Friday, February 22, 2008
Feb. 21 Discussion: Kipling's KIM
In the early pages of the novel, the woman who looks after Kim "insisted with tears that he should werar European clothes--trousers, a shirt, and a battered hat. Kim found it easier to slip into Hindu or Mohammedan garb when engaged on certain business." Explain the tension between them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Kipling opposes Kim’s adoption of native garb and language with the importance of his father’s documents, in particular to the legal statement of “ne varietur” which connotes a permanent tie to Imperial power. Kipling seems to be rescuing the idea of the “Englishman” abroad from the entropy of colonial service. Kim is allowed to both adapt through camouflage and to retain his identity as a colonial agent. By naming him “little friend of all the world” Kipling is also perpetuating the myth that colonialism is altruistic. My bet is that the double move of integration and separation of the colonial agent will be a prominent theme throughout the novel.
I think that the woman who was caring for Kim felt a responsibility to bring him up with a level of "Englishness" that would elevate him above his peers. Even though Kipling writes that Kim has certain English traits that seem ingrained in him (i.e. standing while he smokes, rather than squatting), Kim has survived by his ability to wear numerous identities. The mutability of his persona seems to disturb his caregiver, as if he might one day become completely Indian. In her eyes, it seems that this would be a tragedy
Post a Comment