Absolutely stunning!

Diane Lynn wrote: "Absolutely stunning!"

Isn't that a jaw dropper?

Diane Lynn wrote: "It does have a nice DJ with the little inset!
I've been reading the 2 versions together because I was curious what the editors did to it and why it didn't do well the first time."

Well, I wish I'd done that, too! I somehow missed where you'd commented on the different versions.

Karlyne wrote: "Diane Lynn wrote: "It does have a nice DJ with the little inset!
I've been reading the 2 versions together because I was curious what the editors did to it and why it didn't do well the first time...."

Well I can't locate it, could be I dreamed I commented, or possibly it was a status update!

I did find a note on the wiki page about it being published in 1950-whatever and revised in 1979 so I ran with that in the librarian's notes.

Diane Lynn wrote: "Karlyne wrote: "Diane Lynn wrote: "It does have a nice DJ with the little inset!
I've been reading the 2 versions together because I was curious what the editors did to it and why it didn't do well..."

That makes me feel better, not quite so oblivious!

This may have already been posted, but does mention how her book was edited.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obitu...

Sorry if it's a repeat.

Diane Lynn wrote: "This may have already been posted, but does mention how her book was edited.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obitu...

Sorry if it's a repeat."

Nope, that was a different obit for me, and it explained a lot. It mentioned, also, that she had written The Ordinary Princess- which I had completely forgotten about. My daughters adored that book!

You know, I'm not ordinarily in favor of heavily editing an author's work (it has to be infuriating!), but I really thought that the version I just read was pretty close to perfect. I guess I really will have to read the longer version.

It can be interesting comparing revised books side by side. Try getting a hold of the original Bantam edition Redeeming Love and compare it to the sanitized version from Multnomah Press.

I just got to this section and I'm confused. My version was published in 1956 and republished in 1979 and runs 612 pages without the notes.

Hana wrote: "I just got to this section and I'm confused. My version was published in 1956 and republished in 1979 and runs 612 pages without the notes."

You have the complete book as MM Kaye intended it, Hana. The 1956 version is much shorter. Maybr I don't understand what confuses you?

No, it's all clear now, thanks, Diane Lynne. I just had to read the comment thread and the link more carefully.

I agree, it is confusing!

Have we figured out what parts were taken out of the original edition?

I'm still reading both of them. The order is definitely different. The 1956 version starts with Alex arriving at Ware.

Misfit wrote: "Have we figured out what parts were taken out of the original edition?"

Update on 1956 vs 1979 versions.

Reading side by side I have completed chapter 14 in the 1979 book which corresponds to chapter 8 in the 1956 book. Overall I can say no big scenes were taken out but just about every scene is condensed. The order is also different in the two books but doesn't affect the overall plot.

A few examples of the editing:

Paragraphs edited out:
In the 1979 book, the ship visits Malta and Winter goes out on her nighttime jaunt and ends up on the wall overhearing Kishan Prasad's conversation, then Alex has her on the ground and the dog comes snuffling around, then the dog chases after a cat. The 3 paragraphs on the dog and Winter's thoughts are not in the 1956 book. There are lots of examples like this where a scene is shortened but doesn't change the storyline.

Descriptive wording removed:
From page 182 in 1979 book:
"Alex had learned patience with much else from the East, and he sat relaxed and silent; watching the shadows lengthen and the smoke from his cigarette rise unwaveringly into the quiet air. He knew that Niaz would speak when he wished to and not before."

page 98 in 1956 book:
"Alex had learned patience with much else from the East, and he knew that Niaz would speak when he wished to-and not before."

I'll chime in again if any big scenes are missing. I personally prefer the longer version, it's just more in depth to me.

Thanks for doing the comparison.

You are welcome. I also was very curious about the differences.

Diane Lynn wrote: "You are welcome. I also was very curious about the differences."

I did that with the original Bantam edition of Redeeming Love and the sanitized one frlm Multnomah Press. Wow.

I didn't know of this editing. Must go check my version now, hadn't even paid attention to the publication date of my copy.

Update: My copy is from 1979, blister it! :'(

The 1979 is the full version. You should be good to go, Marquise. :)

Oh, thank you, thank you.

*kisses Diane's hand*

I was about to lament that I'd likely have to get the older copy now... :D

Wow, Diane Lynn! That one comparative sentence is a perfect example of how not to edit a talented writer. ...he sat relaxed and silent; watching the shadows lengthen and the smoke from his cigarette rise unwaveringly into the quiet air. That simple phrase gives the reader such a sense of place, but also such a visceral feeling that Alex is a well-rooted part of the land of India.

Isn't it mind boggling? That's just one of many such edits. Yes, the plot is the same but the sense of place and feelings of the characters are altered to a great extent.

So happy I picked up the unabridged edition.

So in Chapter 43, re Conway: (view spoiler)[ I assume he had a heart attack or a stroke. Any other thoughts? He's achieved the unenviable status as one of my most hated characters in any book! (hide spoiler)]

So frustrating how none of the British commanding officers would listen to Alex. The impending doom, and they're paralyzed with their other concerns and fears.

I love how Lou Cottar has come through in a pinch.

Also, maybe I missed this, but I assume a mugger is an alligator or crocodile?

Mugger - that would be my assumption.

Conway was the worst of the worst.

Tadiana ✩ Night Owl☽ wrote: "So in Chapter 43, re Conway: [spoilers removed]

So frustrating how none of the British commanding officers would listen to Alex. The impending doom, and they're paralyzed with their other concerns..."

And they were all so sure that not only were they in command of the situation, but that everyone loved them. Delusional?

The mugger is a type of freshwater crocodile, also called the Indian or marsh crocodile. The males can grow up to 15 or 16 feet long.

Tadiana ✩ Night Owl☽ wrote: "The mugger is a type of freshwater crocodile, also called the Indian or marsh crocodile. The males can grow up to 15 or 16 feet long.

"

Oh, great. Thanks for the nightmares.

Karlyne wrote: "Tadiana ✩ Night Owl☽ wrote: "So in Chapter 43, re Conway: [spoilers removed]

So frustrating how none of the British commanding officers would listen to Alex. The impending doom, and they're paraly..."

Re Conway: (view spoiler)[Weren't you disappointed by Conway's death? I was hoping that the mutineers would give him his own private Cawnpore! It's so unfair that sweet little Sophie Abuthnot dies such a horrific death and Conway, criminally stupid ass that he is, merely has a run-of-the-mill heart attack. Sure, it's brought about by mental anguish, but he really deserved a healthy dose of physical anguish as well! (hide spoiler)]

The scenes of the mutiny and the fates of the British prisoners are tough to read. The British certainly mishandled everything, and shouldn't have been there, but hacking unarmed women and children, even infants, to pieces? Hard to comprehend. Of course, that also caused many supporters of the mutiny to abandon the cause. Still--it just boggles the mind that anyone could do that.