The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Towers of Silence
HISTORY OF SOUTHERN ASIA
>
WEEK TWO ~ THE TOWERS OF SILENCE - December 15th - 21st > ~ PART ONE ~ THE UNKNOWN INDIAN - Chapters 4 - 5 (pg. 38 - 72) No Spoilers
date
newest »
newest »
Chapter Overview and SummaryIn the days before the war and Indian unrest, Pankot served as the hill station for the government during the summer season. But things changed as the war got closer to India. Additionally the Indian Congress members who were elected in 1937, all resigned and many were put in prison under the Defence of India rules. The resignations took place based on the fact that Her Majesty's government did not consult with the Congress before declaring that India was at war with the Axis powers.The Quit India movement gained momentum and demanded that Britain leave or face the consequences.
Riots break out and two English women are attacked...but we know their story from previous books.....Miss Crane and Daphne Manners. The military and their wives meet in Pankot to develop a resistance to the riots if indeed they came to the hill station. Areas were set up for residents who desired to seek refuge if disturbances developed. The ladies, under the direction of Isobel Rankin, feel that someone must be in charge of those Indian children who might seek refuge. Barbie is mentioned but not chosen.
In the meantime, Barbie writes to Miss Crane who is hospitalized after the attack on her and invites her to stay with her and Mabel at Rose Cottage until the unrest is over. Later, Barbie is seen walking on the church road, talking to herself and pointing out some aspects of Pankot. One of the ladies picks her up and brings her back to Rose Cottage where Barbie says she has a picture that they all must see. It is the picture of Queen Victoria that Miss Crane had in her schoolroom....the Queen being presented a jewel which is India and she will place the Jewel in her Crown. The ladies are nonplussed. Barbie later hangs the picture in the cottage and compares the Queen accepting the jewel to Miss Crane protecting the body of her Indian friend when they were attacked on the road from Dibrapur.
Barbie overhears some ladies talking about Miss Crane and how she loves Indians. When Barbie confronts them, they tell her they are speaking of Daphne Manners but she knows that is not true.
Note: For those of you who have different editions of the book, this weeks reading assignment ends at the close of Chapter Five.
Question/DiscussionIt appears to me that the resignation of the Indian Congress was poor timing on their part. If they had continued to meet during this time of war, they may have been able to generate even more public support for independence and it would have come earlier. Your thoughts?
For more information on the Indian Congress, please see post #17 in the Glossary at the link below:https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
After reading the newspaper report of "English women attacked", the British hierarchy of Pankot start holding meetings and developing committees to develop plans to protect the citizens of the town. If it had been two English men who were attacked, I wonder if the response would have been the same?
Jill,I think it's pretty clear that Scott is critical of the Indian Congress' actions here; as he is with the Brits' and everyone else. And, given how messed up Spaceship Earth can get, I wouldn't argue with any of it for a minute.
He's critical of the Hindus for not sticking with the political process, gaining experience and expertise, and playing the long game biding their time to play trump. For a nation of bridge players, sound advice. But I wonder how many played bridge in India, outside the white man's clubs.
Gandhi comes in for some particularly sharp criticism: "...the saintly spell of Mr. Gandhi had finally been exposed for what it was: a cover for the political machinations of an ambitious but naive Indian lawyer whose successes had gone to his head."
Not an unfair perspective on Gandhi, but shallow, narrow, and small minded, I think. I sense more than a little frustration packed between those lines.
On the question of recounting the attacks on Daphne and Miss Crane, I get the sense this sets up the set piece immediately following on how the Brits rallied 'round in the club with the women forming the special Pankot emergency meeting.
Maybe I'm missing something, but there's something of the juxtapositioning that accentuates the satirical qualities of the emergency committee.
Anyway, some thoughts.
Gandhi will remain controversial to historians for years. The author, as you noted, has a certain bias which is not without foundation but he may be a little too hard on the Mahatma. The timing of the Congress's actions was either not thought out clearly or just a knee jerk reaction to the involvement of India in the war. With the British concentrating on Japan's encroachment in their territory, the Congress had the perfect chance to further their cause right under the nose of the British. Resigning and going to jail may make martyrs but it didn't do much for the cause at that point in time. The British were glad to get rid of them and maybe thought it would be "out of sight, out of mind". They didn't seem to realize the die was cast but I think the Congress missed that point as well.The little emergency committees comprised of the women in Pankot reminded me of all those upper class British women who "did their bit" in WWI by knitting scarves for the boys in the trenches!
What do you feel was Barbie's reason for showing the picture of Queen Victoria to the ladies at Rose Cottage?
She didn't have a slide show?
She misplaced it with the vacations slides!!!
Hey, there's no rule against being a smart alec.The impression I got is that to this point in the quartet the picture has been a two-dimensional decoration of the popular ethos. It's historical generally speaking in the ethos it represents, the English flavor of white man's burden.
But it is transformed here through Barbie's vision. She conflates the history and characters of current events with what until now has been a piece of hack art. It takes on a whole new dimension.
Mildred's crowd's reaction, the matrons of Mt. Pankot, is also of interest because they just see a piece of hack art whose place is on the wall of a school where the brown children are leavened by those who have left their island to shoulder their fair share of the white man's burden.
You are not a smart alec but I will be sending you my vacation slides next week!!!I am having trouble getting a handle on the real Barbie....at times she seems a bit disconnected and then surprises me with her insight. The Victoria picture is no doubt the epitome of the presence of the British in India. But it also belonged to the unfortunate Miss Crane which obviously makes it special for Barbie......maybe more so than what it represents.
I think it's more than that. In Barbie's vision, the copy of the copy conflates with Crane, but also with the historical figures in the painting. In other words, the painting is no longer an object. At least that's how I'm reading it.I really hate to do this because I despise Potter the Rotter, but in the movies characters in photos on the wizard side took on the life of the character. Same thing here.
I am puzzling over the mental state of Mabel Layton. Barbie says that the darkness over Mabel had not lifted. I hadn't gotten the impression that she depressed, just that she found peace in her garden and her home. Does anyone have an opinion on whether Mabel is clinically depressed, or merely enjoying some solitude. Sorry I can't find the exact quote, I know I should give it and the citation. I promise to do better next time.
My initial reaction was similar to yours, Terry.But, on p.38 of the Everyman's edition, there's this:
"'According to John [Mabel's son, Mildred's husband] she [Mabel] was like that when he got back from the first war, quite different from the way he remembered her when he was a subaltern. He believes she never got over his father's death."
From a western perspective, maybe she does have some latent tendencies toward depression, although to me that sounds awfully clinical.
I prefer to consider it in an eastern context, or more poetic context. The tranquility of death and tranquility of a well maintained rose garden are not distinguishable from one another. Not only is the bloom of rose highly impermanent, subject to wilting and dying in such quick succession to peak bloom that the two phases blend together, but rose bushes - especially Mabel's before hybrids were cultivated - require regular pruning of dead wood.
Perhaps the clinical disorder lies in trying to separate life and death. Maybe they are part and parcel of the same process. Maybe there's a unity here.
Scott certain makes that clear throughout the quartet by framing it in the context of Shiva, whose fires are life destroying and life creating.
Martin wrote: "I think it's more than that. In Barbie's vision, the copy of the copy conflates with Crane, but also with the historical figures in the painting. In other words, the painting is no longer an object..."Being the only person in the Western Hemisphere who has not read the Potter books, I was not aware of the wizard photos taking on the life of their characters but the analogy makes some sense for Barbie's actions re: the photo. And the reaction of the matrons is to be expected regardless of Barbie's reason for bringing out the picture.
Actually, Jill, there are three of us. Reading to your children can be dicey, such as when my ruffian FIL read the Pokey Little Puppy to my future wife, who was somewhere between three and five years old at the time. The first 200, or so, times he read it to her (she demanded it), he did so in a pleasant voice. But somewhere around the 201rst time, he started throwing in some invectives as his frustration got the better of him and his patience gave way like a New Orleans levee.I am blessed in that there never was such a moment with either of my children. By the time my daughter took an interest in HP, my wife was reading to her. My son asked to read the first Potter book.
Dutifully, I began, having no notion of what we were getting into. But a few pages in, I realized that as intriguing as the concept was, the writing was dreadfully wooden. My heart soared like a hawk when my son turned to me and asked, "Dad, do we have to read this?" A second attempt ended with the same question, I believe on the same page. Whew.
The movies are much better, Jill, and you needed slog through them all. I think somewhere around the third, or fourth, we had worn out the flicks and my children took to watching them with their friends.
I had similar experiences as your FIL with The Little Engine That Could. I was caught out when I began to make up additional story lines.....you can't fool kids!!!Oops, forgot the citations.
by Bruce Talkington (no photo)
by Watty Piper (no photo)
by
J.K. Rowling
Re: Mabel's depression. I don't see it as a clinical depression but a reaction (although depressive in nature) to the change in her situation. She had lost two husbands, had no children of her own, and was wise enough to see the environment in India starting to deteriorate. Life was indeed as impermanent as the bloom on the rose......she had bloomed in her earlier life and was loved by all. Now the cycle of life was coming to an end, both physically and socially and she was withdrawing into herself.
hi Jill and Martin, With regard to Mabel's sadness,I have spent a lot of time reading Buddhist thought, and I don't see it as quite so sad. As a gardener and a naturatist, I have learned to accept the cycle of life. My salamanders and skinks live out their little dramas and come and go. At one time I would have regarded that as too sad to think about, but now I find it a constant reminder of the arising and cessation of desires, and life itself.I identified with Mabel since I find the natural world much more comforting and "real" than the artificial eternal yearning for ephemeral desires.
But clearly Scott does not think that Mabel has happily esconced herself in the peace of living in the present. Perhaps she represents the failing of the Europeans to realize the truths of eastern philosophy.
Good comments, Terry. If we look at Mabel's life through the eyes of eastern thought, we see her coming to the end of her life circle and if we use the Buddhist concept of karma, the effect is rebirth. At death, the karma from a given life determines the nature of the next life's existence. The ultimate goal is to eliminate karma (both good and bad), end the cycle of rebirth and suffering, and attain Nirvana, usually translated as awakening or enlightenment.But possibly Scott is indeed using Mabel's state of mind as an analogy for the decline of British influence in India. He uses a quite a bit of symbolism in his writing, so it is left to the reader to determine what he means. Sometimes that is a good thing!!
Buddhism is not sad, nor do I think Mabel is sad; but she is nearing the end. Here, I think, is what Scott is getting at with the darkness (and by the way, it comes up again in the next selection when Barbie tucks in Mabel):Life is death.
Death is life.
Life is none other than death.
Death is none other than life.
It's all the same process. Each night when we sleep, we enter the darkness from which the mind springs. Remember that in the Hindu myth of creation Brahmin is born out of darkness on seven snakes and he dreams the world into existence, assuming I'm remembering correctly.
In Buddhism, the five skandas (senses which detect and created the illusory world) emanate from mind, which for lack of a better metaphor is the blankness behind the illusion of this world. It's there, even as the illusions we create are there.
It's true of the individual and the collective. This is where Scott's introduction of Emerson (heavily influenced by Eastern philosophy) comes in:
"'Each new law and political movement has meaning for you.' Barbie read and was convinced that this might be so because Emerson told her. 'Stand before each of its tablets and say, "Here is one of my coverings. Under this fantastic, or odious, or graceful mask did my Proteus nature hide itself." This remedies the defect of our too great nearness to ourselves.'"
(Brings to mind TS Eliot's line about the faces we create and murder.)
Mabel seems more detached than clinically depressed, or even metaphorically depressed. The stiff upper lip English(wo)man is equivalent, I think.
Emerson's important here. On page 73 of the Everyman edition, "'Man is explicable by nothing less than all his history.'"
From Barbie, as she reads Emerson, we get this on the following page: "'If the whole of history is one man,' she said, 'it is all to be explained from individual experience. There is a relation between the hours of our life and the centuries of time.'" I'm sure we recognize in these words Scott's intent in the Quartet.
By the bye, Terry, welcome and please stay with us. Your posts add flavor to the stew.
You know, after reading the next selection, I think the darkness that settles on Mabel is more akin to despair, especially given Barbie's scene in the bathroom upon learning of Miss Crame's sacrifice.It's a beautiful scene in which Barbie equates Satan, the prince of darkness, with despair.
Given Mabel's past actions bucking the Raj - giving to the widows and orphans of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre - and the futility, it seems that this darkness equates closer to despair than anything else.
I think Terry is right that there is an element of sadness to it, but I think there is more to it than that. Frustration, certainly. Both Mabel and Barbie sense the futility of their endeavors, hence the despair.
Despair which is often accompanied by depression may be a better word for the mental states of Barbie and Mabel. The world is changing around them and with those changes,they may wonder what their lives have been worth.....and their work and deeds may seem meaningless to them.
Still not comfortable with depression, having lived with those who suffer from it. Mabel and Barbie seem far too motivated to fit any definition I know of depressed. And, while they despair, there's noting to indicate they are enervated.Mabel's rose garden is to be envied and Rose Cottage is a center point of the Raj at Pankot, people coming and going all the time.
Barbie is on a mission, maybe not the mission she originally set out on, but she's got her mojo working.
I am putting Emerson's essays on my reading list. The quotes that Scott used didn't speak to me the way Eliot does, but perhaps I need to know more.But it seems to me that Scott on other occasions had mocked European values, without explicitly admitting his viewpoint.
On page 52-53 0f the Chicago Press paperback edition, Scott says of Mildred "She was under no misapprehension about the mistakes made in the past and still being made by her own people in India but if she had been asked to say in what way India had more benefited from the British connexion, what it was that could be offered in extenuation of fault, error, even of wickedness, she would have been perfectly clear that it was the example so often given of personal trustworthiness: a virtue that flowed from courage, honesty, loyalty and commonsense in what was to her a single difinition of good. She did not see how a person or a country could survive without it."
Perhaps I am mistaken but it seems that Scott has contempt for Mildred's very British values. A faint suggestion that her definition of personal trustworthiness is shallow.
Thanks for your kind comments Martin,
Terry
Scott may have contempt for Mildred but I surely don't like her much!! She reminds me of the typical Victorian lady set down in the mid 20th century but instead of laudanum she is addicted to liquor. She expects that people should know their "place" and not "get above themselves" and she is a strong supporter of the credo of "the white man's burden".
It's pretty widely known that the characters of the Raj are manifestations of different facets of Scott. I'm loath to attribute any author's thought in his personal life based on a fictional character, but especially with a work as complex as the Raj.I think Faulkner poses very similar challenges and even those closest to him couldn't get it right.
The Raj is in decline. And, it's in decline for reasons manifested in the quartet. Mildred's attitudes, and those who thought like her are pivotal. A good part of Mabel's despair, I think, is in reaction to the Mildreds of the Raj.
The damnation of it all is that the characters i this history are relatively powerless to change things because they are prisoners of their own histories, although at the end of the quartet there is one soul who seems to have changed the stream of their karma, when...(no, no, no; no spoiler timeout for me).
The course of history starts with the individual. In addition to allusions to Emerson in this volume, Sarah's thinking that individual actions determine the course of history during the wedding set piece in the previous volume jive.
Martin...you are going to get those vacation slides if you are not careful!!!We are in agreement regarding the decline of the Raj which of course is the basis of the quartet but also in the fact that our characters have no ability or desire to change things. The only person I have any hope for is Sarah because she is the closest to an independent thinker and not swept up in "God Save the King".
Neither is Mabel, nor Daphne, nor Edwina, nor a handful of g'nelmen characters to come, not to mention White who argued the Brits had overstayed their welcome in the first volume.
But Mabel, Daphne and Edwina are dead and Sarah is still alive......or at least right now she is. You never know with Scott!
They could all come alive in the final volume just as Mabel is once again with us. Death is soooo relative.
Well, that wouldn't surprise me either!!!
Mabel, whether frustrated, depressed, or in despair, is still one tough gal. She knew that Mildred would expect to take over Rose Cottage, so she takes on Barbie as a companion and puts paid to that expectation. It must gall Mildred no end to be staying in a "grace and favor" house.....but through it all they keep up appearances by having a non-confrontational relationship. I assume that their public face is a large part of being a m'em sahib and the British in India were very concerned about appearances. Even Mildred's alcohol intake problem was excused as vagueness. But was this concern only in their class or did they also care what the Indians thought beyond the military aspect of the Raj?
Martin wrote: "The impression I got is that to this point in the quartet the picture has been a two-dimensional decoration of the popular ethos. It's historical generally speaking in the ethos it represents, the English flavor of white man's burden.But it is transformed here through Barbie's vision. She conflates the history and characters of current events with what until now has been a piece of hack art. It takes on a whole new dimension."
You're right about the "white man's burden," but I don't think Barbie's vision transformed it. She was giving the lesson as Edwina Crane was supposed to have presented it to her mission school kids. Mabel's friends and visitors "represent" England in India. She's showing them that she and her missionary friend, who aren't as high class as they are, "represent" English values, too.
One thing I noticed was that the lesson included, "The sky is blue." A little earlier in the book, we learned that Barbie's students couldn't draw a blue sky because she had to take away all their blue crayons when one student colored jesus' face blue. The reason the kid did it was that one of the Hindu god's faces is blue.
I might not have noticed any of this, except I recently saw the movie "Slumdog Millionaire," and the blue-faced god is shown in the movie. I highly recommend it. It's about how a kid from the slums of India becomes a millionaire by competing on a game show, but in larger symbolism, I think it's about India's emergence from Third World status.
And that brings me to the Big Question. When I was in school, we were taught that the imperialists left India too early, and that was why it faltered in independence. Philosophically, I have trouble with that view, but I don't know enough facts to back up my position. What do you folks think?
I wasn't clear, Kressel. It's the copy of the painting that is transformed into an animate object - not unlike the photos @ Hogworts - from an inanimate, two-dimensional object.As for whether the Brits overstayed their welcome, I'm not qualified to make a judgement. But my sentiment is with the civil servant White who makes an eloquent argument (volume one, I believe) that the partition especially can be linked to the Brits not leaving sooner.
There have been many reasons given for Britain leaving when they did or why they should have stayed longer in an advisory position. In 1945, the newly elected Labour government headed by Clement Attlee wanted to push ahead with solving what was seen as the "Indian Problem". However, the religious rivalry in India was coming to a head and made any potential solution very complex. Attempts to draw up a compromise constitution that was acceptable to both Muslims and Hindus failed. The British plan was to allow the provincial governments extensive powers whilst central government would only have limited powers. The Labour government put its faith in the hope that most Muslims lived in one or two provinces and that the governments in these provinces would reflect this in their decision making. If this plan worked, the need for a separate Muslim state would not be needed. The plan was accepted in principle but the details for it were not. The lack of a cohesive plan resulted in violence once the Partition took place. it is rather amazing that the British did not realize the demographics of the country better than they did. If they had, they might have stayed longer in order to stabilize the situation. But that is nothing more than hindsight at this point and I'm not sure the "stay or go" question can be addressed without that hindsight. Just my opinion.
Jill - notice that your analysis is driven by a concession that the Brits were in control and driving the car, metaphorically speaking.What if they weren't?
What if, in fact, they were a very small minority dependent on an even smaller military presence and even smaller than that a civil presence? And what if an awakening subdued population was stirring? The threat was not only to British rule, but to the Brits living in India?
What if the scenario you spell out played out in the American and other colonies? Would it have really worked to let the Brits decide on our form of government and impose it on us?
I know that not all hand-offs in the Commonwealth were violent, but especially with larger and more diverse bodies, I suspect it was. I also suspect that there was a second revolution of independence - for instance our constitutional convention and maybe the partition in India - which ultimately determined what form the former colony would take.
What if the British initiatives led to the partition? Afterall, prior to the British administration, there is a long history of Hindu, Muslim, and the many other ethnic and religious groups living in relative harmony for centuries. Why the change when the Brits sought to impose their civil government on the subcontinent?
It doesn't mean anything, but I'm skeptical of any analysis that is predicated on the notion that the Brits were in control. It seems to me at the end that they found themselves riding a tiger. And, when one finds themselves on the back of a tiger, instead of behind the wheel of a car, one bails. Toot sweet.
Good analysis, Martin. But I do think the British, although certainly in the minority, were in charge. I don't think there is any doubt that revolution was fomenting and would happen at some point in an organized manner, but Britain was still in the position to assist in the government design. I'm not saying that they should have been dictating the form of government but that they would be a resource since Attlee had already stated that they would be gone from India shortly after the end of WWII. Since the Indian leadership was at odds with each other, there may have been an area where Britain's aid would have been positive. Again, I am only surmising since anything else would be revisionist history. So, yes, they were riding the tiger but they still had the whip hand albeit one that was growing weaker.
Jill wrote: "So, yes, they were riding the tiger but they still had the whip hand albeit one that was growing weaker."Great analogy! Martin's was great, too.
Nice touch that Barbie is reading Emerson at this point. Emerson, of course, was a friend of Thoreau, and Thoreau's civil disobedience inspired Gandhi's methods.
Kressel wrote: "Jill wrote: "So, yes, they were riding the tiger but they still had the whip hand albeit one that was growing weaker."Great analogy! Martin's was great, too.
Nice touch that Barbie is reading Em..."
You might want to look at our glossary item #56 which explains satyagraha on which Gandhi based his non-violence beliefs. The link is:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
My thinking was very muddled but I have some clarity now about Mabel's toils in the garden. I was a bit behind in reading the posts but do understand the author's references to Emerson. Thank you for clarifying this. I am definitely going to add some Emerson and Thoreau to the pile of reading. I do live close to Walden Pond and might revisit too.
Martin wrote: "Buddhism is not sad, nor do I think Mabel is sad; but she is nearing the end. Here, I think, is what Scott is getting at with the darkness (and by the way, it comes up again in the next selection w..."
Also thanks for pointing out that there was a belief that Mabel never got over the death of her first husband. I now understand why Mildred did not bury Mabel with her first husband and Barbie's anger over the ignoring of Mabel's wishes. >Martin wrote: "My initial reaction was similar to yours, Terry.
But, on p.38 of the Everyman's edition, there's this:
"'According to John [Mabel's son, Mildred's husband] she [Mabel] was like that when he got b..."
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Harry Potter Series Box Set (other topics)The Poky Little Puppy (other topics)
The Little Engine That Could (other topics)
The Towers of Silence (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Watty Piper (other topics)J.K. Rowling (other topics)
Bruce Talkington (other topics)
Paul Scott (other topics)
For the weeks of December 15th - 21st, we are reading PART ONE - The Unknown Indian - The Towers of Silence -Book III,(pg. 1-38).
The first week's reading assignment is:
WEEK ONE- December 15th - December 21st ~ PART ONE ~ The Unknown Indian (pg. 38 - 72))
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 December 8th.
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 December 15th.
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
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/...