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
|