Talk:Kim (novel)

No mention of the video game adaption?
I'm playing it now and it's excellent, but it's free form in nature and does not guarantee an exact retelling of the novel. I do not see any reference to it in this wiki.

I do not know the etiquette for editing and sourcing in a Wikipedia article so I will leave these links here:

http://www.secretgamescompany.com/kim/

http://store.steampowered.com/app/433400/Kim/

Children's lit ???
This is a classic coming of age story. In the book I read on Kipling, I remember this being described as one of the stories outside of the children's lit which was free of the self-conscienceness that often marred his work. That is not an exact quote as I do not own that book. But I am curious what sources classify this novel as children's lit.-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  03:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * not maybe Kipling's intention but hardly without looking far I came across many references to Kim and included in lists and recommendations as Children's literature. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  09:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to guess Kipling's intentiion. I am claiming it is not classified as children's lit by the critics who write books on Kipling's works.  I think there is a tendency by modern readers to consider many Victorian books as "for children" because the Victorian culture avoided many topics that would be considered "adult" today.  I can believe this book may appear on book lists for children today, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is "children's literature".   And it certainly doesn't mean it is "19th century children's literature" which implies that it was classified as children's lit in the 19th century. But I am still curious as to exactly which sources classify this novel as children's lit. -- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  17:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering the novel's vocab and sentence construction, I find it hard to believe it could be considered children's lit today; circa 1900, perhaps. This begs the larger question: perhaps we need to expand the Literary significance section/provide a thematic analysis, etc?  Having recently read it, I've noticed a great many aspects. Hide&amp;Reason 12:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Although people may reccomend it for children today. Literary critics do not classify it as children's lit.  What I mean by that is in books written about Kipling's works certain texts are classified as children's works and this is not one of them.  I will get some sources this weekend.  I do not know why you find the vocab simpler than other period works, but I do not.  I have never tried to judge sentance structure before.  The only thing that I believe makes it seem "juvenile" is that it makes such an effort to explain many aspects British India.  However this explanation is not because of the young age of the audience but rather because of the unfamiliarity of the audience with India or the East in general.  Read the section of the old soldier telling his part in the "Munitiny", a subject which every newspaper reading British citizen would be familiar with in detail no matter where they were located.  This is part is quite hard for modern readers since he suddenly stops giving such detailed explanations.  This style he used in introducing the readers to an unfamiliar culture and territory is often credited with being a major influence on science fiction works.  It does not signify a juvenile audience.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just re-read Hide&Reason's response. My above reply was made when I thought he was saying this is childrens's lit today.  I don't know how I misread that so badly.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * that would be the ==Major themes== section. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  12:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess the most obvious reason this book has been classed as Children's Lit, at various times and in various places, is because the main character is a child at the beginning and a young adult at the end. Perhaps that was too obvious to mention, but I mentioned it anyway. --BlueNight (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an adventure yarn for children, a coming-of-age story for adolescents, a spiritual parable for adults (and probably many other things too). I think the problem is that none of the boxes fit! DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Upon reading the phrase,


 * Considered by many to be Kipling's masterpiece, opinion appears varied about its consideration as children's literature or not.[1][2] That it has been treated as suitable literature for children by some parts of academia does not establish Kipling's intention.


 * I immediately suspected that it was the work of a committee (so to speak). I checked out the discussion page and was hardly surprised to see that the lengthy conversation here was about that specific phrase. I think the main problem is the second sentence: it sounds far too defensive for a neutral encyclopaedia, not to mention that it doesn't include any references for the novel's treatment by "some parts of academia". (Which parts?) If I get a couple minutes, I might look into it a little bit more and see if I can come up with a better compromise. -- Todeswalzer | Talk 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody's mentioning juvenile fiction. The French take it very seriously as a genre. It means 12 - 20. The Harry Potter books are in this category (except for the first eight chapters of the first book) Lemony Snicket is children's literature. Treasure Island and Huckleberry Finn are juvenile fiction (independent of the author's intent). Of course publishers and people in the book-selling business will shift genre boundaries to suit their needs, so of course you could find contrary evidence. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Cover for the infobox
I bought the Penguin Modern Classics edition of Kim recently. I presume scanning it for WP purposes constitutes Fair Use, so I'll get on it shortly. Hide&amp;Reason 12:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not use a public domain edition since they are available? Fair Use should only be used when there is no other option.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  13:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the Nineteenth Century Literature Box?
When the story was published in instalments from December 1900 through to 1901? Surely this is (very) early twentieth century? Jatrius 11:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kim .jpeg
Image:Kim .jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kim cover.jpg
Image:Kim cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
I remember reading somewhere that either Lala Lajpat Rai or Lal bahadur Shastri (I do not remember which one of them) threw a copy of Kim out of the window of a running train after being disgusted with its inaccurate portrayal of the India of that time. I am not able to find any sources on the web though, can anybody help?

"If you want to look at the India of Kipling's time, there is no writer who will give it to you better" Salman Rushdie interview by James Campbell The Guardian, Saturday 30 September 2006 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/sep/30/fiction.salmanrushdie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.63.56.10 (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Second Afghan War
The point of the English needing intelligence from Afghanistan, hinges in a large part on the disastrous retreat from Kabul at the end of the Second First Afghan War. This is recalled in the book. A major force cannot be sent because it would probably be opposed by hillsmen. Anything that is done, must be done clandestinely. This doesn't seem to be brought out here. Student7 (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The events of the book don't appear to have happened during the second afghan war. There is no mention of a military defeat nor disaster. The one military action referred to during the book was when 8000 soldiers go to war against five kingsto punish them, and is referred to as successful although cut short due to cost of feeding men in the hills. There is no other military action undertaken or mentioned before the end of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayrocksd (talk • contribs) 14:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct. AFTER the end of the Second First Afghan War, which was a disaster. This is recounted in the book. But before the Third One. Student7 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, but the Second Anglo-Afghan War was a decisive British victory. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the expedition in Kim is a heavily fictionalized rendering of the Siege of Malakand. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently, it was the First Afghan War, the Massacre of Elphinstone's Army that is recounted in Kim. Pushes the potential date back a bit. Student7 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That's impossible. In Kim the Indian Railway system is highly developed. At the time of the First Afghan War, it did not exist at all. History of rail transport in India Fatidiot1234 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In Chapter 9, Kim receives a prize for his proficiency is Mathematics, a two-volume Life of Lord Lawrence. This book, by Reginald Bosworth, was published in 1885. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. The book was published "just" after the Second Afghan War. Of course, Kim could have received it much later. Student7 (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad you approve. This knocks away your speculation about the First Afghan War. BTW, the source is cited in the article. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Nucklao" & Lucknow
Googling brings up many references to the novel but buried in them are the following links which explain that it is a local dialect thing that the L and N get transposed. Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2011_March_6 and Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011_March_6 Dabbler (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My, they did carry on over there, didn't they?
 * I'm guessing that Kipling meant something by the transposition, found it distracted from the story line and eliminated it, forgetting to eliminate the mispronunciation. Having two characters, one Hindi culture (Kim) and one Muslim/Pashtun culture (Mahbbub Ali) seems to refute the argument that it was "dialect-oriented." It appears to have been done purposefully. I guess we will never find out what that purpose was. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fictional adaptations
There are several problems with adding "adaptations" beyond a section for filmography. One is that for lesser known works, we seem to be promoting lesser works as WP:SPAM, particularly if they are modern. The more prominent a topic is (and Kim is fairly high up I think), the worse (more galling) the comparison is, IMO.

The opposite is also true of a lesser known article. So if a later author who is better known/more prominent writes/adapts it, does this now make this work more famous by his selection? "Reflected glory?" IMO, either raises more questions than it solves and requires, particularly for works that are in multiple articles, too much maintenance for too little reason, unless one of them is promoting spam, which I hope we aren't. Student7 (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Kim's parents?
The first line of the Plot segment says "Kim (Kimball O'Hara) is the orphaned son of an Irish soldier and a poor white mother who have both died in poverty." I'll try to look it up - if I can find my copy - but I thought his mother was a native Indian woman who had died?? Engr105th (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * From page 2 of the book: His mother had been nursemaid in a colonel's family and had married Kimball O'Hara, a young colour-sergeant of the Mavericks, an Irish regiment.... She died of cholera in Ferozepore...
 * I don't know if nursemaid and colour-sergeant qualify as poor, especially for whites in late Victorian British India. Probably they were not middle-class (although they might have come from a middle-class background). In the military, "every officer is a member of the middle class." Colour-sergeant is not a commissioned officer. Probably the modern-day equivalent would be truck driver who's a member of the Teamster's Union, or factory worker who belongs to the UAW (United Auto Workers). I'm including nursemaid in this as well. In other words, top 1 percent relative to India, top 30 percent relative to the UK. Zyxwv99 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are over estimating their status considerably. The father being a colour sergeant was a non-commissioned officer, probably from a working or very lower middle class family. He would have had some status being a colour sergeant, but his wife would not. A nurserymaid was a fairly low status job, being under the supervision of the nursery nurse or nanny, at about the same level as a housemaid would be in a British household of the same daye, considered poor among the European population of India as she was a servant. Dabbler (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just re read the opening chapter of Kim and despite their antecedents, it is clear that Kim's father died in complete poverty having taken to drink and opium since his wife died and his mother being a nursemaid was of pretty low status in British India, even as a white, Kim is described as "Kim was white—a poor white of the very poorest." Dabbler (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Dabbler: You've hit on the answer to my ques; Thanks...Engr105th (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kim's status is not the issue. The book clearly states that his father died in poverty, but that says little of his status when employed as a colour-sergeant. It doesn't say that the mother died in poverty. That both had jobs that would be considered low-status by the standards of the educated middle class is probably true. However, it seems to me that "poor", especially in late Victorian times, meant something rather more dire: dressed in rags, not getting enough to eat. We can see the same sort of thing today in poor countries: low-ranking servants in good households sometimes get nothing more than a small spending allowance (e.g. a dollar a week), but are well-fed and have all their needs met, putting them in the top 50%, and sometimes well above, in terms of standard of living. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

merge from Royal Loyal
I've suggested the move of the content from The Royal Loyal Musketeers ("The Mavericks") into this article. The Musketeers' article doesn't stand alone for notability or depth. With no objections, I'll perform this merge next week. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have performed this merge. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Russian Intelligence agents:
"One was visibly French, the other Russian, but they spoke English not much inferior to the Babu's." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.108.27.26 (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kim (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912070029/http://www.accd.edu/sac/english/bailey/childlit.htm to http://www.accd.edu/Sac/english/bailey/childlit.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906032413/http://www.georgetown.edu/tamlit/newsletter/laffrado.html to http://www.georgetown.edu/tamlit/newsletter/laffrado.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201150842/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4021/is_200301/ai_n9192133 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4021/is_200301/ai_n9192133

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701074228/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Heraldry/Patches/399-Area-Badges.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Heraldry/Patches/399-Area-Badges.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A question
One thing that has bothered me from the first time I read the novel. There are two searches in the novel, the lama's search for his river, and Kim's search for himself. It ends with the lama finding his river, but Kim has still not found himself. Comments? JHobson3 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

My take on the novel (which I've just read) is that Kim found his calling in being part of the Great Game and working as a spy for the British government. At the end of the book his main concern is the impending death of the elderly lama, whom Kim loved. That is why -- at the moment -- he wasn't interested in the Great Game, but he will return to it when his beloved friend has died. That is my opinion on whether Kim has "found himself." Karenthewriter (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

add themes plz
need themes Sohaibahmad92 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)