Old Filth by Jane Gardam ~ June Bookclub Online

[JoanP]

 
The Book Club Online is  the oldest  book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone.  We offer cordial discussions of one book a month,  24/7 and  enjoy the company of readers from all over the world.  Everyone is welcome to join in.

June Bookclub Online  Everyone is welcome!

Old Filth
 by Jane Gardam

"The opening pages of the book find Filth (Sir Edward Feathers), a retired but still unassailable old barrister whose reputation has grown to such mythic proportions that it obstructs the hard truths of a man so damaged by his past that he has found himself forever unable to love. It's only as Filth toddles gracefully into old age that he can begin to rediscover the parts of himself that he has locked away and come to terms with the dark secrets that made him the man he became."   (Reviewed by Maggie O'Farrell) The novelist,  Jane Gardam was born  in Coatham, North Yorkshire on July  11. 1928. Her title character's late-in-life questions about whether his life has had meaning are especially moving—and universal, given this author's own experience and age. “Both witty and poignant, this work is more than a character study; through her protagonist, Gardam offers a view of the last days of empire as seen from post-9/11 Britain.  Borrowing from biography and history, Gardam has written a literary masterpiece that retraces much of of the 20th century's torrid and momentous history.”   Library Journal

click on map twice to enlarge

Discussion Schedule for the coming week:

- June 20 - 25  Part Two: Scene:Inner Temple; The Watch; To Columbo  p. 193-219
- June 26 - 30   The Donheads; Chambers; Last Rites;  The Revelation; The Inner Temple Garden  p 220-290

Some Topics for Consideration
June 20 - 25

Part Two
Scene:Inner Temple

1. On what basis do you think the author has divided the book into these two parts?  What new information is overheard in the opening scene in the Inner Temple?

2. "Nothing ever happened to Filth."  What more did you learn of his uneventful  life from the Benchers' conversation?

The Watch
3.   Why is Eddie  unable to eat - or to speak when he returns to High House in 1941?
 
4. What do you think of the deceitful  aunts ? Who  was responsible for the children 's ending up in  Wales?  And why ?

5.Why would their revelations regarding the Ingoldbys be particularly painful to him at this time?

6.  So Eddie is off to meet his father in "the safest place in the world." Why is this ironic?

To Colombo
7. How do you think this young man feels about being an evacuee from a war zone?
 In what ways does he seem to be  a child setting out for the unknown?  How are we reminded that he is not a child?

8. Does Eddie seem to treasure his father's valuable watch?  How close does he come to losing it on the trip home?

9.  What is your impression of the only other passenger on board this rickety boat ?
Can he be trusted ?

10  How would you describe Eddie's mental state after months at sea?  Why did the voyage take so long?  How does he feel about the sea after this grueling voyage?
 

Related Links:
 UK Legal System  (rosemarykaye);
 The British Empire;
 A Brief Biography of Rudyard Kipling;
 Kipling's "Baa Baa Black Sheep";

Discussion Leaders:   Traude  & Joan P

[bellamarie]

Okay a new day, a new thought...no more Othello, but I must admit it was the most fun I had reading this book so far.  lol   

Andy, I am with you on not liking Betty so much...for me it comes from the way Claire reacts about her and also from her secrecy with Veneering and those damn pearls. Note they have gone from "magnificent" to damn for me.  lol  I wasn't seeing her having "an affair" but then I can't understand why she is making so much out about wearing Veneering pearls all these years and thinking Edward would not have noticed. 

Do the pearls have any significance? 

Edward in his note said they were in bad condition and "needed cleaned and restringing," and given to him long ago.  So if they were in bad condition and needing repaired, and Betty was wearing pearls,  Edward had to know they weren't the ones that belonged to him.  Ughhhhhh......

Steph,

All in all Betty was his rock.. And possibly his career, although now he seems down on it,

If this is true then why did Claire say,  " He's made himself.  Made his impeccable, astringent self."  Claire does not see Betty as the person behind his success or his strength. She also stated, "Betty underestimated" Edward and "fooled him."   Why does Claire seem to have disdain for Betty, and why would she pass on having all her "wonderful rocks."

Babi, I agree,   And Betty's "haunting" is not at all angry or bitter.  It's familiar and typical of her while she was with him.  I had mentioned the haunting in jest.  lolol  I to this day I hear my Mom speaking to me in spirit of love and guidance, and sometimes chewing me out, or it could be myself imagining its her because I know its what she would want to say to me.  lolol

As for the hat boxes being at Claire's and she not knowing how they got there, makes NO sense to me.  How can she NOT know, and Edward recognizes the brand names on them.  They do sound like very pretty boxes, I have a set of three different size hat boxes my daughter in law gave to me years ago and I just love them, I use them for decorations in my bathroom. 

Rosemary,

"One of them is even reluctant to give him money when he gets on the boat, saying he won't need any."

 

When I read that in the book, I assumed it was because they knew Edward's father had already taken care of all his expenses ahead of time.  I was also confused when we were led to believe the aunts had nothing to do with Edward, then we read ahead and it appears he has stayed with them for years.

Is it me, or does there seem to be inconsistencies in this book?  Okay off to enjoy my week-end, and JoanP I again was joking...I can never read ahead its too much fun speculating the "what ifs" by not knowing. 

Ciao for now~ 

[JoanP]

We all agree that the Desdemona reference did not mean that Betty, like Desdemona was murdered. However, there's a difference between dismissing it as an irrelevant  comment and considering that Desdemona was wrongfully accused of being unfaithful to her husband, set up by Iago to look as if she had been..  As a result, her relationship with her husband was in shambles.  To an extent, I see that happening with Filth and Betty - though Filth doesn't seem to face the fact that Betty may have been unfaithful.  Not sure if we'll hear Betty's side of it in this book.  I've picked up Man with the Wooden Hat - and AFTER we finish Old Filth - we can talk about it -  if you wish.

Babi - as good a guess as any - that the hatboxes were shipped with Claire's stuff when the children were sent from Wales.  Sir didn't want to wait around for any packing, did he? Bella, if they were sent home with Claire's stuff when she was six years old, I can see that she would have no idea where they came from.  She doesn't seem to be the inquisitive type - just ignored the boxes all these years...

- I DO see some sort of attachment between Veneering and Betty, Babi - but maybe it was more to do with Veneering's son?  Why did Betty react so strongly to his death? And yes, Bella, the pearls need some explaining.
Please do point out the inconsistencies in the book.  We've been wondering how Jane G was able to keep all the details straight through the flashbacks...I think that was your question for the author - and, well, tell where you have caught her in inconsistencies...

[JoanP]

Andy, we'd been wondering where you were.  How can summer be SNAFU when it hasn't even begun! OK, we agree - unless you   have experienced love it is difficult to project any love to others. You don't even notice when someone loves you.
So you  do not believe that Filth felt his wife loved him but then again--because he doesn't know what love feels like.  Which brings up another question - the last question on our list for this week -

"If you've not been loved as a child, you don't know how to love a child. You need prior knowledge."  Do you agree with Filth on this?  Do you think most Raj Orphans would agree?  OK, now what do you think of the relationship between Claire (a Raj Orphan)  and her son, Oliver?

Rosemary - not ignoring you, love - but would prefer to get into Part Two of the book - on Monday, when everyone has had a chance to catch up...

[Jonathan]

there seem to be inconsistencies in this book?

Heavens no, Bellamarie.Haha, think hobgoblins, and blame it on the author. But of course you're joking. Nevertheless, it's a jigsawed life with a million pieces. The only aspect of OTHELLO that I can see as having any relevance to the plot is that the author took a page out Iago's book and is trying to confuse us. Talk of murder, crimes of passion, making of wills, jealousies, and on and on. I agree with those who see the mention of Desdemona, as an indication of the loving, faithful wife that did not give in to Veneering's advances.

Never would I suspect Edward of murdering his wife. His 'guilt', I'm sure, is nothing more than minor, imagined moral lapses. As a raj orphan he felt little self-worth as a result of never having been loved.

This book is fun. Imagine the author's problem. How to bring all this to an end? Any kind of end? Writing that second book is an admission of failure? How true to life. Things just get curiouser and curiouser.

Recently I read a biography of Sonia Tolstoy. All those endless transcriptions of Tolstoy's illegible manuscripts. With every transcription followed by a rewrite, until Sonia was satisfied with it. She really should be acknowledged as a co-author of War and Peace, and Anna K.

Let's not forget that some answers are also to be found in Midsummer Night's Dream!!!

[bellamarie]

JoanP,

"We all agree that the Desdemona reference did not mean that Betty, like Desdemona was murdered."

Oh but we did have fun while it lasted!!!!   lolol

"If you've not been loved as a child, you don't know how to love a child. You need prior knowledge."

I do NOT agree with this, I think a person who has not been loved as a child has the capabilities to love a child.  I know people who had similar lives as Old Faith, Babs, and Claire and have not only known how to love a child, but loves their child/children beyond measure and I think its because they respond to the innocence of the child, the unconditional love a child gives.  I personally feel its so much easier to love a child than it is to love an adult, because a child has no preconceptions of life, they look to adults as the know all, be all.  Only when they have experienced being abandoned, abused and hurt do they begin to build walls and distrust.  Claire seemed to adore her son Oliver and yet she grew up in the same Raj orphanage.  I think every individual is an exception to the rule.  

Jonathon,  

Heavens no, Bellamarie.Haha, think hobgoblins, and blame it on the author.

I'm not so sure I understand what you mean Jonathon, but of course you're joking??  lolol

There are  a few inconsistencies that come to mind, and please keep in mind these are IMO...

1)Babs is suppose to be a recluse, yet she goes to Oliver's wedding and dances the night away with the Vicar.

2)Babs and Claire are not suppose to have been close, yet when they speak its as though they have been in touch on a frequent basis.  

3)The aunts were never involved, yet we learn Edward stayed with them a few years.

4)Claire expressed interest in Betty's "wonderful rocks" yet she gives thousands of pounds of vintage, expensive jewels to Vanessa.

5)Eward in a penache throws the jewels in a jiffy bag, yet Vanessa opens a very nice jewelry box.

6)Claire has NO idea how the  hat boxes got in her house, yet she knows they belonged to Edward's mother.

7)The Ingoldby family treats Edward as if he is one of them for all his years in school, yet then they dismiss him and says its a family matter.

8)Clair speaks on the phone with Babs as if she doesn't care for Edward, yet when he shows up at her door she describes him as a lover, and says he still melts her heart.

There are others, but these have nagged me and with all due respect, because I like Jane G. and this story, but it has left me with questions and frustration.  Bare in mind, we can all assume explanations for these but, that's all they are, because so far nothing has given us as struade refers to as "definitive answers."

JoanR feels all will be revealed in the end, yet Straude says we will not find any definitive answers in this book, seems we will have to read The Man in The Wooden Hat to get some answers.

Mama mia and now we have mentions of Tolstoy, Midsummer Night's Dream and War and Peace.....Egads!!!!! lolol

Jonathon its interesting how you ask "writing the second book is an admission of failure?"

Is there a standard we the readers should hold the author to in order to see the book as a success, or failure?  If indeed there is a sequel, should the author at the end of the first book leave the reader with the knowledge the answers will come in the sequel?  What if someone read Old Filth and has no idea there is a sequel?  

Okay I guess its safe to begin Part Two so I will be ready for Monday's discussion and I will reserve the right to not take anyone's word as to whether there will be definitive answers in this book for ME.....lolol

Ciao for now~

[straudetwo]

Jonathan, I couldn't agree more, for exampleon Desdemona.  The author puts these words into Veneering's mouth, we must remember, and, as I suggested before, he may not have been "up" on Shakespeare

Yes, it's fun to look for clues and cross-references in the deliberately mixed-up chapters,  but most of our urgent questions will not be answered in this volume.  Besides, there's more to learn about Edward's from Part Two, things we cannot foresee.
JoanP, I'm looking for the remark by Filth ("feeling like Filth", literally) . It's impossible without context, and I haven't found it yet.
Do you have the page number?

Bellamarie, inconsistencies are annoying. I remember getting upset ages ago when  a girl's eyes were described as blue and lagter in the story wee  reported to be brown. Or when something doesn't make sense - like the factory set in a deli.  There is a slight inconsistency, but I'm trying to find the passage again. Pazienza.

Affection and love are rarely 50/50 in a marriages. And as I have suggested before, it is possible that Edward's feelings for Betty were stronger than hers for him.  He is always formal, neithereems to be demonstrative;  so far Betty is rather passive.  Her strong emotional reaction to Veneering's call isquite  therefore unusal, a red flag. She masks it,  and when Filth asks, she tells him "it was nothing". Liar, liar ...

BTW, have you considered the name Veneering and a possible connection to veneer ? Used in construction, it is a layer of  masonry applied over bricks but without not providing additional structural strength. Is there an association of ideas ? I can't help feeling this is intentional. We might keep it in mind, possibly for a question to the author.

JoanP, re Edward's letter to his father. more power to him! His fingers work without impediment, unlike his tongue. But eventually he masters that, too, and exceedingly well.

Just came across an interesting phrase I had marked, on pg. 164, last two lines, to first line,  pg. 165. He is visiting Claire  Claire who is "peacefully widowed"
[/b]
"And there she sat now, gentle, shoulderless as a courtesan on her linen-covered sofa, smiling."

 "shoulderless" is a bit odd.  Were her shoulders bare, by any chance? The word 'courtesan' is not a problem but his (or Gardam's) applying the term to Claire is - well, interesting.

Perhaps the author herself felt there was more to tell about Filth, Betty and Veneering.  In O.F. we see everything from HIS perspective, HIS youth, adolescence, adventures  and adulthood --- alas not in that order. 
We need to hear about Betty's life, HER youth and HER relationships, pearl necklaces included. 
 
It took Gardam 5 years to write the companion book. We are lucky,
we can lay our hands on it any time we want.

Always good to see tou, Andy !

Late again, good night !

[rosemarykaye]

I think very few of the things mentioned are real inconsistencies.  Jane Gardam knows exactly what she is doing.  I think the book is all about our perceptions, and the way that different people see the same thing so differently.

Re the aunts, I do think that JG is just pointing up the fact that they have been taking the money and telling Edward's father that Edward is with them when he isn't.  Alternatively, perhaps Edward has been staying with them, but he is choosing to block that out because he preferred the Ingoldby version.  As i said, I think it's all about our subjective interpretation of life.

Re the Ingoldbys, I think their behaviour is terribly British - they will welcome Edward into their family up to a point, but beyond that point he can never go - the walls come down.  This situation does not seem at all strange to me.  This is how upper middle class people behave.

Claire and Babs are full of inconsistencies, but that is because many real people are just like that - they say one thing one day and one thing another, they don't themselves know what they feel.  They are fickle. 

I must admit the "shoulderless" description of Claire puzzles me a bit.  I wondered if it meant that she doesn't really take responsibility for anything - we speak of people being "slopey shoudered" when they always pass the buck.  She seems to me to be quite a passive character, who sits back and lets other people look after her.  I'm sure we all know women like that - the "little me, I need to be cared for" pose that drives other women mad but seems very attractive to some men.

Rosemary

[CallieOK]

Rosemary, I think you've got it!!!

[Babi]

  BELLA, I don't think Claire was referring to OF's career when she
described his "impeccable, astringent self". It was his appearance and
personality. And I'm always a doubtful about the woman who believes
she knows a man better than his wife does...especially a man she has
rarely seen.
  That's a good point, JOAN. Being childless herself, Betty may have
become very attached to Veneering's son.  She would be stricken to
learn of his death, if that was so.

"If you've not been loved as a child, you don't know how to love a child. You need prior knowledge." 

 
 Surely it is true that we learn about childraising from the way our
parents raised us. Sometimes it's a bad example from which we learn to
do the opposite, but the influence/learning is definitely there. So
what if there is little contact with the parents and you are raised by
people with no particular affection for you?  I think OF was right.

"

Let's not forget that some answers are also to be found in Midsummer Night's Dream!!!

   
  Okay, JONATHAN, explain that, please. 

 On the matter of perceived inconsistencies: 
# 1 The vicar's presence, I think, explains that.
#2 Keeping in contact over the phone isn't really the same as being
'close',  is it?
  #3 He stayed with them a few years after he could no longer stay at the Ingoldby's. Yet, the aunt referred to his have lived with them when
he first arrived.  Just more of the aunts firmly putting their version
of things on the record.
  #4 I would be 'interested' in those gems, and love to see them, but
would have no occasion whatsoever to wear them.  I can readily see
giving them to a member of the family who could use them.
  #5 Maybe Claire thought it would be nicer to send the jewels in a
jewelry box, than send them on in a jiffy bag which would offer no
protection at all to the gems.
 #6...addressed already
  #7...That's the Ingoldby's. Poor behavior, of course, but consistent
for them.  Actually, I see ROSEMARY says that is consistent with the British outlook.
  #8...certainly inconsistent, but then that's Claire and Babs.

TRAUDE, I believe there was an era in which sloping shoulder were
considered very beautiful and sexy. I assumed that was what the
'shoulderless' meant.
   Yikes...too long. I will shut up now.   
 

[Jonathan]

Jane Gardam knows exactly what she is doing.

Of course she does, Rosemary, and I'm eager to congratulate her on her marvellous book. Marvellous in the way she leaves it to the reader to find the truth. Marvellous in providing half a dozen explanations for every question that comes up. For example, why was the Feathers' marriage  a childless one? Reasons hinting at the answer seem to follow each other through the book. I'll admit to having my own perceptions of her way of dealing with it.

I see Jane Gardam as using every trick in the book to keep the reader puzzled, mystified, and provoked into getting involved in her character's lives. Inconsistencies? I loved Bellamarie's questions about that part of the author's style. And I happily join her in the lolols. The hobgoblins I threw in were Emerson's: Consistency is the hobgoblin of certain minds. LOLOL

And just as I wondered about the allusion to Shakespeare's OTHELLO, and what we were making of it, so I wondered about the author's allusion to A MIDSUMMER'S NIGHT'S DREAM, with the comment that it isn't much of a play, but it is very quotable. LOLOL

Is it really a British trait to welcome someone into the family, and then without reason to exclude him? What struck me was that once again Edward found himself without a family. Without anyone.

[straudetwo]

Bellamarie, first let me say that it was late when I finished my #206 last night; I read it over carefully for typos (which is not always a guarantee for accuracy in typing hahaha)  but did not see your # 205. I was tired and don't remember if I even checked.
In any event,  I did not mean to ignore your post.

I believe Rosemary is right in what she says about perception. We read the same books differently, it seems,, and can have different impressions of what we read. But we do have four weeks to  compare our impressions and thoughts. A differing view can be helpful. For my part I've never ever tried to convince anyone that  only my own opinion is correct. Perish the thought !

We have already seen that JG cannot be rushed. Some urgent questions are going to be answered in Part Two.  It's too soon to express total dissatisfaction - the book has not ended. It was a huge success when it came out.  I don't know who proposed O.F. for discussion here, or whether  the person knew that a companion piece exists. But O.F. was selected and that is what we have before us, the life and marriage of O.F.

It's true there are minor-- let's call them discrepancies or incongruities.  Should the author be taken to task for them ?

Well, the proof reader - whether a real person or a spell checker - missed  "the factory set  in the deli". But there must have been editors as well.  Serious inconsistencies  perhaps ought to be referred to the publisher for further action, especially when a new paperback edition is prepared ? What do you think, Rosemary ?
(I found the other dubious spot but decided that it is really insignificant because it changes nothing.)

But before we start discussing  Part Two, I'd like to refer again to pg. 115.  I think it's powerful writing.
After finishing the letter to his father, Edward suddenly remembers the lank shadowy figure of his father, come to Sir's Outfit not long after the Ma Didds' incident, the yellow face, the strange eyes, the restless hands,  cracking the knuckles,  asking him questions,  
in a stammer !!,  he himself tearing up, unable to answer.  Father and son sat in  miserable silence, until Sir came in and sent the boy back to class. Whatever was divulged between Sir and Edward's father, the matter was never mentioned again.

In an earlier post Babi said (and I paraphrase) that there is much sadness in this story, and I agree.  But we know that O.F. lived to a ripe old age and that all will be well, eventually.
 Avanti popolo !
 
Back later

[straudetwo]

P.S. just saw  's post, proceeding to read it now.

[bellamarie]

Rosemarykaye,

"I think the book is all about our perceptions, and the way that different people see the same thing so differently."

Yes, I totally agree that is why I posted IMO, because I would never expect ALL readers to see or perceive a book the same way as each other.  That's the beauty of discussions like this!!!

I couldn't comment on the aunts and the money because I had not gotten to that chapter yet, it is suppose to begin tomorrow so I have just begun reading it. 
Rosemarykaye,

"Re the Ingoldbys, I think their behaviour is terribly British - they will welcome Edward into their family up to a point, but beyond that point he can never go - the walls come down.  This situation does not seem at all strange to me.  This is how upper middle class people behave."

Hmm...I guess for me it is so terribly cruel to allow someone to become a part of your family for such a long time, and then to drop them instantly without cause.   Thank you for clarifying its how the British are.

Babi,

BELLA, I don't think Claire was referring to OF's career when she
described his "impeccable, astringent self". It was his appearance and personality.

But you forgot the first part of her quote, "he's made himself"  and "Betty has underestimated him."  I don't see that as referring to his appearance.  Thank you for trying to shed some light on my preception of the inconsistencies, I guess we have to respectfully agree to disagree. 

Jonathon, YOU ARE A HOOT!!!!!!!  LOLOLOL  I LOVE your post 331 and agree with you on your take about Jane G.  It is indeed a marvelous book, and she has indeed gotten us involved in her characters.

"The hobgoblins I threw in were Emerson's: Consistency is the hobgoblin of certain minds. LOLOL" 

Oh how clever you are, taking advantage of my youth and ignorance to the classics.  Thank you for sharing this.  This book club has done wonders for teaching me through the eyes and knowledge of all you wonderful experienced readers.  I am humble to be among you all, seriously.

straude, No problem, I think I made many changes in that post and I can't remember if the final one was before or after  yours by the time I finished.  lolol 

It's true there are minor-- let's call them discrepancies or incongruities.  Should the author be taken to task for them ?

Oh please don't misunderstand me, I am not attempting to criticize or fault Jane G.  I was only trying to point out that when I see inconsistencies it frustrates me and makes me wonder how the author or editor didn't catch them.  Does it alter the storyline?  No, I don't really think so, but the fact the aunts were involved in Edward's life to any degree and for what ever motives does shed light to the fact he was not "totally" abandoned by his family as it was made to appear earlier in the book. 

Okay on to Part Two....but before I leave let me say...Happy Father's Day to all you fathers out here.  I hope you  had a glorious day.

Ciao for now~

[Steph]

Actually I dont think that I believed that Edward could or would not love a child, but I do think he had trouble with true love with another adult or close personal friends his whole life. I think he always expected them to leave him.. Betty to me is still a puzzle.. As I remember neither of them wanted children, but I could be wrong.

[rosemarykaye]

Re the aunts:  I think it just means that Edward perceived himself never to have seen them - whether or not that was factually true is for us to decide.

Rosemary

[Steph]

I would hope he never saw the Aunts. They were terrible people.. Very cold to a child and young man.

[Babi]

  What is this bland illusion the sisters insist on perpetrating? They say he has been
  living with them all these years...”since you were a tiny”.  We know that wasn't so.

  And of course they 'remember' the Ingoldby’s. “They used to have you over.  Very kind
 to help us out.”   That's probably how they explained it to their brother.
      It is obvious from their lifestyle when Eddie finally did come to them,
 that they gave the miminun essential attention to their nephew, and not a whit more.
 It seems they have been recving money from their brother all these years for Eddie’s
 support. I suspect Eddie’s long letter to his father must have been a shock on more
 than one level.

[ALF43]

When I read a book in sections like we do, I am always fearful of guessing or "supposing."  What IF my supposition was correct?  Everyone would think that I had given away an ending.  When I read alone, I talk to myself and the characters as I go. 

[salan]

Re: the aunts.  Were they his father's sisters?  I think all decisions they made for/about Eddie were based on what would be the cheapest and least amount of trouble for them.  What a pair!  I think Eddie was sent to Wales because it was cheaper.  I also think they probably sent him back to his father on the cheapest means available.  Then they wouldn't even give him money for the voyage.  It was ironic that he was originally sent to England because it was safer and now he's being sent back because the reverse is true.

JG refers to Claire and being shoulderless like a courtesan.  At first I kept imagining courtesans (low cut dresses, lots of cleavage and bare shoulders)!  After Rosemary's post the light "dawned".  We speak of certain people as" bearing the weight of the world on their shoulders", or "shouldering responsibilities" ergo being shoulderless would mean carefree and having someone care for you.

Sally

[bellamarie]

Rosemary,

Re the aunts:  I think it just means that Edward perceived himself never to have seen them - whether or not that was factually true is for us to decide.

Babi,

What is this bland illusion the sisters insist on perpetrating? They say he has been
  living with them all these years...”since you were a tiny”.  We know that wasn't so.

I am with you, how dare those aunts say Edward has been with them "since you were a tiny." Or shall I say, how dare Jane G.   LOL

I have to sort of giggle, because throughout our discussion at one time or another we have posted what we believe to be true, yet only to find a contradiction, or discrepancy.  I was intrigued by the fact we see what we perceive in this book.  So I decided to do a little google search for quotes on perception.  Here are just a few I liked, and thought could pertain to us while reading this book.

“People only see what they are prepared to see.”  ....Ralph Waldo Emerson (Jonathon we couldn't leave out Emerson  )

"What you see and hear depends a great deal on where you are standing;  it also depends on what sort of person you are."  
                                                                                                                                                                          ......C. S. Lewis

"However, no two people see the external world in exactly the same way.  To every separate person a thing is what he thinks it is---in other word, not a thing, but a think.".....Penelope Fitzgerald (A Gate of Angels)

"A critic can only review the book he has read, not the one the writer wrote."
                                                                                                                       ...Mignon McLaughlin (The Complete Neurotic's Book)

Seems our author Jane G. has written this book leaving her readers with questions, suppositions, perceptions and puzzlement.  One sees a character or statement one way, while the other sees it in an entirely different way due to the inconsistencies.  It sure does keep us on our toes, and makes for a lively discussion.  This is my all time favorite for this book:

"There are things known, and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception"...Aldous Huxley

Andy, I not only talk to myself and the characters, I am also calling "foul play, and time out" to the author!  lolol  But Andy, that would be okay if you discussed your suspicions even in the event it would make people think you gave away an ending.  I never read ahead and I do discuss my suspicions openly and early on.  Sometimes I am correct and other times I am way off base.   Its the fun of the discussion.

Still reading the second part, so be back later.

Ciao for now~

 

[Jonathan]

This is my all time favorite.

Mine too, in a way, Bellamarie. Enjoying this book, puzzling over its meaning, discussing it with all of you, has restored a lot of brainpower that I thought I had lost. And I'm grateful to the author for the enteraining, imaginative challenge.

What a lot of interesting ideas about how we perceive things. Let me add one, which I came across in a newspaper column recently. The author, a very clever writer, had a serious go at the adulterous, criminal behavior of the ex-chairman of the International Monetary Fund, and the ex-governor of Califonia. After saying many wise things about the wretched business she called one of the affairs a low farce, and the other something in the way of a Greek tragedy. Care to guess?

I find all the characters sympathetic.

[ursamajor]

I received the book very recently, and have just caught up with the discussion.  The posts have been extremely interesting and I look forward to participating in the little time we have left.

I think the two aunts are far and away the most loathsome characters in the book.  They are either directly or indirectly responsible for most of the abuse young Edward had to endure.  His father at least had the excuse of being damaged, both by his war experiences and his loss of his wife, but the aunts were totally selfish and self-focused, as well as dishonest. the Ingoldsbys were cruel, but they were dealing with the loss of their eldest son.

[bellamarie]

Okay Jonathon, I'm not sure if I have what you are referring to but I think I have found something that is a bit mind boggling.  First off my guess would be.....................   "All the world's a stage"

Here is the link to visit to listen to what I think is pretty uncanny, because Jacques could be describing the same stages as our book "Old Filth."  Take the time to click the words in blue, so you can better understand them in their context.   The audio is amazing! 

It gave me goosebumps.......  

“All the world’s a stage”

In As You Like It, the "melancholy" Jacques speaks these lines just before Orlando brings the good old man Adam on stage. Jacques must recently have read Timothy Bright's A Treatise of Melancholie.

The passage is spoken in the dialect that Shakespeare would have used:

Jacques: All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking* in the nurse's arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard*,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the canon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon* lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws* and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon*
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his* sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans* teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
(As You Like It, 2. 7. 139-167)

Ciao for now~

[rosemarykaye]

Ursa, I agree about the aunts - they are Edward's blood relations, unlike the Ingoldbys, and therefore owed him a lot more care than he got.  However, were they not all Raj children themselves?  Have I got that right?  It could be that they, having been taken away from their own parents at an early age, simply were not equipped to understand what they should be doing.

Rosemary

[Steph]

I am find this new section horrifying. Edward was sort of thrown away. He ends up sick alone with a dwarf(?) for company in a strange place. Sailing back and forth.. Hmm. Dantes version of Hell perhaps..  Just not grown up enough to stay in England, where he could at least have gone to Oxford.. Amazing, the cruelties involved in this book..No wonder Edward was so wounded.. He had no chance at normal.

[Babi]

That's an interesting possibility, SALLY, but somehow I can't see Claire as "carefree"
or not shouldering resonsibilities. I think she would quietly take care of her
responsibilities without making an issue of it.  I think I would like Claire.

 BELLa, we do have to remmember that Gardam is telling a story, not reporting actual
events. The selfish, lying, greedy aunts are part of the story, and they definitely stir
up our indignation. As I'm sure Gardam intended.

 Another character, this late in the story?  How significant will he be?  And why, oh why
  did Eddie let that cynical, worldly-wise boy psych him out of his watch?!!
     “Loss’s defection was the metaphor for Eddie’s life.”   I’m not quite sure what to say to that.  There were those who cared about him,  like Claire, and Isobel,.  Betty’s ‘defection’ certainly wasn’t by choice, nor was Pat’s.  All England suffered such losses.   From what we have seen all the Raj orphans learned detachment, learned how to shield themselves from hurt.  Which, of course, may be the whole point of the story.

[JoanP]

Steph - you're right - it must have been horrifying - but a bit exciting? Even though he lost the argument in that magnificent letter, his father really wants him to come home.  Edward is to return to his father, at long  last.  Maybe get some questions answered - perhaps to establish a relationship with the one person left in this world who may have some feelings for him.  Maybe "a chance at normal?"

It was a terrible trip home though in the company of the "dwarf" - There's something about that dwarf - perhaps a clue to his identity -  We may need to back up into that first scene at the Inner Temple...   Funny that Part Two begins the same way Part One did - with Filth overhearing comments about himself - and the fact that NOTHING has ever happened to him.  It seems to me that Jane G. is using these conversations to set up what is to come.

Babi - cynical, "worldly-wise boy" - though cynical, might be just what the naive "boy" needs at this time.  Edward is so much more of a child than the fourteen year old Loss, isn't he?  Let's look for a clue in the Inner Temple scene for Gardam's possible inspiration for this new character so late in the story...

Ursa - so good you have caught up - and just in time to begin Part Two with us.  I'm hopeful that Part Two will be the response to the questions raised in Part One -  Do you see that?  (do you hope that?)

 Let's try not go anyfurther than the end of the  "To Colombo" chapter  in our discussion for the next few days - just to keep the suspense alive a bit longer.  It will be fun to see how Jane G ties up the loose ends - or not.  

We'll begin discussing the concluding chapters on June 26.  

[JoanP]

Two days away from my computer for grandson's 8th birthday. (won't get into details of that "celebration."
An eternity - judging from your  insightful conversations this morning.  It's actually fun reading 13 printed pages of back-posts with  breakfast.
  I've only a  few comments to add, before attempting to catch up with you all in Part Two -

~ Traudee, you asked about the companion piece for Old Filth - Man in Wooden Hat - Those who raved about Old Filth in the Library  - or proposed the book for discussion,  NEVER mentioned the second book.  Loved Old Filth - recommended it.  That's all.  That's how we should enjoy it and judge this book too, I think.  It is curiosity that prompts a  reading of The Man in the Wooden Hat.  Love the title! (What could it possibly mean?)

~ "I feel truly, filth"  - found the reference to Filth's comment about himself in the Time of Frenzy chapter -( if you have the paperback - p. 134.)  The judge refers to his feelings about having pronounced the death sentence for a man guilty of a crime passionel.  He tells Betty the man was "guilty as hell."  and yet he still thinks - "I feel truly, filth"
Why is this?  I can only think of one answer - perhaps he, Edward, feels he has been guilty of the same "crime" at some point in his life?  

~ Callie, I think Rosemary got it too - about Claire not really taking responsibility for anything. Sally sees her as  carefree and always being cared for.  But what's going on in her head?  Does she really feel guiltless about what went on in Wales?  So pretty and precious, everyone loved her.  We are left with a horrible scene in Wales - the older children all huddled together in the bed - while Claire is permitted to leave - go for help.  Is she the only one undamaged by what she has seen?  It appears so. She is the only one who went on to have children, isn't she?  Does this mean that she felt nourished and loved as a child, so that she had no qualms about being a parent?   I really hope we hear more about Claire in Part Two.

~  Yes, Rosemary, I remember reading that the aunts, the Colonel's sisters, were Raj Orphans themselves.  In part, that would explain their lack of concern for the child's well-being.

~ Steph, that's what I remembered too - neither Betty nor Edward wanted children - for different reasons, though.  Didn't you  see Betty's regret - at not having a child? Andy - I'll confess jumping to a conclusion that perhaps Terry's son was also Betty's - as preposterous at that might seem.  What if we reach the end of the story- and that turns out to be true?  Honestly, I haven't read ahead.

I'm reminded of that marble memorial  by Gibbons, was it?- remember the naked weeping cherubs - male - three stars - they had such an effect on Filth as he was heading home from his visit to Babs after Betty's funeral.  (Wasn't he there to put flowers on his father's grave?  I still wonder why this memorial was described in the book...

Filth tells Vanessa -  "Children are cruel - They are wreckers of the soul.  I hate children.  I am a paedophobe.
Betty knew we must not have a child because of the child I was myself."

Hmm - if Filth was a child then himself, what will become of him as he approaches the 7th stage of man Bella has posted -  the stage "that ends the strange eventful history, second childishness and mere oblivion?"

[JoanP]

Just reread that first chapter of Part Two in the Scene in the Inner Temple.  Filth is there, unseen, taking a "post prandial" nap (?) and overhears the Benchers - the Queen Remembrancer talking about him.  I believe there are several clues here that indicate where Jane Gardam might be taking us in Part II.
 
One thing that really caught my eye was mention of Kipling - you'll remember that Jane G. was influenced by his "Baa Baa Blacksheep" - (see link in heading) in writing this story.  Have you ever read "Kim"?  What do you know of Kim and Kipling that might shed some light on the dwarf?

[bellamarie]

Sorry, I was posting last night too quickly and forgot to add the link

http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/life/lifesubj+1.html

Ciao for now~

[bellamarie]

I think its ironic how they are discussing O.F. not knowing he is overhearing them.  Imagine him hearing them say, "Nothing ever happened to Old Filth." then they mention he joined the Glouscester and was mentioned in the Who's Who.  I thought it interesting how they think someone gave him a push upstairs. Or out East.  They mention,  "something dicey about that circuit.  Alot of people you can't know socially but you have to pretend to."

These comments seem as if these Benchers don't feel O.F. made it entirely on his own and with integrity.  Are they being snobbish? This would be disturbing for me if I overheard them talking about me like this.

As for the dwarf, I think he is a con artist.  I felt he made everything up from the minute he approached Edward.  He had his eye on the watch and possibly any money he could get off of Eddie. He makes his living off of these travels, a vagabond.

Oh dear JoanP, I'm not at all familiar with Kim, but I did read Baa baa black sheep before I began this book at your suggestion. 

[serenesheila]

Can someone please remind me, what is the Inner Temple?  My memory has sprung a large number of leaks.  By tomorrow, I will not remember what I read today.

I am appalled by Eddie's aunts.  They seem to only care about each other.  Yet, they now announce that they are to be married.  I am disgusted by the fact that Eddie's father never visited, to see for himself, how his son was treated by his sisters.  How terrible that one generation puts the succeeding generation through the same emotional neglect it experienced.

I am still confused by this book.  Part of my confusion is over things being called names different than they are known by in the USA.  Part of it is about all of the jumping around from one time period, one location, to another.  I have the author's next book:  "Man In The Wooden Hat", but am not sure I want to read it, as I do not want to be equally confused by another book, in the way this one has confused me.

Sheila

[JoanP]

Sheila - maybe Rosemary can help with the Inner Temple explanation - I think there are four courts - 4 Temples altogether - I've heard of the Middle Temple.  They seem to be associations of  barristers - and judges, but not sure who else is included. They seem to have quite a rarified air about them - can speak freely of old court decisions...  Maybe they are social clubs?  So far, we've seen Filth having lunch and sleeping at the Inner Temple.  He seems quite comfortable here.

Bellamarie -  maybe  Filth was sleeping soundly when the Benchers started to talk about him.  I had to check the "postprandial nap"...  It's the after dinner nap - usually lasts between 8 and 10 minutes. It is said that the postprandial nap refreshes one as much as an 8 hours of sleep at night.  Don't you love that?  I'll have to try it!

So, there's Filth, waking from his nap - in his comfy chair - and hears the talk of how O.F. probably not deserving of serving in the Royal Gloucesters - getting a mention in the Who's Who.  If it wasn't true, I'd be upset hearing this talk too. He doesn't seem to mind it though, does he?  Are they saying he didn't fight?  Did the Royal Gloucesters fight? What kind of a regiment are they? 
 There is some  mention  about a crack-up too.  Haven't we seen this coming all along?  How long can the boy keep so much repressed?  Maybe he will have a breakdown before he can start rebuilding himself.

Oh yes, the knowing little dwarf, the naive boy's only companion.  He's the reason I asked you about Kipling's "Kim," Bella. First he reminded me of of Pat Ingoldby, but then, with the talk of Kipling, I thought the dwarf  might be the incarnaton of Kipling...and he might be still.  Kipling was a Raj Orphan at five - had a crack-up...
BUT then I thought of the character in the only novel he wrote - Kim.  Wasn't it sort of a memoir?

Here's Kipling's  Kim - you decide -

"Kim is orphaned as a baby after his Irish mother dies in childbirth and his father, a soldier in an Irish regiment, slowly dies of an opium addiction.He is raised by the keeper of an opium den in the streets of Lahore. Kim is characterized by a sharp tongue, a tireless wit, a powerful sense of observation, and a keen sense of humor, as well as an untiring appetite for playing pranks and games of wit and trickery. Although he is a white child, he grows up as a "native," with the uncanny ability to blend in to any of the many cultural and religious groups that make up the Indian population

This sense of displacement and identity loss comes to Kim when he is removed from the company of Indians whom he has known all his life and placed for three years in a Western, Catholic school, where he masters the culture, academic knowledge, and language of the British rulers.

This sense of displacement overcomes Kim several times throughout the novel; however, the novel concludes with Kim's experience of an epiphany: Having previously seen himself as detached and somewhat alienated from the world, he comes to a feeling of belonging among all people."

To me, the MOST INTERESTING bit in this section - came in the last two lines of this Scene.

ps. Sheila - it is said that this is the ONLY book in which Jane Gardam uses the flashbacks.  She probably uses the King's English, however.

[JoanR]

Kipling wrote more novels than "Kim" although that's far and away his most famous.  I loved "The Jungle Book" and then there was "Captains Courageous".  I sort of remember reading another one as a child called"the Light that Failed" about an artist who was losing his sight which made me weep quite a bit.  Sorry, this is off topic!

[JoanP]

Kipling lost his sight too, didn't he, JoanR?  Thank you for the titles of other books he wrote.  I thought the Jungle Book was a compilation of stories...was only familiar with "Kim"...
Doesn't the dwarf in Gardam's story remind you of Kim?

The reason I came in tonight is to bring good news -  Jane Gardam is working on the questions that I've forwarded to her.  Nothing about the story itself, because we haven't finished.  I mentioned to her that we were beginning part 2 this week and would probably have more questions when we finished the book.  But I did send her six questions from your posts - and hope to hear from her soon.  Here was her response...

"Thank you for all your interesting questions. It will be a pleasure to answer them. But give me a little time. They cover huge territories!
Just one thing , while I prepare to answer. Old Filth, Sir Edward Feathers, and his wife were in Hong Kong years after the War. The Brits - belioeve it or not - are highly respected there to this day. My husband who was a lawyer and worked there internationally for thirty years - I alongside half the time - was greatly loved there.and is still remembered (he died last year).

And the dear old OBE is still awarded. I have one myself. Prince Charles handed it to me at Buckingham Palace last year. I am by no means somebody of the old world of the empire (though I am not ashamed of it) and I found that I was very proud to get it.  I am still in touch with the Law in the Far East .It is still English Law - based on King Alfred about a thousand years ago - the king who burnt the cakes. Do you know this story?       And in Singapore my husband was photographed by a Straits Chinese lawyer beside the memorial there to the British who fought for them. I'm still a friend. Betty and Feathers were rather ahead of us in time and very different in character . I wanted them to represent  the best of us  who served abroad- duty and service, and love of foreign places. This seems to me to be the basis of a sane future.
Some hope, perhaps !  
yours Jane
I will brood on your other questions."

Jonathan, I'm assuming this is in response to your question about the OBE award - and to Rosemary's question on biographical  influences in the characters. Prince Charles handed it to her just last year.  Is she Dame Jane Gardam then?  Again, maybe Rosemary can answer this question.

The king who burnt the cakes?  Would love to hear that story...

[rosemarykaye]

JoanP - yes, yes, those last 2 lines about Kim are definitely the most important!

The OBE is for "Officer of the British Empire" and is given to quite a lot of people.  It does not mean JG is a Dame - you have to be made a Knight/Dame of the British Empire to get that - like Judi Dench for example.  The Beatles were famously given MBEs (Member of the British Empire), and John Lennon eventually gave his back.

I believe the legend about King Alfred is that, in 800 and something, he was given shelter by a peasant woman who asked him to watch the cakes she was baking.  He was allegedly so preoccupied with his political problems that he forgot and the cakes burned.  That is how he is remembered in history, although I think he did a few more things!  What an excuse - it's the sort of thing my husband comes out with 

Rosemary

[Steph]

I find the book truly confusing at this point. Does Edward ever tell us good things?? NO..The war journey is truly confusing. Edward is still being sent back and forth.. But I must recheck how far we are to read. With the IPAD, I cannot trust the paging.. I am up to another  The Donheads, but that surely cannot be the last to read. If so it would be the shortest read we have had.

[JoanP]

Thanks for that information, Rosemary - still it is quite an honor to have been presented with the OBE by Prince Charles...but we will have to wait before we can address Ms. Gardam as "Dame"...  How would you address her if writing a note - Miss Gardam, Ms. Gardam or Mrs. Gardam.
From her note, it sounds as if Filth and Betty were actual people that she once knew, doesn't it?  And now we understand how she is so familiar with the court system.  Need to learn more of King Alfred, and English law.  Can you tell us about the Inner Temple...is it one of the Four Courts?  Do the Courts go back to the time of King Alfred?  Sooner or later, I'll get this straight.

Steph - you've got it right - up to, but not including The Donheads.  We realize that the page numbers don't help with the e-readers - that's why the Chapter titles are up there.  We're nearing the end and want everyone to catch up - hopefully by this weekend - There aren't many pages left, and we are looking for answers.  I'm going to guess that we will have to put together snatches of information and reach our own conclusions.  I get the feeling that JG is not going to spell it out for us.  That's what I love about these discussions.  You all notice things that I read right over.

The opening scene shows parallels between Kipling and Filth - Kipling's Kim and Loss, too, I think.  Why don't some of you trust him?  
There's talk of Kipling's breakdown... Do you overhear the Benchers to say that Filth had a crack-up?  Maybe not directly - because NOTHING ever happened to Filth.  But the implications are there.  We need to find out WHEN it happened?  That's important, don't you think?  
  
And then there's the suggestion of a Memoir... perhaps this is the only way that Edward can face all those repressed childhood memories.  Perhaps this is the only way we will learn what happened in Wales.  

There was quite a bit packed in that opening scene.

Steph asks a good question -  Does Edward ever tell us good things??  What do you think?    

[Babi]

 Good point, JOANP, about cynical being a good antidote for our rather
immature Eddie. And now that you mention it, 'Alba tross' does sound a
good deal like a 'Kim' type. Very self-sufficient and resourceful.
   Our brief acquaintance Albert Ross is certainly an odd character.  Having conned Eddie out of his watch and stolen his address book,  it seems he used the address book to get word to all Eddie’s friends/family that he was returning, and on what ship.  He has his own set of rules, apparently.  ‘Albatross’ definitely strikes me as the sort of character who might be featured in a book of his own.

 Have you noticed how often Gibbons name crops up? I got curious(typical) and found this site.
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/sculpture/grinling-gibbons.htm
 There were a number of others as well, but this seems reasonably
thorough.

  I think that is a big part of the irony of the story, STEPH,..all
those terrible things happening to Eddie that were never common
knowledge. Everyone thought he had such an easy life. Nothing could
have been further from the truth.
 (I hope I didn't write anything past our current discussion point. The book
has been returned to the library and I'm working from my notes.)