 |
 |
The recent article on Kipling and WW1 exemplifies some of the key issues about him as a man and as an artist. He was a great artist, and like many great artists not a nice man in certain aspects of his life and opinions eg Beethoven and Wagner, and the comparisons are not random. That is why he is a great artist, he is able to explore the fundamenta aspects of human behaviour, which are , again, not all nice. But he was capable also of transcending his worst impubringing to our minds the fundamentally good aspects of our natures as well, with a force and relevance which survive time and change. Some of his stated views are childish, some ridiculously racist even for his time, but for every snide or cruel reference there is one which shows a broad humanity and tolerant sympathy for all peoples--and these represent his work at its best and most enduring. These are the more valuable because we know the other impulses are there--as also in Beethoven and Wagner. In an important way his personal views are irrelevant. He said himself that he wanted his books to be his memorial. If one reads the whole of Kipling one is not presented with a single wholly admirable personality but with a flawed and divided man who with enormous suffering and effort produced works of great art which are enlightening, inspiring and hopeful. Perhaps it is that which accounts for his permanent appeal to such a wide range of people. JW