Have seen the reviews in the Times of 1 March (objectionable);  Telegraph (23 Feb) Economist (2 March) Financial Times (2/3 March) (mostly reasonable).   Also the Independent on Sunday, which has an objectionable headline, but Matthew Sweet's review ends with three paragraphs in which he argues that Kipling wasn't half as bad as a lot of other writers who have escaped his 'incorrect' reputation, and urges Gilmour to write another book that demonstrates this.   This is ironic, since most of the IoS would give Kipling apoplexy.
        In today's Times Lit. Supp., the cover has a portrait of Kipling, and the first article is a two-page review of Gilmour's book by Tom Paulin.    Paulin is a member of the Ulster poets circle, an Oxford don who frequently appears on television and favours Irish nationalism.   But it seems he's a Kipling enthusiast.   He's been teaching Kipling to students for thirty years, he says, and he welcomes Gilmour's book as likely to restore Kipling to the literary canon.   In fact it's quite the most pro-Kipling review I've seen.   Lisa Lewis