Rating: 
Summary: A classic boy's adventure
Review: The tale is a classic adventure story, of Kim, Irish orphan growing up as a street urchin in northern India. It is a colourful picture of a short period in history when East and West met and were intertwined during the British Raj in India. Unromantic lefty dullards will go on about the imperialist tone of the book. But the book tells of an India so gloriously rich and diverse that the British are simply absorbed like conquerors before, one caste among hundreds: Moghuls, Brahmins and Sikhs, Pathans and Tibetans. We are left in no illusions about the political realities of imperial India. We know that the white man is in charge, though they are shown to consist of fools like the Anglican chaplain as well as good men like Colonel Creighton. Like heroes such as Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings or Shasta in C S Lewis' A Horse and His Boy, Kim is always aware deep down (and it strengthens him even though at times he hates it) that he is set apart, of a nobler race, because he is a Sahib. Yet this seems perfectly natural in India, a land of myriad castes and classes, from high-born Brahmins to low, despised, Untouchables. The characters are brilliant and amusing: Kim is such a lovable scamp ("You - you Od! Thy mother was married under a basket!") I find it hard to understand how anyone can fail to be immediately absorbed in his world and his fortunes. Hurree Babu and Mahbub Ali are likeable Indian characters. The Tibetan holy man, whom Kim follows as a disciple, portrayed in such a tender light that for all his scattiness one believes in his holiness, and we understand why Kim follows and loves him like a father. But this is a boy's book, and the female characters are marginal and unsympathetically treated. Most will find the Indian slang and jargon tough going, unless they are willing to skim it over, and it is often necessary to keep a finger on the glossary at the end of the book. Nonetheless, beautifully written, and a Good Read.
Rating:
Summary: Among the top 3 most influencial novels of 20thc
Review: This was probably the first - and almost only time a white author really entered the mind of asia.
It opened the whole relationship of the west with india an even ironically helped the campaign of Ghandi and his (MKG's) largely phoney portrayal of a hindu holy-man (so frightening to muslims).
Kiplin himself perhaps saw Kim as his "perfect self" though sadly the real Kipling about this time embrased the two dimensional imperialism of the Daily Mail - in want of a distant Bad Guy for his actual manichean fantasy he fitted up the germans - and sadly had a huge influence on the disaster that was the First World War.
"Kim" Philby (named for the hero) and others in search of this foreign world of duplicity and black and white values later embraced communism.
This novel affected all of this - was the first realistic (rather than idealised) view of buddhism in its evolved and contradictorary form (I like the way the Lama blends in snatches of Pure Land along with his "no self" agnosticism). Kipling "sold" a positive picture of India and its two-way relationship with "Blighty" that greatly influenced later events an perceptions of both right and left.
Too bad he embraced the rich and powerful so whole-heartedly - (as did WB Yeats at a similar time in a similar way) and so lost his clear poetic vision.
Rather than take on the task of fighting germany - he might have wrtiten a sequel - in which O'Hara had to contemplate the foundations for the glamourisation of the struggle between the European powers - questioned the disruptive influence of the Entente Cordial (all the dangers of a treaty and none of the mutual benefits) and why exactly Britain had to be a continental power with a land-army (responsible for the defense of France and Belgium but with no say in the methods) when it had plenty to do across the oceans.
Kipling painted a picture of the glamour and cultural richness of India - and of great-power conflict. He knew a lot more about the first than the last - sadly because of his authentic voice on Asia folk took heed of him over Europe.
He is one a few people who almost completely discounted a great cultural good with a massive social evil. The pen was mightier than the sword and it was correctly said that at that time the word of Kipling was more eagerly listened to than the words of all but a few heads of state. He lost his own son to the multinational meatgrinder that he and a few "war-glamourisers" wound into action - implying that the whole thing might be more fun than driving a desk in Finchley - he encouraged the French to think they could use the British to gain hegemony in Europe - based on the sound prediction that the Rosbifs would leave when the bloodletting was over.
I adore this man and abhor him - I want to grab hold of him after this book (1901) and send him back to India. You don't understand the Twentieth century if you don't read this book - from the Somme to TE Lawrence to Woodstock to the rise of Mandela is the story of folk who read this book and/or felt its influence. Only the Beatles can compete - but only because they too were influenced. Kipling as colonial taught generations to identify with the locals - thusd fueling de-colonialisation - into the hands of the very "Babu-Class" that he distrusted. They were not like his "Babu". Hurree - they were "in a hurry"!
If only the Neo-cons had both read it and understood its mixed influence and implications. The whole Iraq fiasco could be described as "insufficient Kim".
| 
