The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the weeks of July 21st - July 27th, we are reading PART THREE ~ A Wedding, 1943 (171-230.) No spoilers.

The sixth week's reading assignment is:

WEEK SIX- July 21st - July 27th
PART THREE - A Wedding. 1945 (171 - 230)

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 July 21st.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Jill will be leading this discussion and back-up will be Bentley.

Welcome,

~Bentley

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Paul Scott

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how to cite books:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Introduction Thread:

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...

by Paul Scott

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 Summary

The "stone" incident brings the military police out to ensure no further incidents. The incident was seen as cowardly. But why was it done? There are those who think it was a disgruntled worker who had lost his job, or a student or clerk "whose head was crammed with a lot of hot air about the iniquities of the Raj" (pg.173).

We learn that the princely states are crammed with political agitators especially after the arrest of many of the Congress members. They were a danger because of possible subversive actions with the Indian Army.

The Nawab is stopped by the military police from entering the wedding reception which causes much embarrassment. Susan curtsies to the Nawab which is unheard of and shocks the guests.....but it makes up for the Nawab's loss of face. Sarah thinks that Susan is the type of woman who creates an illusion of herself as the center of a world without unhappiness

The Count pulls Merrick aside and in the course of the conversation mentions that he knows that Merrick was the District Superintendent in Mayapore at the time of the Bibighar Gardens incident. He then asks him if he knows Pandit Baba and Merrick relates that he feels that Pandit incites his young students to commit acts of violence. The Pandit kept a low profile and many of the young men in Mayapor who got in trouble were his disciples.The Count thinks that the stone that was thrown at the car was intended for Merrick at the direction of the Pandit. He also wonders why the Pandit was so interested in meeting Ahmed. They speak further of the Bibighar Gardens incident and Merrick says that he is positive that Hari Kumar planned the whole thing because Daphne had called off their relationship. Merrick thinks the birth of Daphne's child was a".... direct challenge to everything sane and decent to anything we try to do out here". (pg. 202) As the conversation continues, it is obvious that Merrick hates Hari Kumar and nothing that the Count says which contradicts his guilt is just brushed aside.

Sarah admits to Aunt Fenny that she visited Lady Manners in an attempt to apologize for all those who refused to acknowledge her. Aunt Fenny is stunned.

At the station as Susan and Teddie leave by train, an Indian woman in a white sari which denotes widowhood or mourning, throws herself at the feet of Captain Merrick, begging for his help although she doesn't identify why help is needed. An older Indian man takes her away from the station. Merrick later admits to Sarah that the woman was Hari Kumar's aunt.

Sarah and Merrick talk about Daphne and her resentment of the class distinction between Indian and English.He admits that he thought Sarah was much like Daphne but had changed his mind when he saw the Sarah and Ahmed (who reminds him of Hari) together and he saw that the barriers were up. Merrick leaves and Sarah walks alone in the garden, sees her family on the terrace and she does not want to be alone.

The stopping of the Nawab from entering the wedding reception was rather unexpected. The festivities were taking place within his compound, he is the leader of the princely state, and was accompanied by the Count. Surely, you would think that the military police would know him. But it clearly illustrates the exclusion of Indians from British social functions.

Susan's curtsy is what I found unexpected. When I first read it, my jaw dropped. While I was withholding judgment on her and had not developed some of the missimpressions of her expressed so far in the discussion here, I nonetheless didn't for a moment expect the girl had the grand gesture in her.

Again, character as action. She knew exactly what the moment called for to restore the status quo and offered it spontaneously, enchanting all who witnessed it.

I think more than any other moment to this point the curtsy put me on notice that the characters in the last three volumes would be of a great complexity.

Speaking of characters as action and complexity, we start to understand more of Merrick in this section. One of the moments that sticks in my mind is Sarah's assessment of Merrick on p.215: "He had a very lively intelligence, perhaps less lively than its activity within the confines of a narrow mind made it seem..."

Sarah is such a smart cookie. She sees right through Merrick. If I had met him in the context of the wedding, I probably would have liked him, which is why he's such a brilliantly portrayed character. One big set of complex contradictions.

On another subject, I'm currently reading The Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman, and it says that Russia was making in-roads to India, which is why England was wary of making alliances with it. It was Czarist Russia in those times, and this book takes place after the Revolution, but it only hints to the question I raised before: what is Count Bronowsky doing in India?

That curtsey also surprised me and it did effect a change in a very uncomfortable moment. But even with that said, I am still having trouble assessing her true personality and motives.....but time will tell.

Re: Merrick. We are seeing another side of him in this section. He is orderly, kind, and rather likeable in opposition to his actions and approach in the Bibighar Gardens incident. He is more comfortable with "his own kind" so to speak. Aunt Fenny had said that his background/family was best left unexamined but in India, he has the chance to be somebody......a man in charge and enjoying his authority. Do you think that is a fair assessment?

His own kind.

What is his own kind?

Are we talking own kind in India?

Own kind in England?

Some sort of own kind in a more universal sense, such as Sarah sizes him up: intellectually active within a narrow range?

@Kressel - Russia continues to press on India's NW border. It's involvement in Afghanistan, even today, fits within the context of its history in the region.

There's a freaking marvelous book out on what was known as The Great Game by Peter Hopkirk that I most highly recommend.

by Peter Hopkirk

I am speaking of the white skinned British military/law enforcement man in India as "his own kind".....the man in charge or at least part of the group in charge.

Questions posed by Scott in my earlier post stand.

Is that who Merrick is? "The white skinned British military/law enforcement man in India?"

I think that's a part of who he is, but only a part. We've seen many other Merrick's to this point as well: racist, colonist, an intellectually active mean spirited man operating in space/time way too expansive for his comfort level...and, trust me, you're going to see a lot more of Merrick before Scott is through.

The wonder is that Merrick is able to integrate all these Merricks under the roof of one mind.

Based on what we have read so far, that is how I see Merrick and how he identifies himself......... the "white skinned British military/law enforcement man". But that definition also includes your assessment that this type of individual is "racist, colonist, an intellectually active mean spirited man operating in space/time way too expansive for his comfort level......".

Like Sarah and Scott, I see Merrick in a broader context. To this point in the quartet, her assessment of him as an intellectually active man operating within narrow confines is not only the most penetrating insight, for my money anyway, but also identifies him as a universal archetype. Just about every small town has one, as do bureaucracies and just about any other group of people large enough to accommodate an intellectually active mind operating in narrow confines.

One of the moments that sticks in my mind is Sarah's assessment of Merrick on p.215: "He had a very lively intelligence, perhaps less lively than its activity within the confines of a narrow mind made it seem..."


The narrowness referred to here is within his own mind, no?

Yes.

I think I just need to know more about him than we have been given to form a profile. I must not be very perceptive!!! :>

@Donna......what is your opinion of Susan's curtsy to the Nawab?

There are so many great ideas to discuss here, but before we get too far afield, @Jill 4. I got the impression that the mix-up with the Nawab's car was really just that, but might also reflect an influx of very junior and not very bright MPs fresh from England and not tuned in to some of the subtler issues.

Bronowsky was in the car and dressed to the nines, there was a royal insignia on the car (I assume) and it had to have been a fairly snazzy one. Obviously all they saw was that the Nawab was Indian and dressed in old clothes.

In the eyes of the farm boys turned MPs, they all look alike.

Scott is deliberately revealing only bits and pieces of Merrick for us and what we do know is mainly through the voices of other narrators. I don't think Merrick, himself, has been a narrator as of yet. CB seems to be on to him at least in so far as his role in the Mayapore incident, based on his questioning of him.

@Jill, regarding the curtsy, my thought was that, as Sarah said earlier, "Susan was playing Susan" (p. 148) - the gracious, ever proper young memsahib. By proper, I mean the absolute perfect thing to do to diffuse the situation and get the attention back on the bride.

Hana wrote: "There are so many great ideas to discuss here, but before we get too far afield, @Jill 4. I got the impression that the mix-up with the Nawab's car was really just that, but might also reflect an ..."

You may well be correct that the car mix-up was accidental but it is certainly put everyone in a somewhat defensive position which Susan defused whatever her motives were and I question them. A curtsy is a sign of respect and I can't imagine that Susan respected the Nawab. I don't know if Scott will develop her character further but at this point, I am still rather negative in my feelings for her.

Poor Susan.

I'm sure she wouldn't care, Martin!!!! :>

We have reason to question Susan's motives. I'm thinking back to the conversation at breakfast when Susan told Teddy she'd like to have a Nawab at her wedding, "especially one that used to be wicked. Besides, if we make a bit of a fuss of him he'll have to send a wedding present and it might turn out to be a tray of super rubies or a fabulous emerald, or a few spare ropes of pearls."

Oh, yes indeed, we do indeed have reason to question Susan's motives...but, that's different than reaching some of the judgments reached here, which strike the one-eyed reader as perhaps a little harsh.

By the bye, we have reason to question the motivations of all the characters in this story, no?

But let's take a little inventory of what we either know or can suspect of Susan to this point. We know Susan and Sarah are twinned in the literary sense, both manifesting different aspects of Scorpio.

So, I think it's fair not just to view Susan in isolation, but also in the context of her more thoughtful sister Sarah.

It's true Sarah is the more thoughtful and questioning of the two. I think it should be clear that Sarah falls within the Crane, Daphne, Lady Manners, Mabel lineage of female characters who question and even test conventional Raj wisdom and order. And that is bound to have a certain appeal.

Yet, for all of Sarah's thinking - including on the importance of individual actions that carry more meaning than the collective - she has has not done anything that advances any good to this point. Her most daring break, to this point, is a gallop on horseback with Ahmed.

It's Susan, the Scorpio caught up in her wedding (Sarah points out that in crossing that matrimonial threshold the participants are transformed), who spontaneously (there's no indication of premeditation) takes the risky move of curtsying to the Nawab, moments after he has been denied entry apparently on the grounds that he is Indian.

There's great risk in that moment in that Susan's action not only runs counter to accepted social norms, but it has a significant impact in that it defuses a diplomatic faux pas. Let me put it bluntly: Susan's action to this point carries more weight than any action taken by Sarah.

As for questioning the poor girl's motives, as presented by Scott, her curtsy was by no means pre-meditated. It flew in the face of what was accepted. And, it had a relatively meaningful result.

Questioning her motivation, by all means a valid response, requires overlaying her less generous qualities across the curtsy.

Start with Sarah's insight of Susan playing Susan. If that's true, then the curtsy is within her nature, something I certainly didn't expect to this point. It expands the reader's insight into this character, who to this point has not demonstrated the depth to undertake such a gesture on center stage in a significant social setting.

I also questioned Susan's motivation, but arrive at a different understanding: Scott is presenting us with a situation that causes dissonance when a seeming light weight, or even petty, character comes up with the grand gesture under demanding social circumstances, in contrast with the independent thinking twin whose grand gesture to this point is a gallop on a horse while riding with a Muslim young man.

I may be comparing Sarah to Daphne which is coloring my opinion in her favor over Susan. And in the end, the comparison may be incorrect but I sense something in
Sarah that is yet to come to the surface. Riding out alone with a Muslim young man may appear to be insignificant when seen in the context of Susan's rather grand (and rather shocking) curtsy to the Nawab but it seems to me that Scott is setting the stage for something more important on Sarah's part.
It appears at this point, however, that Sarah is unsure of her own position in this complex world of India, And I will give Susan credit as far as her understanding of her position as a mem'sahib in British India.

"Riding out alone with a Muslim young man may appear to be insignificant when seen in the context of Susan's rather grand (and rather shocking) curtsy to the Nawab but it seems to me that Scott is setting the stage for something more important on Sarah's part."

One of the disadvantages of reading the way discussions are sponsored here is that the process encourages a lot of false and wrong speculation based on ignorance of what is to come. A lot of mental energy gets spent chasing shadows up blind allies. It's just the nature of the beast.

"It appears at this point, however, that Sarah is unsure of her own position in this complex world of India, And I will give Susan credit as far as her understanding of her position as a mem'sahib in British India."

This is a good example of what I mean. The notion that Sarah is unsure belies speculation that Scott is setting her up for something grand, or grander than a gallop with Ahmed. It could also be that Scott is setting up a trope that will be built upon through the rest of this volume and the remainder of the Quartet.

We already have reason to believe at this point the latter on p.2 with the metaphor of the train of passengers headed they know not where, but also in the metaphors of circular space/time.

But we always make wrong speculations when we read and are always ignorant of what is to come (unless it is a badly written book).....that is what makes it so entertaining, when one can say, "Oh brother, I was wrong about that... or how did I miss that?". Since the reading discussions here are done in sections and as "non-spoilers", it is expected that we may draw wrong conclusions about characters and situations. I think it stretches the imagination...granted, it is sometime in the wrong direction....but makes one think.
You have the advantage of already having read the book, so you know that some of our suppositions are incorrect but as you say, "it is just the nature of the beast".

Well, and to your point, Martin, we are forming opinions by looking back and thinking on what we've read so far, which is all we know. This is perfectly valid literary analysis - the forming of temporary hypotheses as we read. It's not a disadvantage because our speculations cannot be deemed false unless, of course, one's vantage point is that of already having read all that is to come. We simply don't yet know what you know - or to carry on the metaphor, where the train is headed. As we read, we understandably will abandon some of our earlier speculations and embrace others. Pardon our misconceptions and allow us to enjoy the ride.

I loved Susan's curtsy. She may have been playing a role but she was doing it beautifully and knew she made a very lovely picture, all in white, making this perfectly graceful and gracious gesture. She turned an embarrassing moment into an elegant bit of theater with herself in the starring role.

Susan may not be a great thinker, but she has a nearly unerring sense of how people will react to her and how to tune her performance to just the right note--rather in the same way many theater and movie actors do.

I found my opinion of her began to shift a bit: she may be self-centered but she has an undeniable style and magnetism. Well done, Susan.

Yes, she's very aware of her place on the stage. And unlike Sarah, who is always having to analyze everything, Susan's ability to accept things at face value seems to be permitting her to be happy, something that is eluding Sarah. This is not necessarily a negative attribute.

Hana wrote: "Susan may not be a great thinker, but she has a nearly unerring sense of how people will react to her and how to tune her performance to just the right note--rather in the same way many theater and movie actors do."

That nails it for me.

Well said, Hana.

Thanks! The other characters I found myself reassessing were Count Bronowsky and Merrick.

Bronowsky initially struck me as a little bit foolish, this transplanted Russian count latching onto the Nawab, but he's much more than just a court hanger-on. Bronowsky is an excellent intelligence operator and his questioning of Merrick and analysis of the stone-throwing incident is brilliant and incisive.

Merrick seems to recognize Bronowsky's motives and mission and he has enough respect for the man and his job to baulk only a little bit at the interrogation. I was fascinated by Merrick's class resentment. It shows a couple of times in that conversation--very sharply when he talks about Kumar's having been at Chillingborough and speaking upper crust English so perfectly.

I was also intrigued by the little scene at the end of the conversation in which Bronowsky makes a flirtatious gesture with a coded message that Merrick clearly reads correctly: "Bronowsky, observing the way the colour came and went on the ex-District Superintendent's cheeks, released his hold...." Did Bronowsky misinterpret Merrick's sexual preferences? Or was he testing for a reaction that might betray hidden leanings? Probably the latter, since we know Bronowsky is pretty much celibate and Merrick doesn't seem to be his type.

Hana,

Regarding your comments on Bronowsky, I agree. Initially, I also questioned whether he wasn't another Russian fleeing events in the Mudder Land and latching on to a power broker in some international refuge (literature is full of such creatures). But he reveals himself behind the wedding scenes to be an insightful player.

Given what we know, or could surmise, from the first volume as well as during the wedding, Merrick is fairly well outlined, although there is much more to be added to the bones.

Sarah's assessment sums him up nicely, intellectually active within a narrow range of mind. In this, he reflective both of some of the Brits in India, but also of a archetype, or trope, mentioned upthread.

His handling of the Hari Kumar affair reveals him to be racist, mean spirited, vengeful, sadistic, and corrupt.

His handling of his role in the wedding reveals him to be resourceful within the confines on his role, efficient, articulate within the narrow bounds of his thinking, and able to project a likable persona.

His attempted relationships with women are pathetic. He failed utterly to connect with Daphne and does so with Sarah as well during his parting confession and disquisition on race. That he, the mid-level police/army official, the best man standin when none other are available, is attracted to these two women shows a certain lack of self awareness that is also reflected in his thinking.

There's a link missing between his thinking and reality 101.

During his confession to Sarah, he advocates for individual action and being held to account for it. This without irony from the guy who framed Hari Kumar.

Yet, when he leaves Sarah, she feels alone.

Merrick is the most brilliantly contradictory character I've ever come across in literature, and that includes some giants like Severus Snape.

What fascinated me was that the reason Merrick thought he had a shot with Daphne was that she didn't care about class divisions. The trouble for him was that she didn't care about racial divisions either. And though he won't allow himself to see it, she chose Hari over him because of character, nothing more and nothing less.

I had forgotten that aspect of the Merrick-Daphne attraction, Kressel--thanks for reminding me! For her part Daphne's admits at the end of The Jewel in the Crown that part of her attraction to Hari was the fact that she was crossing the color line. Not to mention the fact that he was handsome!

In Merrick's conversation with Bronowsky he makes a good case that the young men arrested (including probably Hari) were just the type to get involved in seditious activity. I don't think he was necessarily wrong about that.

Merrick wouldn't be the first policeman to step over the line in handling a suspect or evidence; it's not commendable, but it is understandable. There was reason for the police to take a tough stance since, as he pointed out, the rape occurred immediately after the mass arrest of Congress members and the attack on Miss Crane--everything was on the boil.

Donna wrote: "Well, and to your point, Martin, we are forming opinions by looking back and thinking on what we've read so far, which is all we know. This is perfectly valid literary analysis - the forming of te..."

Donna & Jill. This is exactly what happened as I read the book. This section really just seemed to be setting up the book for more things to happen -- but moreover it was setting us up as readers to think about what has happened and the possibilities for the future. I really like that about Scott's writing -- he makes me wonder and try to put together all of the situations into a foreseeable possible future; and then I am surprised!

Hana wrote: "I loved Susan's curtsy. She may have been playing a role but she was doing it beautifully and knew she made a very lovely picture, all in white, making this perfectly graceful and gracious gesture...."

My opinion of Susan began to change at this part in the book too. Before I saw her as the background showing the appropriate young English woman -- but now she becomes more of a fleshed out person with many more dimensions.

Kressel wrote: "Merrick is the most brilliantly contradictory character I've ever come across in literature, and that includes some giants like Severus Snape. ..."

Isn't that the truth! I absolutely agree with you here.

"Merrick wouldn't be the first policeman to step over the line in handling a suspect or evidence; it's not commendable, but it is understandable."

Really?!

Martin, there are some great lines in the book. Scott has a way of pointing out the brutality of the English in some subtle ways.

"...he makes me wonder and try to put together all of the situations into a foreseeable possible future; and then I am surprised!"

Over a lifetime, I have become an advocate that the three most important elements of a story are, in order, the action, the characters, and the thought. Thought defined as given the action and the characters what is possible going forward.

That said, the guy who originated that thinking had the whole work in mind.

Martin wrote: ""...That said, the guy who originated that thinking had the whole work in mind."

True.

I also questioned Susan's motivation, but arrive at a different understanding: Scott is presenting us with a situation that causes dissonance when a seeming light weight, or even petty, character comes up with the grand gesture under demanding social circumstances, in contrast with the independent thinking twin whose grand gesture to this point is a gallop on a horse while riding with a Muslim young man.

Perhaps, but I don't think it's Scott's intent to pass judgement on either action or to expect the reader to do so. While Scott shows Sarah and Susan as individuals each in her own right, I think he's also presenting us with two prototypes of the British in India.

Susan accepts her role as memsahib without question and is doing what is expected of her by virtue of her birth and position. She is, therefore, happy and un-conflicted in this role and probably assumes it will go on forever. When a crisis occurs, she immediately moves into action to diffuse the situation and maintain the status quo. That sense of self-preservation and self-centeredness is inbred in her and much a part of how many British view themselves in India.

Sarah is questioning all of these assumptions and is ambivalent about what her role should be. She is exploring the conventional wisdom of race and class structures in her conversation with Miss Manners, her friendship with young Ahmed and even in her conversation with Merrick.

It seems to me that Sarah will be able to withstand the coming changes as the Raj dissolves more easily than Susan. Susan may well crumble without the safety net of her social structure holding her up. We may well be saying, "poor Susan."

"I don't think it's Scott's intent to pass judgement on either action or to expect the reader to do so."

I agree a gazillion percent. That's sorta been my intended point. Apologies if I'm not expressing myself clearly.

Donna, I appreciate your insights and comments. You clearly express yourself. Thanks

Aw, thanks, Kathy. Like Joan Didion said, "I don't know what I think until I write it down."

Thanks to all for a great discussion......I was gone this afternoon and evening and missed putting in my two cent's worth but you have pretty much covered it.

Now the question remains, who is the Count. I think Martin and I both thought in the beginning that he was a White Russian on the run from the revolution looking for a place to land but he appears to be more than, as someone said, "a hanger on" in the Nawab's court. His intelligence system is well developed and he is aware of all the nuances of what is happening around him and possibly in India generally. He intrigues me and I wonder if he is content on such a small stage. Or is he thinking ahead to the changes that he sees coming and where he might fit in the larger picture?

Well, we can be fairly assured he's not angling for Susan.

Not unless he has had a sudden change of life choices!!! :>

Bronowski is an interesting figure. There's a certain mysterious, exotic sex appeal to his presence. The eye patch, an eye that sees in the dark, is cause to sit up and take note of special insights, as Hana has already pointed out in his handshake with Merrick (by the bye, for those who are comfortable with knowing the whole text even as they read it, Wikipedia has a helpful framework of the characters on its The Day of the Scorpion entry).

There's more to consider when weighing the Bronowski/Merrick pairing, lots of similarities in their social positions, analytical capabilities, and...well, other things.

But, Bronowski also sees primary Brit characters as people alien to their social moorings.

He's a marvelous character, but his insights serve a literary purpose for Scott to offer the thoughts and observations of a foil and lead the reader to consider questions they might not otherwise consider, I think anyway. And, he certainly exerts an influence over the Nawab.