BookTalk.org

Not to be repetitive, but I think this lengthy quote of the book by Thomas just shows that racism is a more complex issue than, "A" is racist, "B" is not. Racism as a way of thinking in the culture that surrounds us is like a clear pollutant in the water that fish swim in. It's hard not to let any trace of it pass through your gills, but you can at least be mindful of it as you swim around, avoiding positively bathing in the larger toxic spills of it, or smearing it about unreflectively and denying it exists because it's transparent to you.

I think the author reveals it, portrays characters who are more or less exponents of it to some degree, but their perspectives are not necessarily the validated voice of the author in the text. I think she's straighforwardly showing how messed up the whole society of her setting is, in this, as in a lot of respects.

It is also possible to admire someone's religious sophistication and still hold other racist conceptions about their culture. In this passage it's clear that Mary is outraged and insulted to have been thought "black," but later she shows that she has a respectful grasp of the concept of the universe being contained inside of an Indian god's body, visible down his throat, which leaves her cousin cold and uncomprehending in his "common sense" British superiority. How can the universe be inside a person who is in the universe? Someone like Mary or her author can think this is a profound insight produced by Indian culture, widely uncomprehended in her own, and yet still think the culture that produced it is in other ways inferior to her own.

It reminds me of this woman I used to work with who talked to me about "the Chinese and their clever little hands" after seeing an exhibit of Chinese art. I understood this to be both "positive" in its intended judgment and annoyingly racist and condescending. (Both/and, Interbane!) She also used to say "namaste" to me in an effort to honor my heritage or something -- this is what is meant by the term "well-meaning white people." I suppose I could have replied, "Gutten morgen, Fraulein," and she might have gotten it. Or she might not. I didn't, so we will never know.

GR9

I think the author reveals it, portrays characters who are more or less exponents of it to some degree, but their perspectives are not necessarily the validated voice of the author in the text.

Yes, she reveals how much racism is based on ignorance.
Such as:

Book

"For!" cried out Martha. "Does tha' mean that they've not got skippin'-ropes in India, for all they've got elephants and tigers and camels! No wonder most of 'em's black. This is what it's for; just watch me."

GentleReader9 wrote: In this passage it's clear that Mary is outraged and insulted to have been thought "black," but later she shows that she has a respectful grasp of the concept of the universe being contained inside of an Indian god's body, visible down his throat, . . ..

Where is this about the throat, please?

I think the little girl from India symbolizes theosophical ideas.

Tom

GentleReader9 wrote:

In this passage it's clear that Mary is outraged and insulted to have been thought "black," but later she shows that she has a respectful grasp of the concept of the universe being contained inside of an Indian god's body, visible down his throat, . . ..


Where is this about the throat, please?

Thomas, you caught me committing the Crime of the Irresponsible Reader. I haven't re-read this in a long time, but I have more recently watched 2 or 3 film versions and I think that scene came from one of them rather than the book. I am now sheepishly re-reading more rigorously before I post. If I find that the Krishna with the universe down the throat scene was in the book, I shall certainly post about it in the appropriate chapter thread, but in fact, I spoke of it before getting into the book that far on this reading. (Now I will be thought pedestrian by the truly careful readers. Oh well.)

GentleReader9 wrote:Thomas, you caught me committing the Crime of the Irresponsible Reader.

May thy sins be forgiven thee. But perhaps you are being a gently imaginative reader instead? I did find this:

"Yasoda was the first to became aware on Krishna's special powers when she chanced to look down his throat. She was stupefied to see the entire universe there."

http://www.themystica.com/mythical-folk ... ishna.html

And part of the Magic is that what is without (subtle influence of cosmic life) becomes within.

Tom

Oh I knew I didn't imagine the story about the universe down Krishna's throat, and I'm sure it was at least in a video version of Secret Garden. I just had forgotten it wasn't in the actual book.

GentleReader9 wrote:Oh I knew I didn't imagine the story about the universe down Krishna's throat, and I'm sure it was at least in a video version of Secret Garden. I just had forgotten it wasn't in the actual book.

I haven't seen any of the videos. Please comment on them -- how they accord with or deviate from the book, production quality, etc. Others might be interested.

I am puzzled about how a producer could work Krishna's throat into The Secret Garden. In your recent blog you mentioned the relation of inner and outer:

This incident has come to my mind recently in reading postings at this site, the notion of something kindred needing to be already inside for outside things to speak to a listener.

Could this line of thought have put you in mind of Krishna's throat?

Tom

TH

I am puzzled about how a producer could work Krishna's throat into The Secret Garden. In your recent blog you mentioned the relation of inner and outer:

In the book Mary spends many hours with Colin telling him stories about India, which we do not hear. In a video this is where this could have easily been worked in as one of the stories Mary brought from India.

I think the version I am thinking of is the 1993 version with Kate Maberly and Maggie Smith. (I googled and looked at pictures of the VHS box covers to decide this. My mother has two different versions which I have watched in recent years more than once when visiting. The other version either wasn't in the Googlesearch results or I didn't recognize the cover.)

There is a conversation in the movie version between Mary and her hypochondriacal cousin in which she tells him about Krishna having the universe inside him and he thinks initially that this is nonsense. In this video version conversations that take place between Mary and her cousin which are merely alluded to in the book are represented in scripted conversation. The book says she puts him to sleep as her Ayah put her to sleep, but does not record specifically with what words or songs.

The videos take other liberties with the story. There is even one where the cause of death for Mary's family is earthquake rather than cholera and she is one among many orphans at the station and in transit. It's the other orphans who taunt her with "Mary, Mary quite contrary" and she is the last to be claimed, standing alone at the station at night, abandoned and unwanted in England, unshed tears glistening dramatically in the big, dark eyes of the actress. It's a much more sentimental and upsetting version than the book. In the book we don't feel so sorry for Mary because the author tells us she wasn't used to having any love so that she didn't really miss it, and that she doesn't actually care that much what other people think or feel about her, nor gives it any thought until she gets to England and starts to grow around other children and people who dare to confront her on more equal terms than "the blacks" did.

In the book I get a stronger sense that Mary is in step with her social environment all along, that she doesn't "break her heart" as a more sensitive child would, but merely feels isolated. She only discovers she is lonely and that that is why she is unhappy through Ben's explanation about the Robin and how he feels.

In this way of characterizing the situation, Burnett does a really good job of not excusing the self-centeredness and entitlement of unexamined class and race privilege as if it were simply some kind of injury done to a poor, sensitive and wronged child, for whom we should weep. It is a sickness from neglect and unwholesome upbringing, but not as great as the injury done to those Mary treats as "less than" herself (which is truly a violent kind of oppression, backed up by the adults, so that she can even slap her Ayah's face without being stopped). Mary's insensitivity is one that the individual can grow out of in becoming aware of other life and other people around her, should she choose to do so. No one is actually stopping her with insurmountable, institutional cruelty.

realiz wrote:n the book Mary spends many hours with Colin telling him stories about India, which we do not hear. In a video this is where this could have easily been worked in as one of the stories Mary brought from India.

Yes, you're right. Also lullabies.

" Somehow she was sorry for him and did not want him to lie awake, so she leaned against the bed and began to stroke and pat his hand and sing a very low little chanting song in Hindustani" (end of ch. 13).

Shanta may know these:

गाना

नन्ही कली सोने चली, हवा धीरे आना

पलकों पे चलते चलते

प्यारा सा गाँव

सपनों के घर की

सो जा चांद

आहिस्ता आहिस्ता निंदिया तू आ

मेरे घर आई

http://rahulruchi.blogspot.com/2007/06/ ... abies.html

Tom