"Boy, thou uproarious shark of heaven..."

Heavens, how have I not read Kim until now? I am assuredly on a Raj-era India literature kick, but I lay the blame squarely (or rectangularly as the case may be) at the feet of Book Eddy here in Knoxville, those purveyors of $1.50 soft cover books that I cannot resist. I'm also working my way through Orwell's Burmese Days, although that is a dreary trudge given that it is mainly set in the hot before the monsoon in Burma and supremely depressing in the inability of anyone to really communicate with one another.

Does not the title of this post suit Kim, even though it is taken from A Clockwork Orange? One of the great characters in literature, comparable to the immortal and redoubtable Zorba the Greek in sheer joi de vivre.

If you have a taste for it, and mine waxes and wanes dependent on some mysterious cycle unknown to me, there has been a fair amount of post-colonial criticism of Kim as well, most significantly and beginning with, I assume, Edward Said, "Kim, The Pleasures of Imperialism," Raritan, 7(1987): 27-74. One can also sample online a paper in a similar vein by a former student, Nandi Bhatia, at my alma mater, the University of Texas, Austin. The paper is titled, "Kipling's Burden: Representing Colonial Authority and Constructing the "Other" through Kimball O'Hara and Babu Hurree Chander in Kim."

I did not know that John Lockwood Kipling was the curator of the Lahore Museum that figures prominently in the beginning of Kim. If that's a fair representation of Kipling Père, then he was a burra sahib indeed in language skill and art acumen. It's been a long time since I've read it, but I'm certain that Stanley Abe's "Inside the Wonder House: Buddhist Art and the West," in Curators of the Buddha, ed. Donald Lopez (1995) deals with Kipling's depiction of the Lahore Museum. Perhaps Dr. Abe was able to give an accurate account of Kipling Père's true abilities.

I also seem to remember that a former professor of mine at the University of Texas, Dr. Janice Leoshko, writing something on this very subject. Ah, here it is:
Janice Leoshko, 'What is in Kim?: Rudyard Kipling and Tibetan Buddhist Traditions', South Asia Research, (Fall) 2001, pp. 51-75.

Quite an interesting topic, given the state of knowledge about Tibetan Buddhism at the time of the composition of Kim (1901-1902, I believe). I cannot remember offhand if L. A. Waddell's work on Tibetan Buddhism with the lengthy title of Buddhism of Tibet or Lamaism, With Its Mystic Cults, Symbolism and Mythology and in Its Relation to Indian Buddhism had been published at this point. Yes, it had in 1895. My, Waddell seems to went off his nut later on in life, if the following publication is any indication: Phoenician Origin of the Britons, Scots, and Anglo-Saxons (2nd ed. 1925). I wonder if anyone has written a biography on him.

There is this, English in Tibet, Tibet in English: Self-Presentation in Tibet and the Diaspora, by Laurie Hovell McMillin. Sounds like just the thing for exploring some of these issues based on the table of contents. One of her chapters covers Kim.

There is still the question, at least in my mind, of Kipling's sources for the Kulu and Kangra districts and the religious practices there. I shall have to procure a copy of Dr. Leoshko's paper once I have significant library resources.

Good lord, Peter Hopkirk has also published a book of note on Kim. Entitled Quest for Kim: In Search of Kipling's Great Game, it is said that "the author visits the locations of the novel and discusses the real-life personages that may have possibly inspired its characters." I believe this man has had entirely too much fun mucking about Central Asia and writing about the Great Game and the exploration of Central Asia and Tibet.