” Oh East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet…” he wrote. ” But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed nor Birth,/When two strong men stand face to face”. The famous phrase is often used in a sense opposite to that which Kipling intended.
It could be said that Rudyard Kipling was an expression of a phase of history. Similar to Mark Twain and Charles Dickens, whose work could also not have been done quite as it was under any other circumstances. A celebrity in 1890, he was already an anachronism by 1930. The fact that his name still has the power to evoke strong emotions on either side of the love/hate teeter totter bears witness to some extent of his importance in social history as a barometer of the white man’s burden measured against the fear of a black planet. He reflected the fears of a white elephant in a darkened room.
There was a period of thirty years when Kipling was the world’s best selling author, in an age when the ”fringe benefits” that authors now depend upon for a living did not exist. Between his first published work in 1886 and his death in 1936, he produced about two hundred and fifty short stories, a thousand pages of ballads and lyrics, three or four longer works which could be described as novels and some miscellaneous writings on history and travel.
Kipling is probably the most misquoted English author. A monster bearing his name has been created, to the despair of those who read Kipling’s work and protest, vainly, that he did not hold the views or express the opinions that are commonly ascribed to him. In sum, the social and political opinions vulgarly associated with his Kipling’s name are altogether outmoded. He has long been a scapegoat and trash can for often judicious literary critics, who in his case, abandoned the trade of criticism to present a figure of Kipling which has almost no historic resemblance to the original.
It is necessary to clear away many misconceptions in order to arrive at what he actually put to paper. The Britiah Empire was a theme of only a small part of his work during only a short period of his life, and that much of what he wrote on the subject was critical. Also, critics have often selected a few sentiments expressed by characters in Kipling’s lesser juvenile pieces and assume that the whole tone and content of the author’s life work can be derived from them.
Part of the problem stemmed when he arrived in San Francisco in 1889 on his way to England from India, and laid a trail of indiscreet comments from the West Coast to the East. ”Most of the men wore frock coats and top hats… but they all spat” ”There was wealth, unlimited wealth in the streets, but not an accent that would have been dear at fifty cents”. At first he was not taken seriously, but when he became a celebrity, the American press began to react. He took London by storm that year with new works and reissues of his Indian ballads and stories. The sensation was tremendous; from the beginning, the audacious ÙKipling was the subject of controversy, although it rage more violently in America than in England.
There was no protection at the time for British literary property in the American copyright laws and his works were reprinted without the formality of recompensing the author. This was the genesis of Kipling’s love hate relationship with the American system that began to take shape and hardened over time in his campaign against literary piracy.
It was not the glamour of the Orient that he described, but the tedium, the heat and the disease that afflicted the empire builders as they struggled with social problems which they could not solve. The stories are cynical, detached and knowing, ranging over many aspects of Indian life. The concentration of interest is on two groups of characters recurring in several stories; the idle and frivolous social circle of Mrs. Hauksbee and the listless, brutalized barracks life of British soldiers in the days when there was no refrigeration and no inoculation against tropical disease. The theme that emerged is that in spite of the social snobberies of the capital, the crudity of army life, and race prejudices, only individuals count , and must be judged by their performance of their allotted task. Kipling’s India has its heroes and they are the unnoticed and forgotten people who protect themselves by immersion in their daily routine.
n%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D21%26um%3D1%26tbs%3Disch:1">
Wow, my first Beerbohm.
Timely. I was aware of the romancing of the kipling and the ensuing revulsion, but never realised how on again off again these postures towards him can be. One wonders how much longer he can continue serving as both whipping boy and somber technocrat.
Rhetorically, I’m often caught or brought up short before the Lord of Hosts, where man has cause to be grateful for the admixture of justice. How quaint such a man must appear requesting mercy. I sometimes can imagine how sickening or pitiable one such man can seem to his peers or any other decent sort of person.
Well done Dave. It’s just as difficult to bear as it need be. Thanks,
mason
Thanks. It seems that there is a whole breadth and depth of thought he was completely oblivious too. I may try to add to the story today, If time will present itself. The question is whether he was that good a writer, beyond some descriptive and stylistic qualities. There appears to be a lack of dimension at some point. Reminds me of an article with some citations by Sartre and Deleuze, and this perception of the ”other” they spoke about regarding former colonized nations.
Best,Dave
I think Beerbohm is a subject in itself, but it will take some digging to make it work.
Well, you touched upon this odd oblivion, this mechanistic pan of the camera when you remark, “Kipling’s India has its heroes and they are the unnoticed and forgotten people who protect themselves by immersion in their daily routine.” These may be homeomorphs of Rudyard Kipling himself: they are crippled, paralysed and as such rather anti heroic. Or if they are heroic, it is by a sort of default that submits to no difference.
This is also all i can do to acknowledge your craft in your Haiti post: are you or i quite sure, in Kipling’s case, that he did not admit of, submit or point to some difference articulated in the return of some other?
Or was there some Gift returning already in some kind of process when Max Beerbohm rendered him? I honestly don’t know! It is the “lack of dimension” you mention that causes the itching! Figures Sartre hovers near. About 7 hours ago on twitter, @DarkPhilosopher remarks ” I see ego in a more kantian light, even sartre wouldn’t equate consciousness to ego.” I am weak on Kant, but suspect he’s right about Sartre.
I can’t admire Kipling without reserve. At the same time, I rather feel in the same boat with him, though i have traveled and written much less than he.
Thanks for your labours Dave!
-mason
you bring up a lot of points and those 2 posts; haiti and kipling were something of a bitch to write. The Haitian intellos are French, and my transcription is good, but not as refined as it should be. With Kipling, I added an ending with Nietzsche as I thought the two might hit it off. The results were mixed. You are right about the ”anti-heroic”; reminds me of a Peter Barnes play on the German bureaucracy in the Third Reich. Kipling himeself incarnated the white man’s burden, and it is this judgmental aspect which appears most antagonistic, and relates well to the section of Deleuze within the Haiti column.
Dave
thanks for reading. He has really been out of the public view for a while, yet his popularity was astounding.
Dave