The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Day of the Scorpion
HISTORY OF SOUTHERN ASIA
>
WEEK THREE ~ THE DAY OF THE SCORPION ~ June 30th - July 6th ~ PART TWO - A History and PART THREE~ A Wedding, 1943 (73-110) No Spoilers
We do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion.
Chapter Overview and SummaryPART TWO ~ A History
We learn about the Layton family and their ties to India. The sisters, Susan and Sarah, are in England for schooling but secretly don't understand why their parents call it "home". They had lived in India as children and wanted to return. Their great-grandfather dies at age 94. The girls' parents and Aunty Mabel (who is really their step-grandmother) come back from India when it appeared that he was dying. We find that Sarah has "funny turns" that happen periodically in which she looses her sense of perception but they usually pass fairly quickly. The death of a scorpion by stinging itself to death when surrounded by fire turns out to be a myth to Sarah's disappointment. Six years later, the girls set out to return to India
PART THREE ~ A Wedding, 1943
Count Bronowsky is introduced as he is gossiping with young Ahmed Kasim. The Count is a Russian with an eye patch and a lame leg. It is rumored that his injuries are as a result of being attacked by an anarchist in pre-revolutionary Russia. It is hinted that Mrs. Layton drinks too much and that the Count prefers the company of young men above all others. Susan Layton is going to marry Captain Bingham but may not be in love with him.
Ahmed does not write to his father in prison and the Baron chastises him. Ahmed works in the court of Nawab Sahib and feels that his father is ashamed of him for not going into law or politics as most of the Kasims. The Nawab tells him that Bronwosky is very interested in the Kasim family and is loyal to them but we do not learn why the Count is so powerful or why he is so interested.
Ahmed visits Professor Nair and meets his visitor, Pandit Baba whose presence is of interest to the Count. Pandit Baba is disturbed that Ahmed wants to speak in English as he does not speak Urdu or Hindi very well, Ahmed does not like this visitor on sight and wonders why the Professor invited him to meet Pandit Baba unless it was to find out more about his father's situation in prison.
NOTEFor those of you who are reading this book on e-books or whose edition has different numbering than that used by the moderator, the last page of this week's assignment ends with the sentence, "Actually I think my mother is angry sooner than sad".
Question:As we learn a bit more about the Layton sisters, what is your opinion of their differences and how those differences might affect their lives when they return to India? I have some opinions but let's see what you all come up with.
Jill wrote: "NOTEFor those of you who are reading this book on e-books or whose edition has different numbering than that used by the moderator, the last page of this week's assignment ends with the sentence,..."
Is that the end of the section?
That is the page on which the read for this week stops, Kressel. Some folks with e-books have different page numbers and since this read stops in the middle of a chapter, I thought I would put the last sentence of this weeks read. Hope it helps.
On page 80, Sarah speaks of the difference between those who had lived in India and those who had not....she called it the "India connexion". It made relationships strained. What do you think made that difference, even among family members"
Jill wrote: "On page 80, Sarah speaks of the difference between those who had lived in India and those who had not....she called it the "India connexion". It made relationships strained. What do you think made ..."Sarah seems to be implying that feelings about India stood somehow at the center of certain relationships. I loved that scene on p. 80 where Sarah draws her family tree and circles her purely English relatives in blue crayon, while the relatives with an India connection are circled with red. As she looks at the family tree "There was a warming preponderance of red crayon....'That is my heritage'."
I'm still puzzling over the significance of the next bit, when Sarah starts to circle Aunty Mabel in blue and then realizes she has made a mistake and "ringed Aunty Mabel firmly with that fiery colour." She is puzzled herself and wonders 'Why ever was I going to do that?"
Jill wrote: "Question:As we learn a bit more about the Layton sisters, what is your opinion of their differences and how those differences might affect their lives when they return to India? I have some opini..."
In our introduction to Sarah, I think we might say she’s independent and a person who thinks deeply, feels deeply, and chooses to take action (her conversation with Lady Manners and her thoughts about her great-grandfather’s death offer two examples). She has a deep, abiding connection to India which she develops early in life: “When she analysed the pros and cons of Aunt Lydia she knew it was Aunt Lydia’s dislike of India that stood in the way of her feeling affection for her. She took a red and blue pencil and drew a red ring round her Indian relatives on the family tree and a blue ring round her English relatives. Great-grandpa had a blue ring and so did Uncle Frank and Aunt Lydia (although Aunt Lydia had spent eighteen months in India after the war). There was a warming preponderance of red crayon on the tree. ‘That is my heritage,’ Sarah said (p. 575)”
Susan seems to be much more on the periphery so far. We see her only as she is described by Sarah and Bronowsky. Sarah points out the differences between the two of them in several places indicating that Susan is passive aggressive (not speaking to Sarah after her great-grandfather’s funeral), superficial (Susan insisting on being “properly outfitted for the tropics” prior to leaving for India, p. 576) and lacking depth or complexity - at least I think this is what Sarah means when she says, “So I am really in darkness, she said, and this truly is the difference between myself and Susan who lives in a perpetual and recognizable light” (p. 577).
I think they almost represent opposite prototypes of English in India. Susan will probably remain aloof and superior and Sarah may try to understand and assimilate.
Is Sarah's ride with Ahmed Kasim included?
Hana wrote: "Is Sarah's ride with Ahmed Kasim included?"Hana, no, the reading for this week ends before that. It ends right before section II when young Kasim is speaking with Pandit Baba.
Hana.....always look at the NOTE that is in post 4. It gives the last sentence of the end of the week's read, since some folks have different additions of the book and the page numbers are not the same.I originally said "Yes" to your question because I had been working on the next week's read and forgot where I was!!!!!! When you are working on more than one chapter, you tend to lose your way!! :> Thanks, Donna for catching my mistake. I deleted my original "yes" message.
Donna wrote: "Jill wrote: "Question:As we learn a bit more about the Layton sisters, what is your opinion of their differences and how those differences might affect their lives when they return to India? I ha..."
I am getting the impression that Sarah will be the one to fit into a changing India, while Susan will be the typical English mem'sahib. Sarah will be open to change.....she reminds me of Daphne Manners who loved an Indian man. Susan seems to be selfish and I can't see her having much respect for Indians in general.
Sarah has what she call "funny turns". I think it may be petit mal epilepsy? The symptoms are certainly similar. I wonder if that will play some part in her life as we go forward in the book.
Hana wrote: "Jill wrote: "On page 80, Sarah speaks of the difference between those who had lived in India and those who had not....she called it the "India connexion". It made relationships strained. What do yo..."Hana, I wondered about Sarah changing Aunty Mabel's color, too. Perhaps the reason will be revealed as we move forward.
Sarah and Aunty Mabel may feel the same connection to India....a connection that is different from the English relatives.....a connection similar to that of Daphne Manners.....the acceptance of the change to come.
Yes, I would guess that's the reason Sarah changed the color. It must be that she senses this connection in Aunty Mabel, although I don't think that's been made explicit yet - unless I missed it.
Sarah and Susan definitely are linked, a doppelgänger if ever there was. Susan is a Scorpio, partially described thusly on one astrology site:"The Scorpion symbolizes Scorpio, and that is no accident. Much like the Scorpion would rather kill itself than be killed, those born under this sign are in ultimate control of their destiny. It is life on the Scorpion's terms, too, since these folks promote their agenda (they are quite the executives) and see to it that things go forward."
So, if Susan is a Scorpio, how about this for Sarah:
"Those born under this sign are dead serious in their mission to learn about others. There's no fluff or chatter, either; these folks will zero in on the essential questions, gleaning the secrets that lie within."
Oh...almost forgot. That's from the same description of Scorpio. It seems as if the almost twinned sisters are obverse sides of the same coin.
I think there's a fair amount of that in the quartet that lends itself well to examining both sides. There's a fair amount of literary action in the characters - or as one author once put it: character as action.
I had forgotten that Susan and Sarah are both Scorpios! Interesting. Scott's attention to the smallest detail is marvelous.I found a quote from the earlier section of A History that sheds some light on Mabel and the blue/red crayon. It's right after Jallianwallah Bagh and the ladies are taking up a collection for General Dyer, but Mabel sends a check to Sir Ahmed for the victims' families (p.61). She says to keep it quiet: 'You can't have a step-mother who seems to be going native, which is the last thing I'd do. I hate the damned country anyway. It's taken two husbands from me. To me its not a question of choosing between poor old Dyer and the bloody browns. The choice was made for me when we took the country over and got the idea we did it for its own sake instead of ours....'
She sees India clearly, shoulders her responsibilities, but hates the place. Sarah, the one who watches and sees things, senses Mabel's layered ambivalent relationship with India and reaches first for the blue crayon. Amazing.
I'm rather fascinated by Young Ahmed's 'interrogation' by Pandit Baba at Professor Nair's. Who is he and what sort of power does he have that Professor Nair is so intimidated? I thought Ahmed held his own rather well in a tough situation.
Hana wrote: "I had forgotten that Susan and Sarah are both Scorpios! Interesting. Scott's attention to the smallest detail is marvelous.I found a quote from the earlier section of A History that sheds some li..."
Great observation, Hana.
Pandit Baba is a "mystery guest" at Professor Nair's, who, as you say, Hana, is intimidated by him. He is just too interested in young Ahmed and his family to be a casual observer. I looked for clues since Scott is a master of sprinkling his writing with them and challenging the reader to draw conclusions. Pandit is probably involved in the free India movement at some level but I'm not sure we know yet exactly who he is.
That makes sense about his free India involvement.p. 95: Count Bronowsky is certainly keen to find out more about Pandit; as he says,'Professor Nair's visitors usually have a purpose, or if they don't have one when they arrive they have one when they go home.'
The Count has an extraordinarily efficient intelligence network, doesn't he?
He does and I am still trying to figure out who he really is and why he has such influence. Is he a spy?.....and if so, for whom?.....or is he a "soldier of fortune"? So far he is an enigma to me.
He's definitely running some kind of intelligence network:p. 95. Ahmed: 'Considering you only returned from Gopalakand today you're well informed.'
Bronowsky: 'I pay to be. And Pandit Baba is not unknown to us in Mirat.'
I quite like the Count. He's a bit odd and spider-like, but perhaps in more of a Charlotte's Web sort of way.
Okay, I feel dumb doing this, but rules are rules.
How British of me to say that. :D
by
E.B. White
Hana wrote: "He's definitely running some kind of intelligence network:p. 95. Ahmed: 'Considering you only returned from Gopalakand today you're well informed.'
Bronowsky: 'I pay to be. And Pandit Baba is no..."
Thanks for the citation. As you say, rules are rules and we appreciate those who abide by them. Your analogy regarding the Count is really rather appealing.
On page 94, Pandit Baba asks young Ahmed if he is not ashamed to speak English, the language of a foreign power and that when the English go, so will their language. A nationalistic ideal but in a country that has at least three major languages and many dialects, how would that play out?
So interesting, Jill. A book I'm picking through at the moment states that the current constitution of India recognizes 22 languages as "official." And language is but one aspect of social diversity that exists there. The spirit of nationalism had much to overcome. Pandit Baba certainly is a character and, as someone said earlier, Ahmed handled him well. He never seemed to take the bait.
Ramachandra Guha
Apparently, the use of English as India's second language for official communication, has once again become contentious.India's new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi recently proposed making Hindi the primary language of official communication. Upper middle class Indians educated primarily in English (like young Ahmed), as well as Indians from the east and south, who do not speak or read Hindi, are protesting.
http://www.voanews.com/content/hindi-...
Ian Woolford, an Australian who teaches Hindi and holds a PhD in Hindu language and literature, takes a pro-Hindi stance here: http://theconversation.com/hindi-indi...
"Narendra Modi just returned from his first foreign trip as India’s prime minister. The two-day Bhutan visit focused on mutual trade and development, but one of the biggest stories in India was Modi’s use of language: Modi addressed the Bhutanese parliament in Hindi.
Leaders of every South Asian nation attended Modi’s inauguration last month. Modi spoke in Hindi to the leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan and the Tibetan government-in-exile. They all understood him. Just by chatting, Modi demonstrated Hindi’s multinational status."
But this very interesting article in The Diplomat from a New Delhi based economist looks back at the disastrous post-partition attempts by Pakistani leaders to impose a single language and culture (Urdu) on a polyglot, multicultural people. It did not work.
http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/why-in...
Thanks for that, Hana. The Diplomat story is most informative and interesting.Shades of Hari Kumar.
A similar thing is happening in the Republic of Ireland where there is a move to return to Irish Gaelic.Indeed, Martin, it is reminiscent of Hari Kumar who felt more English than Indian and spoke English with a public school accent as many educated Indian still do.
I think it is hard for an American to comprehend that idea of many different languages within one county. As large as the United States is, there is one official language, although the local dialects sometimes make it hard to understand.....for example, a person from Vermont has trouble with the speech of someone from Georgia.
Thanks for those links, Hana. Interesting information. Can you imagine attempting to force one language on a multicultural people (even though the US does that to a point).
That's right, Jill. As a matter of national pride, there is a move to have more English speaking Irish people learn Irish Gaelic, which is the first official language of the Republic of Ireland. It's become popular for parents to pay pretty big bucks to send their kids to Gaelic immersion summer schools on the remote, Gaelic speaking Aran islands. India has been so diverse in so many ways, including language, that one has to wonder if the oppressiveness of the British rule was the singular unifying force leading to the push for national independence. Are the British responsible for unifying India in much the same way as John Adams held the excesses of King George III responsible for the war of independence and the unifying of the colonies?
I was amazed to find that the controversy even extends to accents: http://qz.com/224586/oh-narendra-modi...
I live in Brookline, a Boston suburb that is extremely multicultural. At one point, in a fit of misplaced political correctness, the local high-school's adult education program installed a new phone message system that included a Spanish language option. They took it down remarkably fast.
Brookline has relatively few Spanish-speaking residents, but oodles of folks whose first language is Russian, Mandarin, Korean, Hebrew, Turkish, Cantonese, Japanese, Arabic, French, Portuguese....You get the picture :) None of these residents appreciated the special stature granted to Spanish, and you can well understand why.
English may be Britain's most valuable and enduring legacy to India, whatever the accent.
Donna wrote: "That's right, Jill. As a matter of national pride, there is a move to have more English speaking Irish people learn Irish Gaelic, which is the first official language of the Republic of Ireland. ..."The last time I was in the Republic, I noticed that most of the road signs were in Irish which they weren't on my earlier visits.
I think we notice throughout this week's read that religion comes up in several conversations, especially the major sects, Hindu and Muslim. I have always believed that it was not so much the English occupation of the country but the differences in the major religions and the British ignorance of them that fueled some of the move toward independence. Think of the Sepoy Mutiny with the animal greased cartridges which, if true, showed a total disregard of the British for Indian religious beliefs.
The cartridges weren't just greased with any animal fat, it was pork, according to what I've read. But the ignorance of the occupiers is nothing new. W had no idea that Iraq was divided between three sects, the two Muslim camps, and the Kurds when he invaded Iraq.
On the religion question, I think in India, the philosophical part of religions is more widely appreciated, or at some time it was. Karen Armstrong touches on this in her biography of Buddha.
These philosophical attitudes, I think, are instilled in the language, certainly in the characters. The exchange between Pandit Baba and Ahmed might be a case in point.
"Ideas seemed to have life, a power of their own. Men became slaves to them. To challenge an idea as an alternative to accepting it was to be no less a slave to it. Neither to accept nor challenge it was the most difficult thing of all; perhaps impossible." (p.102)
This suggestion of neither accepting, nor rejecting is at the heart of wisdom, certainly in Buddhism, which springs from Hinduism, and I suspect the notion is adopted from Hinduism, although I don't know that for certain.
But, then, Scott writes this about Pandit:
"The idea of Pandit Baba as a personification of wisdom, a fount of knowledge and self-knowledge, which was presumably the idea the Pandit had of himself and worked hard at conveying, was not to be got rid of by privately or even publicly asserting that the man was probably a self-opinionated and pompous fool who relied on his venerable age and appearance to command what respect his behaviour and ideas in themselves could not."
As the philosophical exchange, if exchange it is, winds down, Pandit Baba confesses to Ahmed: "'I speak metaphorically.'"
Scott elaborates: "In India nearly everybody spoke metaphorically except the English who spoke bluntly and could make their most transparent lies look honest as a consequence; whereas any truth contained in these metaphorical rigmaroles was so deviously presented that it looked devious itself."
So, where is the truth in all this, not just the exchange between the Pandit and Ahmed, but in the characters in this story and their actions, and the history that all are rooted in?
How do we find it? With the blunt pick and ax? Or, is it to be grasped through the images in the mirror of metaphor?
Or, maybe neither. Maybe it's a matter of considering both approaches, but not attaching our thinking to either. Just a thought.
The British swore that the cartridges were not smeared with any animal fat, after the fact; regardless it was considered to be true by the troops indicating to them that the British had no respect for their religion. Another black mark against the British for their disregard of Indian sensibilities.I think that English speakers are not attuned to metaphorical speech and even young Ahmed who was basically more English than Indian was non-plussed by the Pandit.
I couldn't agree more that to understand the actions and speech throughout the story the reader must be aware that much, but not all, is metaphor and is left to interpretation by the reader.
Thanks for those comments, Martin.
And, perhaps, how it is interpreted. Take the family tree business and the differentiation of the blue and red sides of the tree (heh, speaking of metaphors that tree business is loaded, don't you think?).The red and blue differentiation is certain and divisive in its certainty. But the red and blue is unifying, but more uncertain. Funny how those divisive/certainty, unifying/uncertain dichotomies work out.
More on the phenomenological exchange between Pandit Baba and Ahmed:Pandit (p.106) offers up the notion that, "Truth is not divisible, Mr. Kasim. There cannot be such a thing as some truth."
Given the propensity for the truth to be divisible in the eyes of many (including Ahmed in this case), this notion, while presenting a unity, or a wholeness of truth, also creates dissonance.
Pandit questions the legal case for rape. His point quite closely parallels Daphne's own testimony and strategy during the trial of the suspects. They both essentially point out there is/was no case.
When queried by Ahmed whether he thinks the rape did not occur, Pandit responds:
"'I do not think anything, Mr Kasim. Only I am saying that to speak of the rape of Miss Manners in the Bibighar Gardens is to speak of an affair as if it had happened when it is not legally established as having happened. If you say there was a rape I would not agree or disagree. Also, I would not agree or disagree if you said no, there was no rape, the girl was hallucinated or lying and making up stories for one reason or another. Only I can agree if you state simply that it was generally accepted through reports and rumour that there was a rape, that certain men were arrested as suspects, that presently the British attempted to hush everything up, that no case was ever brought to court, that it was said the girl herself refused to identify those arrested, that in the end there was officially no rape and no punishment for rape.'" (p.107)
I also can't help but wonder whether Pandit's middle path doesn't have parallels with Lady Manners' path, which also countravenes conventional wisdom, leaving dissonance in her wake.
I was also struck by the "rape discussion" on pg.107. It was accepted that it may have happened but without the follow-up of identification of the young men or a trial, what do we have but rumour? Well founded certainly but still rumour. Pandit's opinion reflects this to a point but he seems to take the high road. He reminds me of those who we sometimes accuse of "talking in circles". He does not allow himself to be pinned down on an issue but if you examine carefully you may infer his meaning or opinion. To be honest, he is rather a puzzle to me
LOL Martin, thanks for reminding me about that "I do not think anything, Mr. Kasim" paragraph!It would seem to me to make the case that Pandit Baba is, in Scott's words: "a self-opinionated and pompous fool who relied on his venerable age and appearance to command what respect his behaviour and ideas in themselves could not."
"Pandit's opinion reflects this to a point but he seems to take the high road."Actually, Pandit is taking the middle road: "I would not agree or disagree if you said no, there was no rape..." The two stakes in the ground are that the rape did occur, and that the rape did not occur. Pandit is steering a path between them, neither accepting or denying.
My initial reaction is that Scott, as Hana indicates, is skewering the Eastern notion of wisdom. Consider this from one bodhisattva:
Do not think about what can be thought about
And do not think about what cannot be thought about.
When one thinks about neither the thinkable nor the unthinkable,
Emptiness is seen, there is no seeing.
(Emptiness is the lack of inherent existence because all phenomena are connected.)
So, while Scott may be satirizing wise men who think they're wiser than they are, which by the bye is a common cautionary in Indian philosophies, I'm not so sure how, ah, wise it is to lunge at that notion and embrace it.
Consider the Layton scorpios. One is closed, thinking what can be thought, not thinking what cannot be caught in embracing conventional Raj wisdom.
The other, we've noted, is more open, and while maybe not not thinking what can be thought or what cannot be thought, she at least is open to not thinking the conventional and but also not rejecting it whole cloth.
I think Sarah, and Lady Manners, and Mabel among the women who are the dominant figures to this point all are steering a middle path.
A middle path is a suspension between two opposed points. And that reminds me of the scene with the train cited upthread full of passengers between two points they know not. And that train, like many of the conveyances in this quartet, is through the vast emptiness of India.
So, while we may ridicule Pandit, he's really echoing a metaphor Scott set up earlier.
So, yeah, I think he is puzzling, especially if you try to pin him down. He might make more sense if the reader doesn't try to pin him down. Just thinking out loud.
Maybe we shouldn't try to pin him down but I want to know more about him and where he fits in the scheme of things....Professor Nair seems almost afraid of him, at least intimidated. Is it because he see the Pandit as a wiser and more learned man than he or is there something else that we are not aware of at this point?
I agree with you Jill. Scott seems to share the master mystery-writer's gift for misdirection.
Hana wrote: "I agree with you Jill. Scott seems to share the master mystery-writer's gift for misdirection."Love that, Hana!
Well said, Hana. I was off-base a couple of times, especially in the first book of the Raj that we read.Pandit swears he isn't an agent provocateur but he certainly is overly interested in Ahmed's father and whether his mother had a secret code with his father in their correspondence.
As I read The Day of the Scorpion, the track-backs and multiple character threads are proving to be so rich that I long to go back to re-read sections of The Jewel in the Crown.This is a sign that I might need to upgrade this series from library-only to MUST OWN!
The author indeed tells a circular story and one needs to remember what they read in the first book to make sense of what is happening in this one. It is a complex tale told in a complex manner.
Hana wrote: "As I read The Day of the Scorpion, the track-backs and multiple character threads are proving to be so rich that I long to go back to re-read sections of [book:The Jewel in the Crown..."I have already done the "MUST OWN" with this series. Also had to get the series on DVD. But I will wait to watch that until I finish the books first. So addictive!
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Day of the Scorpion (other topics)The Day of the Scorpion (other topics)
The Jewel in the Crown (other topics)
India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy (other topics)
Charlotte’s Web (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ramachandra Guha (other topics)E.B. White (other topics)
Paul Scott (other topics)
For the weeks of June 30th - July 6th, we are reading PART TWO - A History, and PART THREE ~ A Wedding, 1943 (73-110) No spoilers.
The first week's reading assignment is:
WEEK THREE- June 30th - July 6th
PART TWO - A History and PART THREE - A Wedding. 1945 (73-110)
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 is being kicked off on June 16th.
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 June 30th.
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
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:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Table of Contents and Syllabus
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
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
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...