Sorry, I didn't mean to keep you awake!
My thoughts about 'broken' and 'smashed', are on two levels: Kim's thought processes and Kipling's art.
In terms of Kim's thought process, I think the change of word does indicate that the inadequacy of his explanation is deliberate, if only partly conscious. To use the actual word that saved him may too revealing. Also, we are
told that while he was struggling, he would not let himself think of the Hindi word. I wonder if he has now allowed himself to use that word in thought, and 'broken' is the more obvious translation of it. I think that may be
speculating too far from the text, but it's interesting.
In terms of Kipling's art, the word 'smashed' is much stronger and shorter than 'broken', Is it too much to say that 'yess, smashed' is a sound-picture of the 'swimmer before sharks'? It could even suggest the snap of the
shark's mouth. The weaker 'broken' underlines both the weakness of Kim's explanation, and the fact that we are now back on normal, civilised, analytical ground. It links right back to the beginning of the scene, with the
simple, everyday logic of "It will break" .... "I said it would break".
I am intrigued by your idea about the symbolism of the broken jar in terms of Kim's fragmented identity. Kipling's use of symbolism is nearly always understated, so we can't say for sure, 'It means this' or 'It doesn't mean
that'. The idea does make sense: any attempt to make a 'whole jar' out of Kim at this stage would be premature and illusory.
Thank you again for making me look more closely at this passage. Like most Kipling fans, I have lost count of the number of times I have re-read Kim, and it's wonderful how you see something new each time.
Liz
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> dear Elizabeth ,
>
> Sorry to bother you again , but I've been looking for an asnswer to your question for hours : what does he use the word "broken" in his explanation instead of "smashed" for ? Am I stupid ? I even did not notice that at all !
> I'm still looking for an answer , if once more you want to help me , you're welcome ! :o) otherwise I think I won't be able to sleep !!!!!!
> audrey
>
> ---------- Message d'origine ----------
> De : [log in to unmask]
> À : [log in to unmask],[log in to unmask]
> Date : 24/11/1999-14h31
>
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: 23 November 1999 21:20
> > Subject: PLEASE ! I need help , answer as quickly as possible .
> >
> > hello ,
> > I'm a french student who study English . This year , in literature , we
> > focus on "KIM" by R.Kipling and more precisely on a passage where Lurgan
> > Sahib makes a trick to Kim with a jar in chapter 9 ( sorry , I don't know if
> > my sentence is correct or not )
> > We are asked to comment this passage very precisely and I must confess that
> > I really don't know what to say about it ; I enjoyed the book but I feel
> > lost now .
> > Please , can somebody help me ? it's very important and I 'd do anything to
> > get explanations and clues . thank you audrey
>
> Dear Audrey,
> What a wonderful passage it is! I hadn't read Kim for a while, and your query
> sent me back to the book.
>
> I agree with John Radcliffe about the test, and here are a few more ideas you
> might explore:
> 1. The passage is part of the exploration that goes on throughout the book of
> Kim's multiple identity: English/Irish/Indian. It is his British-style
> education (the multiplication table) and the English language that save him
> from being hypnotised. English, we are told right at the beginning of the book,
> is his second language, which he speaks in 'a clipped, uncertain sing-song.' We
> are reminded of this with beautiful economy in the spelling of 'yess, smashed'
> - the double ss is his pronunciation, and suggests that the slower thought
> process needed to think in English makes him more resistant to suggestion.
> (Incidentally, I have been looking for clues as to whether Lurgan is speaking
> English or Hindi, and I can't be sure. Kipling usually uses quite distinct
> styles to represent the two different languages, but not here.)
>
> 2. The descriptions of Kim's physical sensations and the imagery used for his
> mental processes are vivid and convincing. You could discuss the ways Kipling
> brings this to life.
>
> 3. Lurgan appears to think that Kim's inadequate explanation of how he resisted
> is deliberate: "But you are right. You should not tell that - not even to me".
> But is it more a case of 'could not' rather than 'would not' explain? We as
> readers are given a clearer picture of the process than either Lurgan or
> perhaps even Kim could have. Again, the spelling of 'Oah' indicates that he is
> speaking a rather stilted English. Could he have explained it in Hindi?
>
> 4. Look at the use of the word 'smashed'. It occurs once at the beginning of
> the hypnotism, with no particular emphasis. Then, as Kim resists, it is
> repeated three times in three lines, as part of his struggling thought process,
> then twice in succession as he finally breaks free. But when he gives his
> explanation, he doesn't use the word - he says 'broken'. Why? (I've got my own
> idea, but you might like to explore the question.)
>
> These are just random thoughts from an admirer of Kipling's work, not a
> literary critic, so ignore my ideas if they are not helpful.
>
> If you have time you might enjoy reading Peter Hopkirk's book The Quest for
> Kim, Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-19-283308-1, which explores some of
> the historical and geographical background to the book.
>
> Liz Breuilly
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|