The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the weeks of September 21st - September 27th, we are reading BOOK ONE: 1945 -Section Two - Journeys Into Uneasy Directions - Chapters One,Two. and Three ~ A Division of the Spoils -Book IV,(pg. 115-152).

The fourth week's reading assignment is:

WEEK FOUR- September 21st - September 27th ~ PART ONE: Section Two ~ Journeys Into Uneasy Distances (pg. 115- 152)

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off on August 31st.

We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle. Make sure to pre-order now if you haven't already. This weekly thread will be opened up on September 21st.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Jill will be leading this discussion and back-up will be Bentley.

Welcome,

~Bentley

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Paul Scott

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how to cite books:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Introduction Thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Table of Contents and Syllabus

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Bibliography

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...


Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

by Paul Scott

Chapter Overview and Summary

Sarah and her father are on the train back home to Ranpur when the news of America's use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima is reported. Sarah feels relief although she says later that she had moral reservations but that the short term was the important thing. Her father would be saved from further service as it appears that the war would now be over.

She and her father feel a closeness that did not exist before but he has never questioned her about things that would affect his life.....the death of Teddy, Susan's mental condition, his grandson. She is not sure what he can take in after his years as a POW. He wishes to drive to the cottage as if he was coming home for breakfast. As they near the cottage, he decides that he wants to walk.

Sarah muses on what her Mother has done to Rose Cottage and is saddened that it has lost its charm and history. She walks around to the back garden and sees Susan, the baby Edward, and the amah. Colonel Layton comes out with his wife and embraces them all as Susan cries. He also welcomes the new dog, Panther II.

Nigel Rowan has come to Government House to fulfill some obligations and receives a letter from Sarah. She had been told by the hospital where Barbie Batchelor died that there were some issues regarding Barbie that needed attention. Sarah has no idea what the issues are and asks Nigel to get in touch with the hospital to ascertain the concern and get back to her.

Discussion

Colonel Layton seems to have survived his time as a POW better than I would have expected. So many men came back from captivity a physical and psychological mess and Colonel Layton had served time in solitary confinement. It appears that his emotions are somewhat dulled but since we really never knew him from the other books in the series, it is hard to know what after effects we may see in the future.

Folks we are open - what do you think you viewed as the effects of being in solitary confinement that Colonel Layton exhibited. There were quite a few things that I noticed - what about you?

Did you feel that some of these tics would be long lasting or just the immediate result of being locked up and now finally being released and being back to his old life?

How do you think he is going to fare with his wife after being away given the circumstances. ?

Do you think there is any symbolism attached to the new dog Panther II.

What do you make of Nigel Rowan - I thought he was a good fellow but rather an odd duck in his own way. On one hand I thought he really liked Sarah but on the other hand he never seemed to be able to express his interest in any romantic way. Did you think he was more caught up in his career versus any romantic interest?

And what is your take on Sarah (the responsible one)?

Please jump into the discussion while Jill is away.

At that point in the book, I couldn't decide who I wanted for Sarah more - Perron or Rowan. Both seem like great guys, but Rowan is of higher rank. How much does that count with Sarah?

Interesting about the POW experience. I didn't think of that angle at all.

I could never quite figure Sarah out - because she seemed to me to have both a public and a private persona and was able to compartmentalize both very well. And she could certainly keep secrets and did. So who would appeal to the public Sarah (Rowan) but who I think appeals to the private Sarah (Perron). Maybe in time she will be able not to feel that she has to keep both sides of her psyche separate.

I for one do not think that Colonel Layton came out of his POW experience unscathed. What are you thoughts Kressel - of course - I do not remember being given a close up picture of what Layton was before - but I do think he has some emotional scarring now.

I don't have my copy handy, but if you have some quotes to share, go right ahead.

Well when you do - just reread some of the comments made about Layton and his idiosyncrasies etc. I am more interested in what others have seen or felt about what they read.

All, let me know what you would like to discuss from pages 115 to 152.

Would anybody like to discuss Churchill and Gandhi or Lord Mountbatten or Nehru or any of the other real figures of these time periods? Maybe their attitudes (pro or con).

Would like to get a bit of a discussion going on these pages or the Indian history in general which is a backdrop to the book itself and these pages.

Remember that in the previous books we read about the growing nationalism in India; there are Ghandi's demands; there is rioting; there is violence; there is bloodshed.

Now the focus is more sharply on the Indian leaders: Ghandi, Nehru, Jinnah; Kasim (fictional), Bose. All of them wanted independence for India but disagreed violently on how to achieve it most expeditiously.

What Kasim wanted most and believed to be an absolute requirement was India united - He wanted unity between Hindus and Muslims -- which was never going to happen. In fact, there was even a split in his family.

Instead, the country was partitioned in a little over two years later on August 1947. This is certainly not a spoiler because we know the history of the India before even reading the Raj. What is fascinating about this Quartet and equally spell binding is the story from Scott's vision of how the British and India got to that point and through the characters we are learning the British viewpoint as seen through their words and actions.

India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amnev...

India & Pakistan Separation 1947
World's Largest Migration of Human Beings on Earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqIy_...

Thinking about your reading so far - was there anything that could have been done that was not and was the path that the country of India is going down right now in these pages inevitable - was there anything that could have been done differently? What was the psyche of all of these men - how were they the same and how were they different? Was it fate that India and Pakistan would separate from your viewpoint? Why or why not? Let us focus briefly on the Indian side of the equation and its leaders (real and fictional). And if the Indian leaders (any of them - real or fictional) had a crystal ball - would any of them do you think have changed their positions or done something differently?

The passage immediately preceding this where Perron scribbles his thoughts on England and India leads directly into the chapter Journeys into the Uneasy Distances.

The point to Perron's scribbling is "to reveal the point reached in a continuum he was sure existed but, in India, found so difficult to trace." But, shortly after a false start focused on the illusion of Britain and the illusion of India, he scratches that out and begins anew.

This time, he uses the metaphor of reflected reality (or, is than an illusion too?), a reflection in a mirror.

"'For at least a hundred years India has formed part of England's idea about herself,'" he writes. Up until 1900, the India that England saw was a possession, something that rightfully belonged to the Brits. But that changed somewhere between 1900, certainly no later than 1918, according to Perron.

From that era to present, India became an "itself" that played not role in the lives of Englishman generally speaking, according to Perron's thinking.

Then he introduces the marvelous metaphor of England looking into the mirror and not seeing a reflected reality that included India.

So where does that leave those Brits who've come out to India? Definitely in a type of limbo. "Think of Purcvis," Perron admonishes us.

Quite the contrary is true for Indians who look in the mirror. They cannot help but see England. Hari Kumar comes to mind, no?

Perron concludes: "That, anyway, is the crystallization, the point reached in the time continuum."

And that continuum pours into space in the opening of "Journeys into uneasy distances."

Some think England's greatest contribution to India is its rail system, fitting for the country that brought the world the Industrial Revolution. In India, the continuum of the rail cuts through the seemingly infinite space of India. The vast plains are populated by the ruins of the many civilizations that have invaded and risen in India, the Raj just being the latest.

It might be worth mentioning here that the trilogy begins thusly: "Imagine, then, a flat landscape, dark for the moment, but even so conveying to a girl running in the still deeper shadow cast by the wall of the Bibighar Gardens an idea of immensity, of distance, such as years before Miss Crane had been conscious of standing where a lane ended and cultivation began: a different landscape but also in the alluvial plain between the mountains of the north and the plateau of the south."

India, as Perron says "itself," is a primary character, maybe the primary character, in this story. India is the character, the time/soace from which all the characters spring, not unlike the Hindu creation story that has Brahma dreaming the world into existence from his sleep in boundless space.

But it is a space filled with dukha, the Sanskrit word impossible to translate. Like many Sanskrit words it is a continuum that on one end includes discomfort, but on the other includes suffering and sorrow.

But if India is a land filled with dukha, it also is a land that allows for paths that transform dukha into an ultimate reality that is not subject to sorrow and suffering, or at least a reality where enough time/space can be carved out to live a life that is worth the while.

Buckle up for Journeys Into Uneasy Distances. All aboard the Dukha Express.

(By the bye, Churchill, Gandhi and all the rest are just players in the time/space of India. To paraphrase a Brit knowledgeable of such things: They are such stuff as dreams are writ on and their little lives are rounded with sleep.)

by Paul Scott

Very interesting perspective Martin and I think you and Perron would have gotten along quite well.

I do hope to hear from others as well who have read the Raj or are reading it or even those of you who are members who have their own impression of India and England - together and apart.

But let us talk about the Indian leaders that I mentioned - if India is India and the primary character what are they (these Indian leaders who I listed) doing individually and/or collectively for the primary character - India. Are they also in it for themselves and for personal power or are they really thinking about the people and how they can be helped or harmed.

Folks please start dialoguing about the Raj and your reading and answer and discuss any of the topics of discussion and/or raise questions on the reading yourself. Are you guys behind in the reading?

If not - what about the reading has surprised you or interested you the most?

Who right now is reading or rereading the material with Jill. Let us know because we are having these discussions for you - the members - and all of you wanted to continue with the Raj and that is what we are doing.

But I would like to see folks talking about the book and these pages or any of the pages that came before are also fair game. So please jump right in - I know I have given you a lot to think about and talk about and Martin is the only one who has jumped in.

So the ball is in your court.

Just checking in guys - does anybody have any questions - how are you doing?

I re-read Sarah's journey with her father, and you're right, the trauma is all over it. I'm surprised I forgot that part.

Yes, he seemed very turned inward and still reacting to triggers that were obviously the result of how he was treated when in captivity. Not knowing or remembering any details of what he was like before - it is hard sometimes to have a character introduced or discussed who is not developed and then meet them in a chapter as a character you get to know after a traumatic event or period. You have to wonder what was the man like before captivity and which tics or idiosyncrasies etc. are the result of the trauma suffered. But there were so many odd things that they could not be dismissed as normal - given the fact that he had achieved a lot in his life and career already prior to these series of events and was well respected.

I think what was sad for me was a man returning after everything that he had been through to his home Rose Cottage and his finding that things had been changed not for the better by his wife who is cheating on him and frankly making a mockery of their marriage while he was away and he does not appear to notice. What he knew was gone on all fronts - home, career, family had changed, India, his vaulted position, his marriage most assuredly - and so had he.

How did the old person fit into all of these changes without missing a beat - when he had changed himself and probably to me seemed like he had post traumatic stress issues. And how to deal with his wife (yikes) - the person who was supposed to be the closest to him and the most trusted. You have to feel for the guy.

I think also that this character and what was happening to him - was a mirror of the relationship between India and Britain and between the Hindus and the Muslims and also between the other characters. What you were seeing or what you were hearing what was said - was not what was felt or thought or planned or the inner feelings or secrets being kept. There was a lack of trust or a betrayal in all of the characters in some way. Hari Kumar did not betray the promise he made to Daphne and that traumatized him more in the end than the trauma of what actually happened. Daphne in trying to protect Hari caused him more trauma and more trauma to herself because she was doing it out of love for him. But these two seemed the truest in some way. The other characters seemed to be either deluding themselves, trying to manipulate others, being out of touch with reality or hold secrets that they dared not share. Betrayal, erosion of trust, lack of loyalty, deception, hidden motives all played into the characters that Scott developed for us and were part and parcel of what was happening in India and the relationship that it had with Britain, its leaders, its factions and within - most assuredly - with itself.

This is a very powerful saga.

Oh, that reminds me. Does Sarah know about her mother and Kevin Coley? Did Barbie get to tell anybody what she saw?

I am trying to remember - I think she alluded to it but I am not sure if she told anyone but certainly Kevin Coley and the mother knew for sure that Barbie knew and I strongly think that Sarah suspected as probably others did - that was not a big enough place for folks not to see what was going on. Barbie had walked in on the mother who was scantily dressed I believe when the mother was expecting Kevin Coley - and you would not be dressed in that fashion I imagine to accept a caller who was a military subordinate of your husband while your husband was still alive in a POW camp - well to me it was out of the ordinary (smile)

And I think that was one of the many reasons Mildred I think her name is hated Barbie.

Well, if Barbie never told, that was more than Mildred deserved. But she many never have told simply because she didn't get the chance. And now I'm drawing a parallel I never thought of before: Hari's silence after his accusation and Barbie's silence at the end of Book 3.

Scott was a master of this. There were a lot of secrets and things going in the background that the reader knows about but some of the other characters do not.

Kressel wrote: "Well, if Barbie never told, that was more than Mildred deserved. But she many never have told simply because she didn't get the chance. And now I'm drawing a parallel I never thought of before: Har..."

Yeah. There's a lot in the silences. The silences around Sarah's pregnancy and abortion, the silences around Miss Crane and her colleague (forget his name), and the silence surrounding Miss Manners in her movement through the four volumes.

Great comments. You tie things together nicely, Bentley.

However, I will file the minority report on Mildred's behalf. It's easy to detest her and pass judgement against her.

And, while she is hurtful to Barbie, the old girl can stand up to her, take it, and come through it all a better and stronger person.

Mildred on the other hand destroys herself from within with all of her negative emotions. She is her own worst enemy. While she is increasingly repulsive, there is much pathos about her. Like Purvis, she has become unmoored, or so it seems to me this second time through.

On Sarah and her Father, I am much touched by the relationship between them. If it's true that love endures all things, I think their relationship is a good example.

Through all the chaos that is war and the resulting failure of the status quo civilization, their relationship has come to rest at what the geologists (and Wallace Stegner) call the Angle of Repose. Or, so it seems.

by Wallace Stegner

I'm actually rather sympathetic to Purvis. He's critical of the Raj. Mildred is trying to milk every benefit out of it she possibly can.

Thank you Martin - but I think I like your word silences better than secrets - there were a lot of silences around India and missed opportunities as well.

However, I do not know how you could stand up for Mildred - she seemed so wrapped up in herself and obsessed with one daughter while sacrificing the better one - choosing that one as the responsible one who had to take care of everything for everyone sacrificing herself to duty. Susan was doted upon, spoiled, flaunted and was this superficial piece of fluff while Sarah was the dutiful, overworked, pillar of the family type that was sacrificed as the family dowager who would become the family spinster if Mildred had her way.

I think Mildred was a narcissistic drunk...a faded beauty who was losing her position and importance and while that faded and withered so did she.

I don't think Barbie was very strong at all - much more authentic but very soulful and I think she was a tragic figure like Edwina Crane. The characters that I liked a lot were Lady Chatterjee and Lady Manners who both transcended their places and moved between what was supposed to be their allotted place in society and what they perceived were the right things to do. They looked beyond their current status and embraced each other for their inner qualities and strengths and had an eye to the future. You had to like both of them for looking after Daphne and Daphne's daughter even though that was not popular for either of them.

I think the father and Sarah loved each other for who they were and who they had been and it had nothing to do with who they had become. They were family.

Interesting segue Martin.

Are you Kressel about Purvis - I thought Purvis was quite rigid and could not adapt to the fact that he was ignored and never employed properly. He was weak in many ways and did not understand how the military worked and it was certainly not personal. I thought what happened was such a waste. Perron just floated through all of it - just getting personal enough to get on and move on.

I felt about him what Perron did: in other circumstances, he would have been a very likable person.

I agree totally on that. I am always upset when I hear of these circumstances (in real life) because of the pain that folks must be experiencing within themselves to resort to doing something like what Purvis did - very sad.