Kim (Penguin Classics) 
asked by csean85 on November 24, 2006 12:13 PM
One of the particular pleasures of reading Kim is the full range of emotion, knowledge, and experience that Rudyard Kipling gives his complex hero. Kim O'Hara, the orphaned son of an Irish soldier stationed in India, is neither innocent nor victimized. Raised by an opium-addicted half-caste woman since his equally dissolute father's death, the boy has grown up in the streets of Lahore: Though he was burned black as any native; though he spoke the vernacular by preference, and his mother-tongue in a clipped uncertain sing-song; though he consorted on terms of perfect equality with the small boys of the bazar; Kim was white--a poor white of the very poorest. From his father and the woman who raised him, Kim has come to believe that a great destiny awaits him. The details, however, are a bit fuzzy, consisting as they do of the woman's addled prophecies of "'a great Red Bull on a green field, and the Colonel riding on his tall horse, yes, and'--dropping into English--'nine hundred devils.'"
In the meantime, Kim amuses himself with intrigues, executing "commissions by night on the crowded housetops for sleek and shiny young men of fashion." His peculiar heritage as a white child gone native, combined with his "love of the game for its own sake," makes him uniquely suited for a bigger game. And when, at last, the long-awaited colonel comes along, Kim is recruited as a spy in Britain's struggle to maintain its colonial grip on India. Kipling was, first and foremost, a man of his time; born and raised in India in the 19th century, he was a fervid supporter of the Raj. Nevertheless, his portrait of India and its people is remarkably sympathetic. Yes, there is the stereotypical Westernized Indian Babu Huree Chander with his atrocious English, but there is also Kim's friend and mentor, the Afghani horse trader Mahub Ali, and the gentle Tibetan lama with whom Kim travels along the Grand Trunk Road. The humanity of his characters consistently belies Kipling's private prejudices, and raises Kim above the mere ripping good yarn to the level of a timeless classic. --Alix Wilber
Reviews
0%
0%
First, to straighten out a few errors in other reviews -
"Kim" most certainly did not cause controversy "at the end of the 18th century" since it wouldn't be written for another 100 years! Perhaps the reviewer was confused by the Italian use of "century" where "quattrocento" does mean the "14th" century. Kipling wrote at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th. "Kim" was published in 1901.
The Great Game was not really a mysterious secret-service organization - it was simply the name for the activities of British Army intelligence as it gathered information aimed at maintaining control of British India. There were three aims: to prevent other Great Powers gaining influence (especially Russia), to suppress any incipient revolt against British rule, and to maintain order by preventing wars between the Indian princes themselves.
Kim is not part Indian by birth, as some state, but wholly - I was going to say British, but that is not quite right, since Kipling tells us his father was an Irishman, Kimball O'Hara (though at that time indeed Britain ruled Ireland, infamously). His mother was "nurse-maid to a Colonel's family," named Annie Shott.
Apart from that, what at first I found strange in some of the reviews was the complaint that it is "difficult" to read. What? Kipling's writing is much more direct here than in many of his short stories, where you must really stay alert to catch 'why' a character responds to someone else's words in a certain way. As for the Urdu or other words used naturally by the speakers, I am not sure how different editions, or the original text, handled them: my edition, printed in the US by Macmillan, simply includes the English in parentheses where needed "No," said Kim. "Thy man is rather yagi (bad-tempered) than yogi (a holy man). " (yagi and yogi are in italics). I think these would be Kipling's parentheses.
But perhaps for modern American readers some things are unfamiliar - flipping through again, I see hookah, tramway, scapular, coolie, Babu, chela, fakir - these are words that are more likely to be familiar to Brits like me, and especially Brits of middle-age or so.....I guess we don't always realize how much we simply absorb from the specific cultural background. I see that some editions provide lots of footnotes, but of course looking at footnotes is a pain and spoils the flow and pace of reading. All I'd say is, let yourself be swept up in the amazing panorama of the life of a huge sub-continent as it was 100 years ago, and don't sweat the small stuff! This is a story that above all conveys a zest for life, and has nothing to do with prejudice or preconception about how things "should" be. Do as Kim did- take it as you find it, and enjoy.
"Kim" most certainly did not cause controversy "at the end of the 18th century" since it wouldn't be written for another 100 years! Perhaps the reviewer was confused by the Italian use of "century" where "quattrocento" does mean the "14th" century. Kipling wrote at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th. "Kim" was published in 1901.
The Great Game was not really a mysterious secret-service organization - it was simply the name for the activities of British Army intelligence as it gathered information aimed at maintaining control of British India. There were three aims: to prevent other Great Powers gaining influence (especially Russia), to suppress any incipient revolt against British rule, and to maintain order by preventing wars between the Indian princes themselves.
Kim is not part Indian by birth, as some state, but wholly - I was going to say British, but that is not quite right, since Kipling tells us his father was an Irishman, Kimball O'Hara (though at that time indeed Britain ruled Ireland, infamously). His mother was "nurse-maid to a Colonel's family," named Annie Shott.
Apart from that, what at first I found strange in some of the reviews was the complaint that it is "difficult" to read. What? Kipling's writing is much more direct here than in many of his short stories, where you must really stay alert to catch 'why' a character responds to someone else's words in a certain way. As for the Urdu or other words used naturally by the speakers, I am not sure how different editions, or the original text, handled them: my edition, printed in the US by Macmillan, simply includes the English in parentheses where needed "No," said Kim. "Thy man is rather yagi (bad-tempered) than yogi (a holy man). " (yagi and yogi are in italics). I think these would be Kipling's parentheses.
But perhaps for modern American readers some things are unfamiliar - flipping through again, I see hookah, tramway, scapular, coolie, Babu, chela, fakir - these are words that are more likely to be familiar to Brits like me, and especially Brits of middle-age or so.....I guess we don't always realize how much we simply absorb from the specific cultural background. I see that some editions provide lots of footnotes, but of course looking at footnotes is a pain and spoils the flow and pace of reading. All I'd say is, let yourself be swept up in the amazing panorama of the life of a huge sub-continent as it was 100 years ago, and don't sweat the small stuff! This is a story that above all conveys a zest for life, and has nothing to do with prejudice or preconception about how things "should" be. Do as Kim did- take it as you find it, and enjoy.
reviewed by runaway on November 24, 2006 1:51 PM
0%
0%
I feel as if I truly missed out as a lad in not reading this book. Unfortunately, the book was more or less verboten in the UK when I was young as racist, imperialist etc etc
I don't find the book to be either of these things. If it's racist, then the racially superior ones are Tibetans, as personified by Kim's beloved lama, the inferior ones are Sahibs (whites), and, in particular, non-Anglo sahibs who are notably mean-spirited and cruel, not just laughable, like the Anglos. If it's imperialist, then it's only depicting the India that Kipling knows. I don't find anywhere in this book the notion that this should always be the case or that Indians couldn't eventually win their independence. There may be undertones to this effect. But undertones, of course, are notoriously ambiguous and subjective.
What this book IS then is a lovely adventure and spy novel, as well as a sort of Bildungsroman for Kim. It is also a book whose main character seems, at times, to be the Indian land itself, portrayed lovingly and gracefully throughout the work--and also, it's just good rollicking fun!
No, it's not exactly literature. Aside from the lama's speculation on the wheel of life, and on the illusory nature of the senses, no profound insights abound. But Kipling is not a particularly introspective writer.
Note: Those of you with the Penguin Classics edition and Edward Said's rambling 50 page introduction, pray don't bother with it. It's nothing more than an obfuscatory, academic apologia for Kipling's racism and imperialism, evident perhaps in other works, but not here, which I suppose Penguin felt they had to include. Bother it. Jump headlong into the adventure!
I don't find the book to be either of these things. If it's racist, then the racially superior ones are Tibetans, as personified by Kim's beloved lama, the inferior ones are Sahibs (whites), and, in particular, non-Anglo sahibs who are notably mean-spirited and cruel, not just laughable, like the Anglos. If it's imperialist, then it's only depicting the India that Kipling knows. I don't find anywhere in this book the notion that this should always be the case or that Indians couldn't eventually win their independence. There may be undertones to this effect. But undertones, of course, are notoriously ambiguous and subjective.
What this book IS then is a lovely adventure and spy novel, as well as a sort of Bildungsroman for Kim. It is also a book whose main character seems, at times, to be the Indian land itself, portrayed lovingly and gracefully throughout the work--and also, it's just good rollicking fun!
No, it's not exactly literature. Aside from the lama's speculation on the wheel of life, and on the illusory nature of the senses, no profound insights abound. But Kipling is not a particularly introspective writer.
Note: Those of you with the Penguin Classics edition and Edward Said's rambling 50 page introduction, pray don't bother with it. It's nothing more than an obfuscatory, academic apologia for Kipling's racism and imperialism, evident perhaps in other works, but not here, which I suppose Penguin felt they had to include. Bother it. Jump headlong into the adventure!
reviewed by shagdag on November 27, 2006 4:23 AM
0%
0%
'Kim' is a work that could receive very different reviews depending on the biases of the reviewer.
Any professor from the English department of my alma mater (Rutgers) would insist that 'Kim' should never under any circumstances receive any praise as it is racist, glorifies imperialism, was writen by a dead white male, and lacks a political philosophy acceptable to a modern progressive liberal. Well, I suppose that it lacks any real political philosophy (except some very general complimentary comments about democracy) and Rudyard Kipling is dead, white and male, but the first two comments are completely wrong and and this sort of review is the voice of ignorance.
A staunch traditionalist, conservative would insist that it is a canonical work that should be read by every school child as a superior example of English literature and the epitomy of the written Enlish language. This is equally ill-informed and ill-considered.
'Kim' is a wonderful story of an orphan in India (the part that is now Pakistan; Abid-please consider it a gesture of respect that I mention the change in geography) in the late 1800s. Kim is the son of an Irish soldier raised by locals, familiar with the customs and languages of the Hindus and Muslims of the area who gets recruited by the British to spy for them. Kim acts as a guide for a Tibetan Buddhist priest who is on a quest in India, broadening his knowledge of the cultures of his world and giving him an excuse to travel even further. He comes upon his father's regiment, and the officers of the regiment arrange for Kim to attend a 'proper' British school. Throughout the story, a British spymaster is helping Kim receive an education (both formal and in the skills needed to serve the British rule in India) and arranging for Kim to carry messages and run small but important tasks for him.
Throughout the book, the only Indian group that is treated with disrespect is Hindus who have sacrificed their own culture's customs in order to get ahead in the British goverment. Frequently, the low opinion of the British held by the Indians (Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist) is mentioned, and is usually pretty funny. The other European powers that are mention in the book are not treated with respect, but that is understandable (at least to me in context; other readers will have to make up their own minds).
Kipling's passion for the land he was raised in and his love for the peoples he was raised with is unmistakable, as is his love/hate relationship with the British government (N.B. he was not knighted in a time when most prominent authors were; he was entirely too candid about the British rule in India and the Crown's treatment of her soldiers). The language of the book is a little hard to follow, between regional loan words and the English of the time, but a patient and persistant reader will find the effort rewarded.
A great spy novel, read it for yourself and don't trust the critics who speak based on assumptions rather than knowledge.
Any professor from the English department of my alma mater (Rutgers) would insist that 'Kim' should never under any circumstances receive any praise as it is racist, glorifies imperialism, was writen by a dead white male, and lacks a political philosophy acceptable to a modern progressive liberal. Well, I suppose that it lacks any real political philosophy (except some very general complimentary comments about democracy) and Rudyard Kipling is dead, white and male, but the first two comments are completely wrong and and this sort of review is the voice of ignorance.
A staunch traditionalist, conservative would insist that it is a canonical work that should be read by every school child as a superior example of English literature and the epitomy of the written Enlish language. This is equally ill-informed and ill-considered.
'Kim' is a wonderful story of an orphan in India (the part that is now Pakistan; Abid-please consider it a gesture of respect that I mention the change in geography) in the late 1800s. Kim is the son of an Irish soldier raised by locals, familiar with the customs and languages of the Hindus and Muslims of the area who gets recruited by the British to spy for them. Kim acts as a guide for a Tibetan Buddhist priest who is on a quest in India, broadening his knowledge of the cultures of his world and giving him an excuse to travel even further. He comes upon his father's regiment, and the officers of the regiment arrange for Kim to attend a 'proper' British school. Throughout the story, a British spymaster is helping Kim receive an education (both formal and in the skills needed to serve the British rule in India) and arranging for Kim to carry messages and run small but important tasks for him.
Throughout the book, the only Indian group that is treated with disrespect is Hindus who have sacrificed their own culture's customs in order to get ahead in the British goverment. Frequently, the low opinion of the British held by the Indians (Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist) is mentioned, and is usually pretty funny. The other European powers that are mention in the book are not treated with respect, but that is understandable (at least to me in context; other readers will have to make up their own minds).
Kipling's passion for the land he was raised in and his love for the peoples he was raised with is unmistakable, as is his love/hate relationship with the British government (N.B. he was not knighted in a time when most prominent authors were; he was entirely too candid about the British rule in India and the Crown's treatment of her soldiers). The language of the book is a little hard to follow, between regional loan words and the English of the time, but a patient and persistant reader will find the effort rewarded.
A great spy novel, read it for yourself and don't trust the critics who speak based on assumptions rather than knowledge.
reviewed by potato on November 28, 2006 8:22 AM
0%
0%
Throughout this novel, one senses that R. Kipling was a loyal British subject though he was born in Inda. He believed in the imperial authority of his queen and country and his defence of the British rule in India gave rise to controversy at the end of the 18th century. Interestingly enough, as one progresses through "Kim", one feels the author's passion for his beloved India, a country he nevertheless believed should be ruled by white men since, in his view, they are superior. In fact natives are routinely depicted as inferiors but Kipling's racial stereotyping was not outrageous more than a hundred years ago.
Like Mowgli in "The Jungle Book", Kimball O'Hara in "Kim" is a self-reliant and resourceful boy called "little friend of the world" and the author perhaps equates the brutal indignities he suffered in his boyhood with the humiliations inflicted upon the natives of India.
Like Mowgli in "The Jungle Book", Kimball O'Hara in "Kim" is a self-reliant and resourceful boy called "little friend of the world" and the author perhaps equates the brutal indignities he suffered in his boyhood with the humiliations inflicted upon the natives of India.
reviewed by reviewer on November 28, 2006 3:03 PM