Read Online Pilgrim Son: A Personal Odyssey by John Masters - Free Book Online
Authors: John Masters
Tags: Literary, General, Asia, History, Literary Criticism, War & Military, American, Biography, Autobiography, India
Ads: Link
voice, 'I feel like a used French letter.' Everyone within earshot jumped visibly: the young lady turned scarlet and backed off violently. Soon we were surrounded by a sanitary cordon several feet wide, and could drink in peace.
I suddenly remembered the date: August 15th. Hari Badhwar, Dhargalkar, Hissam el Effendi and Mohammed Sadiq were in our group. I found them, and shouted 'Dominion Day!' They nodded.
'Good luck to India! Good luck to Pakistan!' I cried. We raised our glasses. Others heard and soon we were all slapping each other's back and drinking toasts to the new nations. So, in the middle of the English Channel, I was cut adrift from my past.
In Camberley Barbara and I settled down to our Life Appreciation. There is an old saying that, when making an appreciation, one should spend about half the total time available clarifying the object, to a point where one can define it in a single clear sentence. A few weeks earlier a civilian lecturer on scientific research had given us a classic example of an ill-thought-out object. In the 1930s both the army and the air force were concerned with the problem of detecting enemy aircraft at a greater distance than the existing searchlights and sound rangers could do. Each service gave the scientific establishment an object to be achieved. The army said they wanted searchlights and sound rangers that could pick up an aircraft at 30,000 feet and 20 miles instead of the then limit of 20,000 feet and 10 miles. In due course they got what they had asked for — better searchlights, better sound rangers.
The air force defined their object more accurately: to detect and track aircraft from as great a distance as possible. They got radar.
So it was about 'object' that Barbara and I talked first. What was our object in life? It is a hard question to answer, in a single sentence. We would all like everything — security, riches, fame, good education for the children, travel, a life useful to others; but experience — and not only in military affairs — teaches that he who goes after incompatible objects is likely to achieve none of them. You have to choose just one object, and take the rest merely as factors to be considered in achieving it. We rejected security first, even though it was important to both of us, particularly to me. No one in my family had worked without the security of a government pension to follow for about 150 years. The idea of launching my family into a rootless future, with no special protection, no adequate pension, and almost no savings, was quite appalling. But when we tried to tell ourselves that security was our object, we could not say it. So out it went.
'The best possible education for the children?' Barbara suggested. This made more sense, for they were good children and would, we thought, deserve every opportunity we could give them. But, as the object? Suppose it meant my becoming a bank clerk, or going to Malaya, or handing them over to some State School for the Production of Geniuses? If it were our object, we'd have to do it. In fact the children's future would not depend on education as much as on other factors, especially our own happiness and the kind of environment we could surround them with. Throw that out then, as our object.
To become rich? Well, that was most desirable. So many other things, ranging from security to adventure and good works, could be attained through money. Also, we had expensive tastes and a wide enough experience of the world to know that whatever we had, there was something better. But, as the object?... A long grey Rolls phaeton drives up. A distinguished-looking man gets out and I stroll to the front door to meet him. He pats Susan on the head and introduces himself: Lord Melchett, chairman of I.C.I. He does not beat about the bush. Word of my Mountain Warfare Exercise has reached Mond House. He would like me to start right away in his office, with succession to his post. 'Say 30,000 pounds a year to begin with,
I suddenly remembered the date: August 15th. Hari Badhwar, Dhargalkar, Hissam el Effendi and Mohammed Sadiq were in our group. I found them, and shouted 'Dominion Day!' They nodded.
'Good luck to India! Good luck to Pakistan!' I cried. We raised our glasses. Others heard and soon we were all slapping each other's back and drinking toasts to the new nations. So, in the middle of the English Channel, I was cut adrift from my past.
In Camberley Barbara and I settled down to our Life Appreciation. There is an old saying that, when making an appreciation, one should spend about half the total time available clarifying the object, to a point where one can define it in a single clear sentence. A few weeks earlier a civilian lecturer on scientific research had given us a classic example of an ill-thought-out object. In the 1930s both the army and the air force were concerned with the problem of detecting enemy aircraft at a greater distance than the existing searchlights and sound rangers could do. Each service gave the scientific establishment an object to be achieved. The army said they wanted searchlights and sound rangers that could pick up an aircraft at 30,000 feet and 20 miles instead of the then limit of 20,000 feet and 10 miles. In due course they got what they had asked for — better searchlights, better sound rangers.
The air force defined their object more accurately: to detect and track aircraft from as great a distance as possible. They got radar.
So it was about 'object' that Barbara and I talked first. What was our object in life? It is a hard question to answer, in a single sentence. We would all like everything — security, riches, fame, good education for the children, travel, a life useful to others; but experience — and not only in military affairs — teaches that he who goes after incompatible objects is likely to achieve none of them. You have to choose just one object, and take the rest merely as factors to be considered in achieving it. We rejected security first, even though it was important to both of us, particularly to me. No one in my family had worked without the security of a government pension to follow for about 150 years. The idea of launching my family into a rootless future, with no special protection, no adequate pension, and almost no savings, was quite appalling. But when we tried to tell ourselves that security was our object, we could not say it. So out it went.
'The best possible education for the children?' Barbara suggested. This made more sense, for they were good children and would, we thought, deserve every opportunity we could give them. But, as the object? Suppose it meant my becoming a bank clerk, or going to Malaya, or handing them over to some State School for the Production of Geniuses? If it were our object, we'd have to do it. In fact the children's future would not depend on education as much as on other factors, especially our own happiness and the kind of environment we could surround them with. Throw that out then, as our object.
To become rich? Well, that was most desirable. So many other things, ranging from security to adventure and good works, could be attained through money. Also, we had expensive tastes and a wide enough experience of the world to know that whatever we had, there was something better. But, as the object?... A long grey Rolls phaeton drives up. A distinguished-looking man gets out and I stroll to the front door to meet him. He pats Susan on the head and introduces himself: Lord Melchett, chairman of I.C.I. He does not beat about the bush. Word of my Mountain Warfare Exercise has reached Mond House. He would like me to start right away in his office, with succession to his post. 'Say 30,000 pounds a year to begin with,
Similar Books
