The Moonstone - The Portrayal of the Indians

[Blackpaw]

I thought this might be another good discussion point on the book. And i think no matter what page you're at in the book you could jump in on this...NOTE - no spoilers as it were below, but a mention or two of later events i think?!

I found Collins' depiction of the Indians to be quite dichotomous. On the one hand you have some elements of colonial condescension (particularly insofar as Hindu religion is concerned) and the usual romanticisation of the 'oriental' Other (juggling, clairvoyance, adventure in far off lands)...on the other hand you have 'sensible' englishman that have 'swarthy' skin and some appearance of the Other themselves (Jennings, Murthwaite). And you have a somewhat respected character in Murthwaite who extols the virtues of the Indians' intellect, patience, dedication (as does Sergeant Cuff).

On the whole though i lean towards Collins characterization as being the former (colonial condescension and romanticizing the Other), perhaps typical for that period shortly following the Great Exhibition?

Still its interesting to see the play between the two.

Another thought i had was that perhaps there are some parallels between the caste system of the Indians and the distinctions between gentry and peasantry that formed much of the inter-play between characters, particularly insofar as throwing up obstacles in the way of the detective work (examples being, the servants' rooms being searched, the 'objectionable' character of Ezra Jennings, the 'relationship' between Rosanna and Franklin).

But that might be drawing a long bow, rather thats another interesting topic to consider

 

[rainwood]

I'm always offended when the spelling Hindoo is used. I'm not sure why. Wikipedia says it was just an ancient spelling so maybe I need to adjust my thinking.

I also thought the characterization of the Indians was condescending, but not as much as it might have been given the period in which it was written. The intro I read said that Collins was quite free thinking for his time - he lived with two women simultaneously (different houses though they knew about each other) for many years and was married to neither of them. I don't remember if the introduction talked about his racial views. I probably should have read it a little closer. I do remember that Collins and Dickens considered themselves to be rivals (both wrote in serial format) and that Dickens was considered the more conventional, even rigid, one in his political and philosophical views.

 

[elrohwen]

Rainwood, Collins and and Dickens were actually great friends and collaborators, not rivals. They may have had a friendly rivalry going on, but they were friends first and some of Collin's work was actually serialized in Dickens' publications. Collin's brother even married Dickens' daughter. Just wanted to throw that out there. I think there are some interesting parallel's with Dickens' works, but many differences in style. Dickens was more conventional in the social roles of his characters in some ways, but he was also incredibly liberal when it came to the poor and workers, and did a lot for advancing the cause of the poor in England at the time.

As far as the actual question - I think the overwhelming view of the Indians is the condescending Colonial view, but as I was reading I took into account who was narrating. I didn't really expect Betteredge to be overly liberal and I expected the characterization that we got from him at the beginning. I'm not on the part with Miss Clack narrating and if the Indians get away with only being called savages they'll be lucky. I'm interested to see how Blake treats them in his part of the story, since he is the most wordly of the bunch.

 

[rainwood]

Rainwood, Collins and and Dickens were actually great friends and collaborators, not rivals. They may have had a friendly rivalry going on, but they were friends first and some of Collin's work was actually serialized in Dickens' publications. Collin's brother even married Dickens' daughter. Just wanted to throw that out there. I think there are some interesting parallel's with Dickens' works, but many differences in style. Dickens was more conventional in the social roles of his characters in some ways, but he was also incredibly liberal when it came to the poor and workers, and did a lot for advancing the cause of the poor in England at the time.

Elrowhen -

From what I read in the introduction, Dickens and Collins were friends, collaborators, and as Collins got more popular, rivals and not as friendly. I don't know any of this personally, only what the person who wrote the introduction said. And Collins was believed to be freer in his thinking than almost anybody, including Dickens, because he was 'way out there' on a lot of topics. That's not to say Dickens wasn't interested in the less fortunate or progressive in his thinking. He clearly was. Both of them also have to be measured against the prevailing views of the day, and they both measure up quite nicely on that score.

And your point about not confusing Collins' viewpoint and that of his characters is a good one. I'd actually started typing that same thought last night, and deleted it for brevity's sake. I feel like I'm already too long-winded!

 

[elrohwen]

Rainwood, interesting! I've really only read info on their relationship from the Dickens perspective, since this is the only Collin's book I've read, but I've read many Dickens' books with intros that mentioned Collins, bios that mention him, etc - they only mention the two as friends. I'll have to do a little more digging.

I've read a bit about Collin's opium habit (well, laundanum) and I'm curious to see how that plays out in Jenning's account later. I agree that Collins sounds fairly far out there, and I definitely agree that his characters are more liberal than some Dickens' would write. I'm pretty sure Betteredge and Lady V might have had something on the side at some point Haha.

 

[Tuckins1]

I actually wanted Collins to talk more about the Indians... I got the feel that the narrator's POV was coming from the "colonialism" era, so there was an air of mystery and almost "heathenism" about them. I really enjoy seeing how cultures are perceived, and how those perception change over time.

 

[dragonfly411]

I did think that it was interesting to see though that the Indians were actually higher caste members who gave up their caste status to track down the Moonstone.

 

[elrohwen]

I did think that it was interesting to see though that the Indians were actually higher caste members who gave up their caste status to track down the Moonstone.

I thought that part was probably a dig at upper class English who would be most likely to read the book - would they be likely to give up their class to travel halfway around the world for honor? Probably not. I guess it resonates a little less with us, in the modern world, since we're all middle class for the most part, and class is much more fluid than it once ways.

 

[AGBF]

Well...I have also finished the book. I finished a couple of days ago. I don't want to write any comments in this thread that would be, "spoilers" if no one else plans to discuss anything in this thread that will not be suitable for those still reading! (I had considered making a comment on the ending and how it reflected on the treatment of the Indians by the author, you see.)

Perhaps it is time for a thread just for those of us who have finished the book and who, therefore, cannot have the ending spoiled for them? I will start one!

Deb/AGBF