The Sydney Morning Herald carried this report on Saturday, the 2nd December, 1893.
It would be a curious experience on any given day to ask each individual of one’s acquaintance that one may chance to meet his or her candid opinion of Rudyard Kipling, quite irrespective of any new light which may be derived from lecturers who are, from time to time, so kind as to tell us what we must admire and what we must revile The various views might be delivered something after this style ” I cannot bear Rudyard Kipling, horrid, coarse creature!” “Kipling! The most wonderful master of English that the age has produced, and an absolutely fervid imagination ” ” Rudyard Kipling is not an author whose works should be put into the hands of young people ” ” Is he not a dear man, and does he not write charming stories ‘” ” Slangy rubbish, and no style whatever, but the public nowadays will swallow anything ” And so on.” In the multitude of counsellors there is safety,” says Holy Writ, but it would puzzle any ordinary person who has not read Kipling’s writings to form any opinion of his merit from such conflicting testimony. He would be compelled to sum up the evidence in a manner with which we are all familiar, with the verdict that “much may be said on both sides”.
Apart front the general accusation of writing rubbish, from all this we may extract two or three definite charges. He is coarse, he is slangy, he has no style. One is really puzzled to know what some people mean by style. A style may be good or bad, but no writer who has stronglymarked characteristics can be said to be devoid of style. The mere fact of being open to parody suggests style. No one thinks of parodying Shakespeare or Mrs. Hemans. The perfection of art which cannot be distinguished from nature, and the perfection of twaddle which suggests another use of the word natural, do not invite parody, but everyone with a fancy for imitation thinks he can catch Rudyard Kipling’s manner. Johnson had a style, and so had Macaulay the one the perfection of effort, the other of ease; but we suppose that Macaulay took at least as much pains to be graceful as Johnson to be uncouth. Kipling’s style is easy enough, but surely no one objects to ease. Is nothing to go down with us but Carlyle’s roughness and Ruskin’s sixbarrelled adjectives? When Partridge went to the play, he objected to Garrick’s rendering of Hamlet on the ground that he behaved exactly as anyone else would have behaved under similar circumstances; It was impossible to discover that he was acting; and he preferred the King, whose face showed no signs that he had committed a murder, and who ” spoke all his words distinctly half as loud again as the other ” ” Anybody,” says Partridge, “may see he is an actor.” One is tempted to suppose that those who see no style in Rudyard Kipling would be apt to endorse Partridge’s view on the rival merits of Garrick and the super. Of course he has tricks, but you might produce a sketch embodying all those tricks which would be no more like the real Kipling than the Mormon Bible is like the Authorised Version because, as Mark Twain tells us, they heaved in “And it came to pass,” “exceeding sore,” and the like in order to make it resemble the Sacred Scriptures. On the other hand, a cunning pen might give us a very fair imitation without once using the phrase “But that is another story”
Take the “Conversion of Aurelian M’Goggin”. If M’Goggin had kept his creed, with the capital letters and endings in ‘isms,’ to himself, no one would have cared, but his grandfather on both sides had been Wesleyan preachers and the preaching strain came out in his mind. He wanted everyone at the club to see that they had no soul too, and to help him to eliminate his Creator. As a good many men told him, he undoubtedly had no soul, because he was so young, but it did not follow that his seniors were equally undeveloped, and whether there was another world or not, a man still wanted to read his papers in this “. Can anyone describe an intellectual prig more pleasantly and vividly?
And again, ” If he had gone on with his work, he would have been caught up to the Secretariat la a few years .He was of the type that goes thereall head, no physique, and a hundred theories. Not a soul was interested in M’Goggin’s soul. He might have had two, or none, or somebody else’s. HIs business was to obey orders and keep abreast of his files, instead of devastating the club with ‘isms ‘ ”
Or the account of the celebrated correspondence on pig, which reminds us of one of Milton’s learned catalogues which run into so many side issues, affording personal employment to the commentator and unending delight to the student.
And that wonderful description of the Indian wood ” In spring the rukh put out few new leaves, but lay dry and still, untouched by the finger of the year, waiting for rain. Only there was then more calling and roaring m the dark on a quiet night, the tumult of a battleroyal among the tigers, the hollowing of arrogant buck, or the steady woodchopping of an old boar sharpening his tushes against a bole. Then Gisborne laid aside his littleused gun altogether, for it was to him a sin to kill. In summer, through the furious May heats, the rukh reeled in the haze, and Gisborne watched for the first sign of curling smoke that should betray a forest fire. Then came the rains with a roar, and the rukh was blotted out in fetch after fetch of warm mist, and the broad loaves drummed the night through under the big drops; and there was a noise of running water and of juicy green stuff crackling when the wind struck it, and the lightning wove patterns behind the dense matting of the foliage, till the sun broke loose again, and the rukh stood with hot flanks smoking to the newlywashed sky. Then the heat and the dry cold subdued everything to tigercolour again. So Gisborne learned to know his rukh, and was very happy”
If this is not the style of a master of English I must humbly confess my inability to recognise style when I see it But things change so fast nowadays that we spend half our lives unlearning what we learn in the other half, and we live in constant apprehension of being called upon to adore what we have burned and to burn what we have adored.
But we are also told that Rudyard Kipling is coarse, and addicted to slang. As for the slang: after all, the slang of one period is the correct English of another. Slang is often vigorous and picturesque and indeed Kipling does not use slang per se, but rather as the colloquial forms of the persons whom he brings on the scene. When Ortheris is suffering from a severe fit of pessimism he does not complain that ” the dust of an earthy today is the earth of a dusty tomorrow,” but he tells us that he is “a gawdforsaken Tommy, a bloomin’ eightanna dogstealin’ Beerswillin’ Tommy, with a number instead of a decent name; sick for London again ; the orange peel and hasphalte and gas coming over Vauxhall Bridge;” sick with what he calls “the bitter beer of ‘ome sickness,” and he intersperses his lamentations with quotations from the ” Orders for Military Funerals .” “Rest on your harms’versed. With blankcartridgeload,” and ” That’s the end o’ me ” His symptoms are much the same as those of any hyperaesthetic product of the pothouseforcing process of this end of the 19th century, but he is denied the happiness of expressing his complicated state of mind in equally complicated phrases. Is his condition the less interesting because it expresses itself in the language of a little cockney soldier? And Badalia Herodsfoot, with her indomitable pluck and her sublime loyalty to the drunken brute who kicks her to death, does she appeal less strongly to our feelings because she speaks the vulgar tongue of GunnisonStreet? Do we want Mulvaney to he stripped of his brogue, or the policeman m Hammersmith to be supplied with h’s?
A more serious accusation is that of coarseness, but on this point the critics do not seem to agree with each other. For some by coarseness merely imply the vulgar dialogue of vulgar people, while others infer a low tone of morality. Certainly some of Kipling’s .short stones are not fit for the library of a girls’ school. And “Under the Deodars” throws a strong light on a very unpleasant phase of Indian life. But Kipling’s coarseness, like his slang, is never for its own sake; it is always incidental to something which he wishes to set before us, and as he has set himself to portray AngloIndian life, why should we expect him to leave out one important point in it? He does not give it undue prominence, but it is there, and he feels himself bound not to pass it over altogether. Life in India is apt to deck itself for those who have not tried it in a golden haze of sunshine, and it is as well that the outside world should know something of what really lies behind the glamour And granted that some few of hw stories deal with essentially nasty topics, it is surely better if these things are to be told they should be told in their bare simplicity without any attempt to disguise them in elegant drapings. A spade is none the less a spade because we choose to call it an implement for the titration of the soil, and in these days, when men and women rather pride themselves on the free and open discussion of topics which 30 years ago were not considered fit for the vernacular or the daily papers, it is surely better to keep a plain broad line between vice and virtue, even at the risk of offending the ears of the fastidious.
But of all those who find fault with Kipling, not one as far as I know has pointed out what seems to me a very serious defect in the only complete novel that he has published, ” The Light that Failed “. South considered an epigram man’s masterpiece If this opinion be true, we may suppose that a short epigrammatic story is the master piece of fiction And certainly the writers of good short stones are much rarer than the writers of good one or three volume novels, while, on the other hand, the best writers of short stories seldom achieve a brilliant success when they attempt a complete novel. They string together a series of lively pictures, individually charming, but altogether lacking unity as a whole. Take Bret Harte for instance. Those who are most delighted with the wit and humour and pathos of his short stories are most disappointed in “Gabriel Conroy ” There are delightful scenes in it, but it is a failure as a novel, for there is no coherency about it . And we may say precisely the same of ” The Light that Failed ” It also has many charming passages with that wonderful blending of tears and laughter which is so perfectly true to nature and always appeals so powerfully to the English mind. But the mere fact that it is capable of two different endings, even from the author’s own point of view, stamps it at once as an illcontrived novel. For it is not a question of mere incident. We have to consider whether Maisie, whose development we have watched from childhood, is to exhibit the triumph of womanly sympathy and selfdevotion or a selfish and calculating prudence. Her behaviour to Dick at this crisis is the keynote of her character. She must do one thing or the other, she cannot do both. But Rudyard Kipling considers her equally capable of either, so that he gives us two versions of the story and invites us to take which we like; either, we are to suppose, is a logical consequence of what has gone before, but we are only seized by the strong conviction that Maisie had never impressed her real character on her author’s mind. Men and women may be very inconsistent and self contradictory in many passages of their lives, but in supreme moments they are forced to understand themselves and to know the mind that is within them. “Je crois,” says Victor Cherbuliez, “qu ‘on peut agir souvent contre son caractère, mais qu’il revient toujours dans les moments décisifs,” and to say that at such a moment in Maisie’s life it is equally natural and probable that she should either abandon Dick or cleave to him is as absurd as to say that the angle ABC is both equal to and greater than the angle ACB. There is no such uncertainty as this in the short stories. The characters are quite clear and definite, and pass before us in rapid succession like the slides in a magiclantern Wali, the young Mahommedan, who is perpetually lamenting over the Western training which has destroyed his faith, and whom we leave faint and bleeding under the violence of his religious emotions on the festival of Hassan and Hoosein; Mrs Hauksbee, Mrs Reiver, Strickland, Mr Wonder, the secretary, and the easygoing Viceroy, the Gadsbys, and the immortal soldiers three, we seen to know them as well as we know our own intimate friends They are too lifelike to be vague and indefinite.
But among these short stones there are some that are painfully vivid ; the ghastly absurdity of the two men gravely inventing their charitable lies over the body of the boy who shot himself, the hideous story of the pet ape, and the haunting horror of “At The End of the Passage” make us feel grateful that a man of such powerful imagination does not often let it run riot among terrors, but prefers to keep for the most part along those pleasant middle paths where tragedy and comedy walk handinhand. He is as much at home in pure comedy, and his last published volume shows no deterioration of his humour. Who can read ” Brugglesmith ” or “ Judson and the Empire ” without laughter which rivals the merriment of the two men reeling about on the poop deck of the flat iron of 270 tons displacement, built for river defence and beloved of ” Bai Jove Judson “.
As for Kipling’s poetry, if we may judge from his one more ambitious flight, “The Song of the English,” it is possible that the English world may someday have to consider his claim to be counted as one of the poets of the nineteenth century At least it will owe him a debt of gratitude for his intense and wideembracing patriotism, and for his patent though unexpressed conviction that with all their faults the English in all parts of the globe are on the whole the finest race on God’s earth.

Filed under: Jungle Drum #19 on September 1st, 2011 | Comments Off