Staying On by Paul Scott, pages 127 to end

[George]

Please comment here on Staying On by Paul Scott, pages 127 to end.

[Irene]

Finished this around 12:30 this morning. Although it may have been a stand alone novel, I felt as if it was a culmination of an era. The characters may not have had back stories imported from another novel, but the community and the way of life did. I did feel as if I was walking in on the end of a conversation, not a conversation between Lucy and Tusker or between Francis and Lila, but between Colonial India and Colonial Brittan, between an India subservient to European power and culture and India becoming an economic international force. In India's major cities, radical changes are taking place which will situate India as a world power in another generation while in this small mountain community, they seem to be pretending that it is still 1940. This novel left me feeling a bit sad without any sense of catharcis.

[George]

I know what you mean about feeling sad. Even though I am half way through, I do not expect my feelings for this novel will change when I finish reading the book.

Here are some discussion questions I found on the LitLovers website.

1. Why do the Smalleys not return to England after Indian independence? Might their decision have been different in the England that is today?

2. As Tusker says, "I still think we were right to stay on, though I don't think of it any longer as staying on, but just as hanging on." What does he mean...and do you think he was "right to stay on"? Does staying on suggest passivity and weakness...or strength and endurance...or what?

3. What effect does Tusker's death at the onset of the book have on the way you read the work? Why would Scott have started the novel with his death? When you revisit his death at the end of the book, has your perspective changed?

4. Talk about the irony of the Smalleys' stature in the newly independent India—their place in the economic-social hierarchy Lucy, for instance, feels she has become "a black sheep in reverse exposure"—what does she mean? For the Smalleys and others who stayed on, are they receiving their "just deserts"? Or not.

5. Discuss how Scott limns the portraits of his characters, particularly Tusker and Lucy. Do his portrayals capture their emotional and psychological complexity? In other words, does he create real people?

6. How would you describe the Smalleys' relationship? What is it (or who is it) that makes the marriage so difficult? In what way did they sacrifice their happiness—was it circumstance... or habit...or what? Is one more to blame than the other—do you sympathize with one more than the other?

7. Talk about how Lucy views her situation? What makes her plight so precarious?

8. Scott uses varying perspectives—Smalleys, Ibrahim, and Mr. Bhoolabhoy—to tell his story. How does each of the characters' reflections reveal the fading days of the Raj and the new society which took its place?

9. Talk about Mr. Bhoolabhoy and his wife. Funny or maddening? In what way was Frank Bhoolabhoy shaped by the Raj—and perhaps left stranded, as much as the Smalleys? What does that say about the effects of colonialism?

10. Talk about Mr. Bhoolabhoy's reaction to the arrival of the new Anglican priest, from south India. How does the priest revitalize the community—and what might this suggest about the possibility of blending cultures?

11. Have you read any novel of the "Raj Quartet," perhaps The Jewel in the Crown (or seen the 1984 BBC series)? If so, in what way might Staying On be considered an epilogue to the Quartet?

12. What is the thematic significance of The newer Shiraz overshadowing Smith's Hotel...and Tusker's dying hand clutching the notice of Mrs. Bhoolabhoy's sale of Smith's?

[Irene]

1. Why do the Smalleys not return to England after Indian independence? Might their decision have been different in the England that is today?
I am not sure I understood all the social class/cultural elements behind their decision to stay in India. Certainly money was an issue. As a civil servant living in India, their small salary went much further in India than it would have in England. Even though they lived without many "modern conveniences" they could still have the psychological and social luxury of servants. They could also identify themselves as part of the white elite in India which they could not have done in England where they would have been lower middle class at best. I don't know how much the devastating impact of WWII on English economy played into their decision. Possibly more influential on them than the England of today would be the India of today. Although they might have been convinced that their privileged life would not dramatically change after Independence, I don't think they would be able to make the same conclusion today.


2. As Tusker says, "I still think we were right to stay on, though I don't think of it any longer as staying on, but just as hanging on." What does he mean...and do you think he was "right to stay on"? Does staying on suggest passivity and weakness...or strength and endurance...or what?
Staying on implies a decision. Although the implication is that the decision is to stay on geographically, the reality appears that it was more about staying on culturally. They chose to remain living in a particular place in the hope that they could continue to live a certain way. Instead, they found themselves hanging on by their finger nails to a vanishing cultural context or way of life.

3. What effect does Tusker's death at the onset of the book have on the way you read the work? Why would Scott have started the novel with his death? When you revisit his death at the end of the book, has your perspective changed?

By the end, the death is contextualized in a life. We now know how his life and how his death impacts others and his death becomes an interpretive lens through which to understand his life.

4. Talk about the irony of the Smalleys' stature in the newly independent India—their place in the economic-social hierarchy Lucy, for instance, feels she has become "a black sheep in reverse exposure"—what does she mean? For the Smalleys and others who stayed on, are they receiving their "just deserts"? Or not.

The daughter of a country vicar and a low level civil servant had no social consequence in the Brittan of the day. Had they stayed in England, odds are that they would have led quiet lives of modest means. These same people move to India and suddenly assume positions of some status. Their skills, their ambition, their pedigree, their education, nothing changed except that they were colonizing Brittans in a colonial India. They might have been a cultural black sheep, but that outsider status gave them social standing, automatic acceptance in elite circles and the appearance of financial means. By 1972, this is reversed. X-colonizers in a former colony, they have lost their social circle, their expectation of automatic respect, their financial securityetc. They remain the black sheep, but not the black sheep on the social hill, but the dethroned black sheep.

5. Discuss how Scott limns the portraits of his characters, particularly Tusker and Lucy. Do his portrayals capture their emotional and psychological complexity? In other words, does he create real people?

Absolutely, especially Lucy and Tusker. There was a chapter near the middle where Lucy has an extended ranbling monologue. We learn of her dashed dreams, the conflicting motivations that brought her to this marital dynamic, her current fears and disappointments, etc. Tusker is given less words by the author. But, we can infer just as much about him by the way he acts and the way others react to him. I did not feel the same about Lila and Francis. I could not really figure them out.

6. How would you describe the Smalleys' relationship? What is it (or who is it) that makes the marriage so difficult? In what way did they sacrifice their happiness—was it circumstance... or habit...or what? Is one more to blame than the other—do you sympathize with one more than the other?

I sympathize more with Lucy, but that may because I am a female reader. In the early 20th century a woman was often socialized to take a back seat in a relationship, not to assert her opinions or wants. The laws and the social structure reinforced the dominance of a husband in a marriage. She had more ambition than Tusker, but I am not sure she would have been more successful had she not married or had she lived in a later era. She is insecure and she does need approval. She does not function well in completely female groups. Given the conversations about pention with Tusker and his refusal to be forthcoming about their financial situation means that Lucy can't even plan for herself, make any decisions. Tusker might be a victim of financial forces beyond his control which did not take his well-being into consideration, but that is compounded for Lucy who can not even control her own property.

7. Talk about how Lucy views her situation? What makes her plight so precarious?

I think I answered this in other questions.

8. Scott uses varying perspectives—Smalleys, Ibrahim, and Mr. Bhoolabhoy—to tell his story. How does each of the characters' reflections reveal the fading days of the Raj and the new society which took its place?
Since each has a very different social role, each speaks from a different place. Tusker is the dethroned Brit. Francis is the potentially upwardly mobile Indian. Ibrahim was a servant with no rights prior and after Independence. While elephants fought, Ibrahim shows us that the best ants can do is jump out of the way. Interesting, /Tusker seems to hold all the financial power and call the shots in his marriage, but it is Lila who does that in the other marriage. I wonder if Scott was trying to say something by making one family male dominated and the other female dominated.

9. Talk about Mr. Bhoolabhoy and his wife. Funny or maddening? In what way was Frank Bhoolabhoy shaped by the Raj—and perhaps left stranded, as much as the Smalleys? What does that say about the effects of colonialism?

I found that marriage confusing. I did not know if I should read them as absurd commody or symbolic. Francis might be married to wealth with the potential for more riches, but his dignity is in the toilet. He eats, speaks, has sex at her enormous command. He may not be a slave to some ancient Raj or some foreign power, but he is a slave in his marriage. It is as if after so many years of domination, he only knows how function in a completely subservient fashion. I might have seen this as a commentary on the impact of post colonialism on the Indian population except for Lila who is his opposite.

10. Talk about Mr. Bhoolabhoy's reaction to the arrival of the new Anglican priest, from south India. How does the priest revitalize the community—and what might this suggest about the possibility of blending cultures?

11. Have you read any novel of the "Raj Quartet," perhaps The Jewel in the Crown (or seen the 1984 BBC series)? If so, in what way might Staying On be considered an epilogue to the Quartet?

Have not read anything else by Scott.

12. What is the thematic significance of The newer Shiraz overshadowing Smith's Hotel...and Tusker's dying hand clutching the notice of Mrs. Bhoolabhoy's sale of Smith's?

The old way of life is dying out, overtaken by a new economy, a new cultural setting.

[George]

Q 1. I agree that money and living conditions were the main factors in the Smalley's remaining in India. Lucy and Tusker went back to England in 1950 and found the living conditions were tough. In 1950 in Britain there were food shortages. (Food rationing in Britain ended in 1954 when meat and bacon purchase restrictions were lifted).
Lucy and Tusker didn't have strong family ties and didn't feel the need to go back to Britain and family. Tusker's income allowed for a good life style in India but the same income would equate to a much poorer life style in Britain.
The decision to stay on would have been a much more difficult one to make if the Smalley's were given the choice of coming to England with today's living standards.
Q. 2. The decision to stay on probably made good financial sense and given the lack of strong family ties, a fairly independent and strong decision. However, when Tusker went on the pension in 1960, his continuing to stay in India is a passive, weak decision. They are hanging on to the only life they now know and see a move back to England as too onerous. It doesn't seem to matter any more that their social standing has fallen.
Q. 3. Tusker's death at the beginning fills the reader with intrigue.
What was the letter Tusker was holding? What was Lucy's secret understanding with Ibrahim? Tusker's death was inevitable given his health problems so it isn't a 'spoiler' that we find out he dies in the first sentence of the book. The main issue of the book is the marriage of Tusker and Lucy with the secondary theme being what life was like for the British people who stayed in the new India after 1947. My perspective of the marriage of Tusker and Lucy changed as the story progressed.
Q. 4. I agree with the thorough comments by Irene above. I would add that how things evolved in India for the Smalley's was inevitable. One can only plan for the future to a limited extent. The Smalley's were able to live a fairly comfortable life up to 1972, even though Tusker did botch things up financially to some extent. Lucy will continue to be able to live independently rather than having to rely on a British pension.
Q. 5. Scott does create real people. I think Lucy's extended rambling monologue really provides a good insight into who Lucy is. I thought Tusker wasn't very empathetic to Lucy's wants and needs. He made decisions without consulting her. For example, he made the decision that Lucy would not take over the role of a sick actress even though she knew all the lines.
Francis and Lila continue to be an unusual couple with Lila making all the decisions. I particularly liked the unresolved conflict between Francis and Lila with the decision to develop the property. Lila is ambitious and Francis isn't. He wants to remain a manager.
Q. 6. & Q 7. The Smalley's relationship is fairly typical of marriages through the period of the novel in that Tusker is the money earner and Lucy organises the household. There is a lack of honest communication between Tusker and Lucy. Their marriage has lasted 40 years. There doesn't appear to have been infidelity even though Tusker drinks to excess. They seem to be similar in not having family connections. They have been able to cope without having children.
They seem to be loners who were happy with each others company. Lucy is a quiet, meek woman who had difficulty making friends. She didn't fit in with the women in the typing pool when she was single in England. In India she didn't fit with other army wives or with Indians of her social class after Indian independence.
Q. 8. I thought Scott did this well. The various perspectives certainly highlighted the changing roles of the different characters. Tusker has to cope with social changes. Lila is the new type of Indian who has money and is ambitious. She is not interested in respecting the old way of life. Francis wants things to remain that same in many ways. He wants to continue being a manager. He continues to show respect for the English that have remained. For Ibrahim things appear to remain the same. He is still a servant.

[George]

Q. 9. It is a strange marriage for those times with the woman controlling the finances. I found the Bhoolabhoy's relationship provided light relief. Much of the novel's humour comes from the episodes of Lila and Francis. For example, the sex scenes. Lila is the one that determines when they are going to have sex, though Francis appears to be ready whenever! Francis seems to be in a similar position to the Smalleys in that he is happy to go along with how things were. He is not ambitious. Francis is content to be employed and happy with his place in society. Many Indians at that time would have been in a far worse position.
Q. 10. Francis's reaction to the new Anglican priest is one of being usurped. Things in Francis's community are being changed and he feels left out. Francis's role in the community appears to be diminishing.
Q. 11. I have read The Jewel in the Crown which I consider a denser, more serious novel. There are more descriptive passages and the story slowly reveals itself. One of the main themes of The Jewel in the Crown being how India brought out the worst of the English and attracted the more unpleasant English men and women. Staying On is a lighter, humorous and entertaining read. Staying On is about the legacy of the Raj and for those who stayed, how things turned out for them.
Staying On can be considered an epilogue to the Quartet.
Q. 12. Yes, things are changing in India. The English have been kicked out and Indians are now fully taking over the economy and society.

I know it was a long time ago but when I was in India for six weeks in 1980 what struck me was how the Indians appeared to respect what the British had done. For example, completely restoring the Taj Mahal and a number of other old buildings. Lots of Indians spoke English and even in small villages I could communicate with the Indians about Australian cricketers! A cup of tea in a clay cup was available everywhere and lots of Indian kids were playing cricket. Finally, I was struck by the amount of Indians there are, how so many are so poor yet are very clean and appear to have an inner peace, always quick to smile and be of help.

A great novel set in India is A Passage to India by E. M. Forster. The character development in this novel is very good. The atmosphere of the story is quite mesmerising. It's not a plot driven book. Highly recommended.

[Irene]

I wonder how different the Smalley's experience in the early 1970s would have been in a major city verses this back wash, former retreat.

[Sarah]

Irene wrote: "I wonder how different the Smalley's experience in the early 1970s would have been in a major city verses this back wash, former retreat."

Hi Irene - I wondered the same thing. What was the experience of the British who stayed on in major cities? Did they maintain any influence, or did their presumably larger numbers lead them to form a separate, isolated culture within the city?

Your question gets at something I thought about frequently while reading this book - it seemed like many of the characters' experiences, and particularly Francis's experiences in both his hotel and church, were more about having one's way of life die than living in a post-colonial setting. I grew up in a former logging town in northern Michigan and many of these threads really resonated with me. I almost spit out my coffee when we were introduced to Father Sebastian coming in from southern India, as we also relied on missionary priests from southern India in my hometown!

I also really appreciate your comment on question 9 about the Bhoolaboys' relationship: "It is as if after so many years of domination, he (Francis) only knows how function in a completely subservient fashion. I might have seen this as a commentary on the impact of post colonialism on the Indian population except for Lila who is his opposite." I hadn't thought about it in this way, but I think you're on to something about the polar opposite behaviors of Francis and Lila. This might indeed be a way of exploring how differently people react to big changes in social order. Viewing the power dynamics in Francis and Lila's relationship in light gives me a useful framework for trying to understand how Francis relates to Lila. While I enjoyed the scenes featuring these two, I thought of their relationship simply as comic relief....and I think I was missing something in doing so!

[Sarah]

George wrote: "Q. 4. I agree with the thorough comments by Irene above. I would add that how things evolved in India for the Smalley's was inevitable. One can only plan for the future to a limited extent. "

I appreciate your comment about the theme of planning for the future, George -- I thought about this frequently while reading this book. I felt great empathy for Lucy, who spent so much time and energy "paying her dues" to reach the top levels of a social class that had vanished before she had the chance to reap the rewards. One thing I'm left wondering: did most British living in India see the change coming before the transfer of power in 1947, or did it take everyone by surprise?

[George]

Francis and Lila's relationship was fun to read. I think with any change in the way of life of a community there will be those who prefer things to remain the same, like Francis, and others who embrace change, like Lila.

Freedom at Midnight by Larry Collins is a very readable book that covers the six months prior to and six months after 8/15/47, when India and Pakistan gained independence from Britain. The decision of the British to "Quit India" was made quite abruptly in early 1947!

Many in the British army returned to Britain after World War II, experienced how hard life was in Britain and decided to leave. They had seen something else of the world and saw the possibilities of a better life elsewhere. Many travelled to Australia, Canada and the USA. My Scottish mother returned to Edinburgh in 1946 after serving three years in the British Army as a postal clerk in Cairo, Egypt. She saw life in Scotland as fairly staid and within a year decided to take a ship to Australia.