The Siege of Krishnapur - July BOTM

[Kristel]

Review thread: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...---

[Kristel]

Summary
J. G. Farrell’s The Siege of Krishnapur is both a gripping tale of the siege of a remote British outpost during the Indian Mutiny of 1857 and a fascinating, and blisteringly comic novel of ideas. Farrell’s picture of the British Empire in crisis raises questions with a bearing on contemporary conflicts between East and West.

In 1857, Indian soldiers in the British army—known as sepoys—rebelled against their colonial overlords, and serious conflict broke out in the northern half of the subcontinent. In Farrell’s novel, the British inhabitants of the fictional town of Krishnapur ignore rumors of unrest only to find themselves under siege by the rebels.

Trapped in a dwindling number of buildings, subject to repeated attack, and suffering both from sickness and the oppressive heat of summer, the British community soon finds itself under threat from within, too, as the simple certainties of superiority and invulnerability that have sustained them and the British Empire begin to crumble.

Farrell’s characters, from the local priest and doctor to the young men and women who have come east to make their fortune or marry, are shown responding to this challenge in unexpected ways. Especially interesting and sympathetic is the character of Mr Hopkins, the administrative head, or Collector, of Krishnapur. In him, Farrell offers an unforgettable picture of a decent man enduring the death of his ideals.

With its many memorable characters, riveting battle scenes, and tragicomic appreciation of the ironies of history, this masterful novel—winner of the Booker Prize in 1973—will keep readers on the edge of their seats. (From the publisher.)

This is the second book in Farrell's Empire Trilogy; the first is Troubles (1970). The Singapore Grip (1978) is the third.

James Gordon Farrell was a Liverpool-born novelist of Irish descent. He gained prominence for a series of novels known as the Empire Trilogy (Troubles, The Siege of Krishnapur and The Singapore Grip), which deal with the political and human consequences of British colonial rule.

Farrell's career abruptly ended when he drowned in Ireland at the age of 44, swept to his death in a storm. "Had he not sadly died so young,” Salman Rushdie said in 2008, "there is no question that he would today be one of the really major novelists of the English language. The three novels that he did leave are all in their different way extraordinary."

Troubles received the 1971 Geoffrey Faber Memorial Prize and The Siege of Krishnapur received the 1973 Booker Prize. In 2010 Troubles was retrospectively awarded the Lost Man Booker Prize, created to recognize works published in 1970. Troubles and its fellow shortlisted works had not been open for consideration that year due to a change in the eligibility rules.

[Kristel]

Discussion Questions
1. Why does the Collector idealize the Great Exhibition? What ideals does it embody? How does the authorial voice serve to put into perspective the Collector’s sanguine faith in these ideals? What final verdict on the Great Exhibition do the events of the novel leave us with?

2. How are women—both individually and as a group—characterized? How do the men see them? In the last days of the siege, two of the women have become integral to the survival of the community: Lucy Hughes has proven herself to be skilled at making rifle cartridges and Louise Dunstaple works tirelessly to help Dr. McNab in the hospital. How do these actions change your perception of each of them? Have the women changed significantly, or now, at the end, have we simply been offered a different view of them?

3. Farrell’s novel is richly sensory. How does he use sensory details—particularly auditory and olfactory details—to create atmosphere and build tension? Choose several passages that you felt were especially vivid and explain why.

4. The British compound acts as a petri dish, in which prevailing ideas about class, race, sex,and religion are enacted within a small, closed community. Given the events that unfold, what conclusions can be drawn about the state of the larger society? Give examples of how Victorian social hierarchies are acted out amongst the besieged community.

5. How does George Fleury evolve as the novel progresses? Why does he become more appealing to Louise Dunstaple—whom he later marries—when before the siege she had no interest in him at all? Compare Fleury and Louise’s brother, Harry. Why is Fleury often in opposition to so many people in Krishnapur, especially Hari, the Collector, and the Padre?

6. The novel’s humor springs from the mocking and ironic portrayal of its characters. Describe the tone of The Siege of Krishnapur. Are the characters nuanced individuals, or are they types? Does the novel’s irony and humor diminish our ability to feel sympathy for them?

7. How would you characterize Lieutenant Cutter? What qualities of the British in India does he typify?

8. Characters in Farrell’s novel often remain stubbornly committed to their beliefs, even inspite of convincing evidence to the contrary. Discuss the argument about cholera treatmentbetween Dr. Dunstaple and Dr. McNab. Why is Dr. Dunstaple so unwilling to reconsider his point of view? What arguments are ultimately compelling to the community and why is this alarming? What broader inferences about British society in India can be drawn from the argument between the two men?

9. "The Collector was astonished by how little the Prime Minister had changed during his month of captivity.... The siege had simply made no impression on him whatsoever" [p. 226]. Why has the siege had such little effect on the Prime Minister? Why has it had a greater impact on Hari?

10. Do you think that Hari is a convincing character? What ideas and values of European culture does he cherish? Why did he and Fleury not see eye to eye when the latter visited the Maharajah’s palace? Why, even in spite of his humiliating imprisonment, does Hari remain fond of the Collector?

11. Many years after the siege, the Collector, a former avid proponent of the arts, says, "Culture is a sham. It’s a cosmetic painted on life by rich people to conceal its ugliness" [p. 343]. How and why have the Collector’s ideas changed so radically? What are his final thoughts on leaving India and how has he come to them.
(Questions issued by the publisher.)

[[deleted user]]

1. The Great Exhibition is a showcase of the best of man kinds latest inventions according to the western world. There are inventions to make life easier and inventions to make killing (death) easier there are also items that are of no practical use but are important spiritually like art. By the end of the novel almost everything has been sacrificed for the most important thing survival.

2. The women fall very much into the virgin/whore stereotype of the time (my book has gone back to the library and my grip on names is not good) we have the fallen woman who the others don't want to associate with (no blame attached to the man) and then we have Harry's? sister the beautiful virgin who is worth sacrificing yourself for. Lucy and Louise are useful but I got the impression that once the siege was relieved they would go back to their traditional roles and hand over responsibility to the men again.

3 Library book so I can't quote but it was the descriptions of the smell of death that really got me the miasma of bad smells. The descriptions of the heat and dirt and sweat were also strongly written.

4. People tend to stick to the rules and definitions of society that are in place in England until the very last moment when necessity forces everyone together and even then the equality is given begrudgingly.

5. Fleury is maybe an atheist he certainly questions religion and God and how the world is He believes in free will and that goodness comes from within not from a rule book. The padre considers him a heretic. Louise is frivolous at the start enjoying flirting and speculating about men but living through the siege makes her realise that shared experience and understanding are more important than good looks and rank.

6. I have to say I never really found the novel humorous apart from the scene with the Padre and the Catholic priest about which body which would bury. Padre definitely stereotype, the Collector was nuanced, the women were pretty much stereotypes. Doctor Dunstaple stereotype, Doctor McNab more nuanced.

7. Self belief and arrogance...

8. Dunstaple is the older doctor he is set in his ways and believes the medical society is behind him and his views. To reconsider his views would be a sign of weakness. The arguments that compel the community are the fact that Dunstaple believes in himself totally he inspires confidence. More widely this arrogance of believing you know better and that you are in fact better than other people leads to the revolt.

9. The Prime Ministers seems to me to have some kind of mental infirmity possibly he just follows orders without questioning so he notices no difference, the only real difference is who is giving the orders. Hari is educated and resents being imprisoned as he is used to being in charge.

10. Hmmm didn't really take much notice of him. He fell out with Fleury because he respects the latest inventions and Fleury appeared indifferent.

11. Living through the siege where art cannot be eaten or used to defend yourself has made him see things differently.

[Valerie]

1. The Collector idealizes the Great Exhibition because he is a man of his time. The goal of the GE was '...for Britain to make "clear to the world its role as industrial leader".' (from Wikipedia). The Collector is the embodiment of the British Empire for Krishnapur. At the beginning of the novel he is a complete believer of the superiority of the British empire and it's (God-given) right to colonize other countries. By the end of the novel, the scales have fallen away from his eyes and he realizes his/the Empire's approach is untenable.


2. Well, to use a Monty Python turn of phrase - they are portrayed as 'upper class twits'. The women in this novel were probably the way Farrell was able to address the notion of class. The ones he focused on were mostly upper class. The women allow us to see 1. that even in a Colonial outpost the British maintain the class strictures, and 2. how restricted a woman's life was. The men view them as having little or no intelligence or desires (other than to make men happy). I thought Louise matured a lot. I'm not sure about Lucy, she was portrayed as needing a lot of attention and being skilled at making shot would have fulfilled that need.

3. "Farrell’s novel is richly sensory." This was one of the great strengths of this novel. You could really imagine the heat, the smells, the mangy dogs, the skeletal condition of the survivors. The Collector was constantly being assailed by odors - of urine, of sepsis, and of cholera. I think the hospital scenes with him were very effective. The scene when Miriam is caring for the Collector and the sweat was running down her was as well. I also was struck by Lucy being covered in those insects. I'm not afraid of insects or disgusted by much, but that was disgusting.


4. I did above (oops!). The one thing that stood out for me was the women who had no idea how to wash their clothes. Of course, neither did the men. They've always had servants and had no idea how to cope without them. I found a lot of humor in the last remaining servant who starts charging extortionist rates to do laundry.

5. I think Fleury grew up. It seems that he had lived a privileged and indulged life until he came to India and got caught up in a siege. I honestly didn't think he would come out alive. Louise, who when she met Fleury, was an airhead. However, she was a typical upper class airhead in that her Mother expected her to snag a suitable man and most of the ones she was exposed to were more 'manly men' then Fleury. Fleury was the most opaque character to me, I can't really say why he came across as being opposed to so many others opinions - perhaps he just liked getting a rise out of people. One thing I do think about Fleury is that of all the characters he seemed least likely to change his mind or develop a more nuanced opinion.

6. I did find a lot of humor in the novel. This is one of the aspects I particularly liked. The characters with the larger roles are nuanced, the lesser ones are more 'types'. I thought at the beginning of the novel that Harry was a 'type', but he ended up being more nuanced.

7. Sadly, Lt Cutter doesn't stand out in my mind.

8. I found this extremely interesting. I believe that Dr. McNab is Scottish and Dr. Dunstable is English. This is a subtle demonstration of the prejudice that the English had for the Scottish (and the Irish). As well, Dr. Dunstable is an older family man, and so has more standing. Unfortunately, Dr. Dunstable is out of touch, although to be fair, germ theory was still being scoffed at. However, all of that said that scientific basis of their arguments is immaterial because the audience is in no position to judge who is correct. The survivors (at this point) chose who to believe based on emotion (wonderfully illustrated by jumping to the Magistrate's POV).

9. I'm not sure. It almost seemed like the PM had greater internal resources to turn to in this situation. Hari had embraced Western (British) ways and is disappointed to still be seen as 'the enemy'.

10. I think Hari is the weakest character. I never got a handle on him, except that he enjoyed photography. The Fluery/Hari episode puzzled me - I wonder is Fluery acted as he did because he was racist? Either way, I thought Fluery behaved badly. I think Hari is able to separate the man from the position.

11. As Book says above, he lived through the siege (which changed his point of view). I also think he realized Colonialism is not as good a thing as he had been led to believe.

[Pip]

1. The Great Exhibition's aim, as Valerie points out, was to showcase British progress to the world. The Collector was fascinated by so many novel inventions that he bought and brought many examples to India. The exhibition lauded materialism and the strength of the British Empire. The Collector gradually realised that technology on its own has limitations; that his assumptions about the superiority of the British in comparison with "the natives" were mistaken; that even his ideas about civilisation itself were undermined by the siege. I am not so sure about "the authorial voice" because in my opinion one of the most brilliant things about this book is that we remain inside the Collector's head, in his point of view, rather than having an authorial comment.
2. There are thoughts placed in the head of the Collector, pondering the role of women and their capabilities, which reveal a very Victorian attitude. Then there is the hilarious scene when Harry and Fleury see Lucy naked and are shocked by pubic hair which is not portrayed in Greek statues! Farrell skilfully describes how frivolities are of utmost importance before the siege and how women often adapted in unexpected ways. Apparently Farrell used diaries kept by two women during the siege of Lucknow for historical accuracy.
3. I listened to an Audible version so I have not collected passages but there were many vivid descriptive passages which evoked the heat, dust, filth and particularly stench.
4. It was obvious that Indian people were not treated equally from the way that they were described as the Sikhs or the indigo growers, not as individuals. The prejudice against Catholics was amusingly described, and the discussions between Fleury and the padre were excruciating, but funny. Gradually the hierarchies and prejudices were eroded as they became superfluous in the fight for survival.
5. Fleury was an impractical dreamer, a self described poet, but an independent thinker who questioned accepted viewpoints. Although his inventions were comical, he kept learning and experimenting and developed into a man of action when he had to. Harry was a product of the army, practical, honourable, brave and forthright, the antithesis of Fleury before the siege, but similar as time went on.
6. The tone is what is so special. The characters are slyly revealed - except for the padre who is probably the closest to a caricature. It is very funny and yet describes the horror of war similtaneously, which is a difficult feat to pull off. I do not think it lessens the reader's capacity for sympathy.

[Pip]

7. Lieutenant Cutter was the dashing soldier who thought it amusing to ride his horse into a dinner party. He drank too much, was flamboyant and lacked introspection but he upheld the British ideal of gallantry.
8. Dr Dunstable was unwilling to improve his practice by keeping abreast of medical developments. Because he was ignorant of new ideas he thought Dr McNab a reckless experimenter. The community was attracted by the stabiity and certainty of Dunstable and thought of McNab as an unknown quantity. This scenario is frighteningly current!
9. The Prime Minister was an Indian who was used to deprivation and looking after himself. Hari was Westernised and much more concerned with his prestige, so being incarcerated was a devastating blow to his sense of self.
10. I did think Hari was convincing. He epitomised "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" although his interest in phrenology was not at all unusual at the time. He liked the Collector because his was a position of authority.
11. The Collector's experiences during the siege had changed him from a man certain about his place in society to someone who thought more deeply about what civilisation actually meant.

[George P.]

A lot to enjoy and appreciate in this novel. I rate it at 4 and a half stars. The only Indian character to be fleshed out was "Hari" and he seemed to be quite an eccentric, so that is a minor shortcoming. Also I thought Fleury, a man very concerned with emotions and intellect, took to fighting and killing very readily, that was rather incongruous. I didn't mind that the male characters took a sexual interest in the attractive young women characters since they didn't behave inappropriately towards them other than the usual paternalism of the times.
However, I was very taken by the skillful mix of humor and pathos, reminiscent of some of Shakespeare's best work.

On question #2, I thought it very striking that Lucy, who had become the expert cartridge maker of the besieged estate, cried when their relief finally arrived- she had finally found something productive and rewarding to do in her life and now it was at an end, even though her life was thus spared.

On question #6, I thought much of the humor to be derived from satirizing the stereotyped British colonial characters, so I thought the stereotyping was done for good purpose.

Farrell's novel The Singapore Grip has high marks from my GR friends who've read it, so I have put it in my list for a possible future read.

[Gail]

1. Why does the Collector idealize the Great Exhibition? What ideals does it embody? How does the authorial voice serve to put into perspective the Collector’s sanguine faith in these ideals? What final verdict on the Great Exhibition do the events of the novel leave us with?

As others have already answered, the Great Exhibition was designed to show off British progress and British superiority in comparison to the other invited nations. It also held up the ideals and values of Britain at that time; that progress is linear and that inventions and innovations should lead to an easier life, at least for the middle and upper class, and that there were new ways to consider "art" in relationship to these innovations. By the end of the novel, our main character, The Collector of the Exhibition's inventions, art and ideals has had to throw them all away.

2. How are women—both individually and as a group—characterized? How do the men see them? In the last days of the siege, two of the women have become integral to the survival of the community: Lucy Hughes has proven herself to be skilled at making rifle cartridges and Louise Dunstaple works tirelessly to help Dr. McNab in the hospital. How do these actions change your perception of each of them? Have the women changed significantly, or now, at the end, have we simply been offered a different view of them?

I believe that the women actually changed. Lucy had never done anything with such importance before she became an expert at making cartridges and Louise realizes how ridiculous her caring only for the eyes of young men at balls is in relationship to fighting for life itself. Also, crucially: "Miriam was tired of womanhood". One does wonder if they will all revert back to previous behaviors once the circumstances change but I came away thinking that the residual effects would be with them forever. Also, the men, or at least some of them, came to think of the women differently.

3. Farrell’s novel is richly sensory. How does he use sensory details—particularly auditory and olfactory details—to create atmosphere and build tension? Choose several passages that you felt were especially vivid and explain why.

The sense of smell does permeate the whole novel, only people with soap and fresh water are able to keep the human smell at bay and eventually all the humans, of all religions and all classes, smell. The stench of death is everywhere. The sound of the enemy as they gather, the sound of the guns, the sound of the bells, the giggle of girls, the impatience of horses, the singing of dying soldiers; all through the novel we are treated to a landscape of a large auditory scope.

4. The British compound acts as a petri dish, in which prevailing ideas about class, race, sex,and religion are enacted within a small, closed community. Given the events that unfold, what conclusions can be drawn about the state of the larger society? Give examples of how Victorian social hierarchies are acted out amongst the besieged community.

To begin, the actual full blooded British are allowed into the inner sanctum while the Eurasians (who obviously are their own offspring), are not. The defender Sikhs are allowed in to do their "duty" but the segregation is extreme from the get go with the native Christians also not welcomed. The Indigo planters are not individuals but a group of faceless people. The obvious lesson The Collector learns from this petri dish is that the whole construct of British hierarchical beliefs stands on the shifting sands of what came to be a stronger belief: "we are all as one". In the colonial countries, the British were not superior because their education was superior, their religion superior, their morals superior, they were superior because their guns were superior. The shock that the British elite had that the natives would rise up against the British gift of their superior culture was at first something that they attributed to native blindness to that culture. Only when pushed to the extreme do we see The Collector realizing why the native sepoys would "mutiny".

5. How does George Fleury evolve as the novel progresses? Why does he become more appealing to Louise Dunstaple—whom he later marries—when before the siege she had no interest in him at all? Compare Fleury and Louise’s brother, Harry. Why is Fleury often in opposition to so many people in Krishnapur, especially Hari, the Collector, and the Padre?

Fleury is an oddity in his own culture. He has no interest in the military or in much of the social niceties of the day, although he does manage to dance and he does care about his dress. Nevertheless, his ideals and values stand against those of his class in that he believes that cultivating the spirit is more important than the material when thinking about progress. Fleury, in the face of not having the time or inclination to think of the spirit in this world in the face of the siege, bonds with Harry, in the quest to do his best by the small community of those under siege and to prove his manhood to himself and Louise. The siege teaches Fleury about practical applications and Fleury emerges from the siege believing more in practical inventiveness than he did before the siege, and evidently ultimately becomes a more standard believer in progress and the western arts.

6. The novel’s humor springs from the mocking and ironic portrayal of its characters. Describe the tone of The Siege of Krishnapur. Are the characters nuanced individuals, or are they types? Does the novel’s irony and humor diminish our ability to feel sympathy for them?

As others have mentioned, some characters are fully described and evolve throughout the novel, while others are caricatures. However, one of the most wonderful things about the novel is the work that the author does to care for, and make us care about those characters. I found Fleury to be silly and yet I enjoyed his struggle to maintain some self respect working hard to help defend the group. Even some of the caricatured women, like Lucy, I was able to sympathize with more than I would have thought initially. I thought the overall tone amazingly well done.

7. How would you characterize Lieutenant Cutter? What qualities of the British in India does he typify?

He is full of bravado, and represents the best of the British officer class in India. He is also skilled at his trade and everyone mourns him deeply even though he dies at a time when many more have already passed away. His passing represents a turn in the affairs of those under siege for the worst.

8. Characters in Farrell’s novel often remain stubbornly committed to their beliefs, even inspite of convincing evidence to the contrary. Discuss the argument about cholera treatmentbetween Dr. Dunstaple and Dr. McNab. Why is Dr. Dunstaple so unwilling to reconsider his point of view? What arguments are ultimately compelling to the community and why is this alarming? What broader inferences about British society in India can be drawn from the argument between the two men?

One of the issues journalists frequently discuss in relation to why people believe with such tenacity about conspiracy theories or stolen elections or covid hoax, is that once a human being has expressed publicly a belief, to change that belief is almost impossible as it requires a person to reconsider who they are to themselves. Admitting you are wrong is a very difficult thing to do and if you are supported by a tribe, that holds the same views, quite difficult. Dr. Dunstaple truly believes that he is doing the right thing but more importantly, he believes in himself as a doctor who can be trusted to do the right thing. He can not change his mind or he will lose that trust and that central view of himself.

9. "The Collector was astonished by how little the Prime Minister had changed during his month of captivity.... The siege had simply made no impression on him whatsoever" [p. 226]. Why has the siege had such little effect on the Prime Minister? Why has it had a greater impact on Hari?

One is given to believe that the Prime Minister is both far above spiritually and far below physically the events surrounding him. Hari on the other hand has to look at his own views of the British, the superior culture, his own country's superior aspects and how to integrate that into a whole new outlook. Also, physically he is treated terribly and like the British upper crust, has never suffered before.

11. Many years after the siege, the Collector, a former avid proponent of the arts, says, "Culture is a sham. It’s a cosmetic painted on life by rich people to conceal its ugliness" [p. 343]. How and why have the Collector’s ideas changed so radically? What are his final thoughts on leaving India and how has he come to them.

Farrell ends The Collector's time in India with an imprint of two men and two bullocks doing one simple task over and over again. Clearly they represent to The Collector the nature of life, that in the end, whether one is part of a great empire or a dusty lowly village, life is the experience of living. He has lost all respect for his culture's accumulating materialism and also their hubris of superiority.

[Amanda]

It was kind of cool reading Singapore grip and then listening to this one not far apart. Kind of makes me want to read The Troubles soon. To answer the questions:

1. I think previous people have great answers here. It’s to exemplify his sense of Superiority about the British Empire, and that he has bought into the “Rule Britannia” mindset completely. I’m not sure about the authorial voice, but the plot itself serves to undermine his beliefs, and his thoughts about the great exhibition serve to heighten the sense of demoralization later, and leave us with the idea of how performative and flimsy that notion really is.

2. They are definitely treated more as set pieces to the male characters in the outset, and the men definitely see them this way. I did appreciate though, how Lucy and Louise get more characterization and usefulness as the story goes on. This does a good job in breaking down the lack of reality in the Empire’s views on women, their places, and their sources of worth.

3. Agree with comment above that this facet of the novel makes the desperate and disgusting conditions during the siege very palpable. Also agree that the passage about the bugs was particularly effective.

4. We do see the rigid class structure, misogyny, and systemic racism (portrayed through Hari’s servitude) of the greater empire on a smaller scale. The way these rigid structures break down in the siege (kind of as said above) work to demonstrate how arbitrary and assailable these ideals actually are.

5. I kind of saw Fleury as this archetype of the enlightenment philosopher man but in a different era. As in, he has these sometimes empirical humanist beliefs, some out there conjectures- but seems really up his own ass about what a special intellectual he is, in the ‘I live to piss people off and declare it a testament to my own wit” Voltaire vibe. He is an archetype (at least at first) of the other side of British elitism compared to the Queen and Country and the Church types. His realm of claiming supremacy is intellectual and artistic rather than militant, political, or religious. But it does still fill another sphere of Eurocentrism (in thought). He finally takes up in actual action in defending Krishnapur, and becomes more of a man of actions rather than just words so to speak, and that’s when her interest in him changes.

6. The tone of the book is kind of darkly comical. A dramedy, if it were a modern show. The seen with Hari and phrenology, the Doctors battling over cholera theories, and the scene with Lucy naked are all kind of funny. Many of the characters start out as types (Fleury, Lucy, Louise, etc) and become more complex. Others seem to really stay a type/stereotype (Dr. Dunstable, the padre). I think the humor is used skillfully to demonize who seems deserving of it (Dr. Dunstable and his grandstanding), and works to create sympathy in the right places for others. I thought the phrenology scene with Hari had this effect of showing how outsiders to the empire can never truly inhabit how it thinks and acts- in a sort of parallel to how a lot of American and British media plays with the idea that new money cannot ever truly learn the nuances to be accepted as/by new money. It works to place him in a sympathetic light how even those who may want to be part of it never truly can be.

7. A showpony lol. The phrase “gallant British hero” to paraphrase Pip is very fitting, but of course in a really mocking ironic way. He typifies pageantry and excess of the British in India, qualities that play a part in its eventual demise.

8. The cholera debate scene was one of my favorites in the book. It’s about elitism (why he starts with all of these renowned royal society folks that agree with him), traditionalism and refusal to consider new ideas, it’s about dogmas over observable reality- all ultimately undoing traits of the empire. The appeal that requires less hygienic measures from the community and sells them a story that puts them more at ease is the theory more of them accept- alarming in that hubristic ‘all’s well” attitude of the empire that flies in the face of considering when real caution has to be taken. Another failure of the empire- the Franklin Expedition to find the North-West passage-is one of my hyperfixations right now and this scene is reminiscent to me of how they also didn’t heed advice or take precautions that could have saved their lives (“All’s Well” even being the sign-off on the message they left before they all disappeared in the arctic.

9. Probably because he was used to being captive to the British in a way, and without material goods. Hari started with pretenses to being part of it somehow and inching into the inside, not realizing before that even though he is more westernized as their servant, they are still ultimately exploiting him and consider him not one of them.

10. He could have been fleshed out more, but yes I did find him believable. Hell I currently know people who are South Asian and African that went to British/EU ambassador kid schools who prefer having done so and have a complicated attitude towards colonialism. My dad is also friends with someone from an affluent Indian family that thought the British Empire was the best thing that ever happened to India- still today! I have no trouble believing someone in Hari’s position then would share his feelings. He seems to particularly love the intellectual culture of Britain, even if he does not fully understand how to speak and think like a contemporary schooled British intellectual.

11. The siege naturally radically changed his rose tinted view of the empire, to the point he is more critical now.

Overall I liked this book and gave it 4 stars. Would probably keep on the list. At first I thought ‘does this story really need to be told by centering the mostly upper class British?’, but then realized this was a great idea. Much like The Terror (the series about the Franklin Expedition I’m obsessed with) by centering the British people involved and not the native people, it really conveys how the hubris of empire brings ruin not only to the people who are entitled to be living there in peace, but also the colonizers themselves. And it does so through their hubris and assumptions about the place they’ve occupied. It could be easy to not have empathy for these people, but really they are just people too- fed and believing the lies the more powerful forces of the empire instill in them. It is not only the native people who are cogs in the imperial machine- everyone is disposable in the pursuit of gains for the empire. It is a parasitic system that destroys others, its own, and eventually itself. This book did a a really good job of exploring that.

[H]

There has been some really interesting discussion around all the points so far, so I’ll just add in a few extra thoughts.

1. The collectors see’s the great exhibition as evidence of Britain's cultural superiority and serves to emphasize his and purpose for being in India. I think it’s interesting how in the second half of the book he slowly starts to lose all of these possessions and then quickly becomes happy to dispense with them all, which follows the way he changes and rethinks the ideas/beliefs he started with.

2. I found it quite telling how Lieutenant Stapleton (when he finally came to the rescue) expected to find Louise exactly how he had left her, sweet-smelling and lovely, regardless of the awful conditions she had had to live through. He’d had no real thoughts of her and what she was going through, he just wanted to be the hero and reap the reward of her favour.

3. Ugh, the scene with the bugs stayed with me! Also, the scene where Chloe (the dog) is playing one minute and then eating a dead man’s face the next.

4. The British of the time seemed to take their Society rules with them everywhere and didn’t seem ever inclined to give up on them, regardless of whether the situation called for it or not. I found the notion of a food auction in the middle of a siege situation particularly bizarre. The kind of thing that only makes sense to those with money.

5. I really liked Fleury with his interesting inventions and constant belief that he could make improvements to any weapon he found, despite no experience with military matters or weaponry to start with. He proved himself capable of stepping up and I think that is why Louise’s attitude changes towards him.

6. I was still able to feel sympathy for the characters, even old Dr Dunstaple taking his inability to admit he was wrong to the grave with him.

7. I’d forgotten who Lieutenant Cutter was, I had to go back and look him up. He’s the one who set the mines to blow and allowed them to ride out and spike the guns. He seemed to be just a typical British soldier type, he liked to fight, play pranks and get his horse drunk.

8. I think everyone made good comments on this, I think Gail’s point is very apt, to lose his long well-held beliefs would be in part to losing a large part of himself and he wouldn’t know how to function without it.

9. We didn’t learn a lot about the Prime Minister but I got the impression he perhaps had limited material things and having less to lose compared to Hari, and was happy to wait out his confinement whilst still having food and companionship.

10. Hari as a character didn’t leave much of an impression on me. He clashed with Fleury because he loved ‘things’ whilst Fleury loved ‘ideas’ to start with anyway, he changed his tune soon enough.

11. The ending to me showed that the Collector had a complete reversal of his previous ideals. He had faced the ugliness of life head-on and no longer felt the need to mask it.