The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the weeks of October 19th - October 25th, we are reading BOOK ONE: 1945 -Section Three - The Moghul Room - Chapter One (pg. 261 - 296) ~ A Division of the Spoils -Book IV,(pg. 261-296).

The week's reading assignment is:

WEEK EIGHT- October 19th ~ PART ONE: Section Three ~ The Moghul Room (pg. 261-296)

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 October 19th.

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

Pinky finally succumbs to his first sexual encounter with a young Indian boy. He tells Sophie that it was not what he had hoped since he was too excited but Sophie reassures him that it is not an unusual reaction. The boy wants to meet Pinky again and becomes quite upset when he thinks Pinky will not return, so Pinky gives him his watch.

Pinky reads private files in Dr. Richardson's office in order to assuage his own guilt about his "difference". Merrick comes to the office when the doctor is gone and hands Pinky his watch with the words, "I think this is yours". Merrick makes him hand over his extra key to the file and asks him to step outside. Pinky thinks he is going to call the military police but instead Merrick just walks away. Several days pass and the doctor tells Pinky he is being transferred to Operation Zipper and returns Pinky's watch which was found in the file cabinet......so Merrick has not turned him in.

Perron meets with Rowan and brings up Hari Kumar. They also speak of Susan, who the day before announced that she was going to marry Merrick.

Rowan and Perron go to a dinner at Rose Cottage. Perron is quite impressed with Mrs. Layton but feels that Susan is not totally connected to reality. Sarah appears totally colorless.

Rowan tells Perron about his work as an ADC when the Governor has him read a file about the Hari Kumar case. It holds some interesting information which had only been accepted as rumors by Rowan previously.

I think Sophie gave us a bit of a hint regarding Merrick's sexuality when he mentioned how Merrick looked at him when he was in the hospital. Or was it just Sophie's reaction to a man who once had been "a dish" before his scarring? Although we may not see much of Sophie later in the book, he is an interesting person and is perceptive and has his ear to the ground for gossip.

I think it might have been the latter rather than the former but I am not sure.

That is the way I interpreted it and Sophie doesn't pull any punches. I like the character but he is only on incidental player. We do hear about Pinky from him through Rowan and he also nicknamed the Red Shadow as Miss Khyber Pass, which certainly suggests something.

True.

Was the man who procured the young Indian boy for Pinky in the pay of Merrick? Or was the boy? Merrick ends up with Pinky's watch somehow. And why would he go to so much trouble only to put a scare in Pinky.....was he afraid that Pinky would read his file and find out something that Merrick didn't want anyone to know?

What was it that Merrick was looking for in Susan's file, if indeed, the whole Pinky set-up, was to read that file? Something to hold over her or her family when they got married?

I think it was a way to manipulate her and find out her weaknesses and doubts and ways to worm his way into her psyche. Find our her psychological profile.

Given that Susan is Merrick's betrothed (talk about damaged goods - a marriage made in war) and Ronnie's pathology, his motivation can only be to seek out intelligence on Susan with the intent of gaining leverage over her as Bentley notes, but more importantly over the Laytons. This is the opening for which he has been waiting for hundreds of pages.

As I revisited the passage in question, and flipped ahead, I wondered why Scott made such a deal of Merrick's snooping. What I noticed is (view spoiler)[ that Scott is riffing on that famous English snoop, Sherlock Holmes. Think about it. The means that Merrick uses to gain access to Susan's file is nothing short of Holmesian deduction.

Ronnie sees Pinky with a personal green file when he pokes his head in the office when the shrink Richardson is out, deducing that Pinky is illicitly accessing the sensitive files. Therefore, the clerk must have a key, or access to one. And by gaining leverage over the clerk by exposure of his homosexuality, he gains the leverage over his bride and her family that he seeks. Leverage to gain leverage.

But Scott takes it further later, which is why this is under cover of spoiler alert. Merrick we discover dons a disguise - by the bye the same disguise he used to tease out Pinky's secret desires - to venture out onto the street to gain intelligence not unlike disguises that Holmes deployed. In fact, the disguise Ronnie uses brings to mind both episodes in which Holmes used disguises to gather intelligence, but also the story of The Crooked Man, which coincidentally is rooted in the Indian Mutiny.

TCM is a story of betrayal revealed. Briefly, a superior officer sends his rival for a woman's affection into harm's way. Miraculously, the soldier survives and shows up later, much worse for the wear, and confronts his rival and vindicates himself by killing the scoundrel. It's of interest to us that the superior officer is upper class, where the crooked man is of lower.

Holmes, who recognizes the value of the right thing, over legal considerations that include murder, lets the matter slide. In other words, he takes the law into his own hands to ensure the right thing is done.

Merrick, Scott's twisted man (in every sense of the word: physically, spiritually, ethically), in contrast to Doyle's is a corruption of the right thing.

Call me crazy, but I see Scott as portraying the corruption of that icon of British rationality, morality, and general code to do the right thing, by conflating the stories of Holmes' crooked man and Merrick.

There is an element of tongue and cheek to it, without doubt; but the message seems clear. (hide spoiler)]

by Arthur Conan Doyle

That is interesting - I never saw that - I will be honest with you but that doesn't mean that this wasn't Scott's intention.

Martin.........I'm impressed that you came up with what is contained in the spoiler. I would never have connected the two stories and I have read the Holmes story that you mentioned.

by Arthur Conan Doyle

Who knows what Scott's intention was? I am reminded of a poetry recitation by Donald Hall. During the discussion a high school student riffed on a theme through several seemingly unrelated poems, including the re-cognition that a poem whose subject was a mountain was about Hall's father. The future poet laureate stood dumbfounded on the stage. He had just learned the meaning of poems he'd authored years before. We have little idea about authors' intentions. We do have texts.

Yes sometimes folks are dumbfounded by scholars who pretend to know what the author was talking about. They probably are shocked too (smile) - but that doesn't mean that Scott did not develop the connection you posted.

Whoa, Bentley. My point - and I by no means am alone in it - is that when the book is published, it belongs to the reader; and author's intent outside of the text is of little-to-no consequence.

Well that may be true but then again the author should know what he is thinking when he writes it and what his triggers were (smile)

I still think I like to hear the author speak about his triggers and influences and what he meant when he wrote the book - to me that is more accurate especially when doing an interpretation. I think some folks go way far afield.

I think there is at least joint ownership - and maybe multiple players - publisher, editor, author, reader. The experience of reading the book belongs to the reader and how he wants to think about it whether he is right or wrong.

Scott is no exception. I wish he were alive to welcome him to the group to interact with all of you (smile).

I'm not so sure the reading experience lends itself to the bifurcation of right, or wrong. That said, differing approaches yield differing results.

To each is own I guess - I have no dog in the hunt here.

But I do think there are right and wrong interpretations and the author certainly always knows what they meant or what their motivations were or are - Shakespeare has been studied for a long time as an example and there is a certain degree of agreement on what the passages mean or allude to. I think that is the same case with most books. That is of course my take on this and we usually go with the structured analysis approach and steer folks down a more affirmed path.

But if you want to read and come up with you own analogies and linkages - by all means as long as we do not think the discussion becomes derailed (lol) - but we are a small group - so digress (smile) - it is all good and folks can disagree with you - that is allowed (lol)

You certainly have more faith in the author than I do. Mine is invested in the text. It's also important I think to make allowances for both the text and author's professed intent to change over time.

Well some authors do a fair amount of "puffing" after the fact for sure and maybe they never thought about anything esoteric or far reaching while writing but thought that it might sound good after the fact for salesmanship. I am sure that happens and maybe it happens a lot.

But the authors I think know why they wrote what they did, what inspired them to select the topic and what their opinions are. That is why we like authors to interact with the readers here on our site with our free book offers - love the interactions and the Q&A.

Maybe you are the type of person who does not want to bother with all of that stuff - but I still think Scott would have been mighty interesting - I do now want to take Jill's thread off topic.

I agree there's value in exchanges with authors. But, as is the case with just about all of us, our knowledge of ourselves and our actions is limited.

For artists, their creations speak far more knowingly than their creators.

I just spoke with Jill and she said, "rail on!"

(lol) - you are making me laugh - I am trying to administrate, read, listen to some of the audios for the Readathon and discuss artistic license with you Martin.

While Jill is reading (smile)

Who says those of us coded with XY chromosomes can't multi-task?

Well, I wasn't getting in that discussion!!!! You all are intense (smile). I don't remember telling you to "rail on", Martin, but feel free as long as we don't get too far from the subject.
Great points made by both of you....I remember what Raymond Chandler said about all his plots within plots and unanswered questions in his book The Big Sleep. He got a real kick how people interpreted what he meant and why....he said he didn't even know when he wrote it.

Why was Rowan so fascinated with Mrs. Layton at the dinner at Rose Cottage? She certainly isn't a likable woman but obviously he saw something, possibly strength of character, that attracted him.

Jill wrote: "Well, I wasn't getting in that discussion!!!! You all are intense (smile). I don't remember telling you to "rail on", Martin, but feel free as long as we don't get too far from the subject.
Great ..."

Probably very true - puffing.

Jill wrote: "Why was Rowan so fascinated with Mrs. Layton at the dinner at Rose Cottage? She certainly isn't a likable woman but obviously he saw something, possibly strength of character, that attracted him."

You know Jill funny you should mention that - I found that rather odd and maybe that was an oddity of Scott coming out - it almost felt like the younger man being interested in the older woman. But then I said - can't be.

Update - good catch Martin but same interpretation I think - Scott seems to be obsessed with sex I sexuality it think = all aspects. Who knows what he was really thinking

I guess she could be quite the charmer of men if she wanted to but I don't think that was it. I wondered if he saw in her a woman who was going to change with the times.....she totally re-invented Rose Cottage (which may just have been spite) to do away with the past. Was she preparing for the change to come in India?....I am probably overestimating her.

I think it was spite and revenge after her husband's step mother in law died. She wasn't a stupid woman but I think she was full of bitterness. I do not think she gave a hoot about India

I think I'm missing something, Jill. Maybe I'm reading the wrong passage.

The Laytons' dinner is a narrative by Perron, no? He and Rowan attend together.

It seems interesting because the narrator says the narrative is 25 years on from the actual events, putting it roughly somewhere in 1970. So we're looking at the dinner, which the narrator says is a portrait of the family members, through the filter of two and one-half decades.

Rowan is a lesser figure at this "last supper" scene, seated next to Mrs. Layton.

It's the tint over the scene offered by the narrator that is of interest. For instance, he senses a latent sexuality to Mildred that by this point we have seen in action through the eyes of Barbie. So we know that's accurate and that the picture being painted is more nuanced, if only because it has the perspective of time.

"She had, I believe, a vigorous sense of history, vigorous because it pruned ruthlessly that other weakening sense so often found with the first, the sense of nostalgia, the desire to live in the past."

So, what we're getting is a portrait of Mildred that is softened by the events of 25 years. As is often the case, many of us figuratively look better after aging for 25 years.

Am I reading the right passage?

Addendum: it's interesting to note that Sarah's portrait is far less favorable, 25 years on.

That was a typo, Martin...thanks for catching it re: Perron/Rowan.

Time certainly changes one's perspective on people and situations but as Perron said, there wasn't anything at the dinner "happening which contributed to what you would call a narrative". So it is pieces of memory but I think Perron remembered clearly, especially his impression of Mildred. Something about her stuck with him through the years although his memories might be a little kinder. But he certainly didn't have a good memory of Sarah!!

The word "empathy" pops out in that passage, and I think we're getting a more empathetic perspective on Mildred. Makes her less of a two-dimensional character. The overall impression the section leaves on me is that of a last supper for our characters and the Raj.

Revenge probably was a motivation for Mildred in renovating Rose Cottage, but I think it's more subtle than that. I think it was her way of saying, "This is MINE now," and her particular choices - from rose garden to tennis court - were for social climbing.

A good point, Kressel. She was destroying the memory of Rose Cottage and turning it into what she thought it should be.....an example of the residence of an upper middle class English family with all the characteristics
of social standing (the tennis court).