>
>
> -----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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|