Welcome
Welcome to <strong>The Virtual Coffeehouse</strong>.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, <a href="/profile.php?mode=register">join our community today</a>!

!!

We've discussed <i>Kim</i> as a boy's adventure story that is simultaneously a story about defining Great Britain's identity as a colonial power. How do these two elements come together in Kipling's novel? In other words, how and where in the novel do masculinity and empire intersect?

!!

Postby Jennifer Picalila on Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:00 pm

One example I found that could be indicative of a convergence of masculinity and imperial power is on page 114 of our text. It's the encounter between the hillman and Kim. Here's the specific quote:


"'Stand farther off, beggar!' The order was shouted in broken Hindustani by one of the hillmen.
'Huh! It is only a pahari [a hillman]', said Kim over his shoulder. 'Since when have the hill-asses owned all Hindustan?'
The retort was a swift and brilliant sketch of Kim's pedigree for three generations.
'Ah!' Kim's voice was sweeter than ever, as he broke the dung-cake into fit pieces. 'In my country we call that the beginning of love talk."

There's a lot going on here. First we have references to Kim's heritage which relates to imperialism, and we have him standing up for himself - a part of masculinity.

Also in this segment we have the impression that Kim is acting self-important, which is very similar to how Pip acted after he moved to London to begin his life as a gentleman.

Also, the retort being called a "sketch" of Kim's pedigree reminds me of the reoccurring conversation we have about literature relating to art.
Jennifer Picalila
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:56 pm

Postby Jennifer Picalila on Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:02 pm

P.S. I'm not sure why the subject for the post is "!!" I had it as masculinity and imperialism, but okay. :D
Jennifer Picalila
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:56 pm

Postby AmandaHagstrom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:10 pm

I agree that imperialism and masculinity often converge in the character of Kim. Throughout Kim, there seems to be an association between becoming a man and going to war. The British characters feel that it is Kim's natural path to join the Great Game. As the horse-dealer puts it on page 215, "only once in a thousand years is a horse born so well fitted for the game as this our colt. And we need men." In this quote, there is a parallel between becoming a man and becoming a soldier. He's also suggesting that fighting for the Empire is what Kim is meant to do, as he was "born so well fitted" for it.
AmandaHagstrom
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:52 pm

Postby DanWang on Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:48 pm

Well to me, Kim is the physical embodiment of the British Empire. He is the son of an Irishmen, but raised in India and accustomed to its culture. His journey into manhood and the secret service takes him all across the empire. His bloodline gives him the physical presence while his journey of growing up gives him the character of the empire.
DanWang
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:54 pm

Postby Sarah Smithers on Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:50 pm

I agree with what Amanda was saying about imperialism and masculinity converging in Kim’s character and the association between becoming a man and going to war. In the article I read about “Kim”, Kipling went to a militaristic school and wanted to become a military man, so I understand why he makes these connections throughout the novel.
Sarah Smithers
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:51 pm

Postby AmandaAllen on Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:07 pm

I think the quote Jennifer used says it all. In Kim's mind there is a connection with becoming a man by asserting himself, self-assertion being one of the hallmarks of masculine behavior. It is also evident that he feels ownership is intrinsically related to masculinity, and Imperialism is essentially the assertion of ownership. These ideas are consistently related throughout the text.
AmandaAllen
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:21 pm

Kim

Postby AmandaHaney on Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:46 pm

I agree that Kim has both the characteristics in him, however, I just want to point out the quote on page 141 when Kim states, "I will not be a soldier". Since being a soldier is the epitome of both masculinity and colonial power, the fact that Kim does not want to be one, takes away a little bit from his embodying the two as was previously stated.
AmandaHaney
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:36 pm


Return to Question for 4-28

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron