![]() These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. ![]() But they seem to me to be very pertinent questions questions which, for some of the reasons Beloff suggests, a novelist might be better equipped to answer than a historian. ![]() Forster failed-in apprehending true Indian feeling about relations with the British?’ The opinion of a respected historian that these are the kinds of questions we should be asking when we read a novel like A Division oj the Spoils (the one with which Beloff is mainly concerned) will be disputed by many critics and some readers of fiction. The questions to which he wants to know if Scott’s novels provide satisfactory answers are: ‘Has succeeded in making Britain’s retreat and the partition of India that followed it … more directly intelligible than these events might otherwise have been to us? Can he convey both what these events meant to those affected directly by them and their wider significance? Has he succeeded - where many Indians would argue that E. He entitles his review ‘The End of the Raj: Paul Scott’s Novels as History’. Beloff’s approach is, as one would expect, historical. In spite of the very considerable interest in it that has been taken by the general reading public, the only commentary of any length that I have found worth reading is Max Beloff’s review of the fourth volume, which appeared in Encounter in May 1976. At the moment of writing, the Raj Quartet is no more than four years old. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |