essay #2

kipling (george orwell)

EKipling is sadistic and jingoistic but he is not a fascist, because he writes from a pre-fascist perspective. He still believes in God punishing hubris, he cannot imagine the world in which pure power battles pure power- he believes in a world of Law. Essentially, Kipling is this pitiful character… cornily in love with Empire, annoyingly patriotic, and yet condescending- he looks down at the working class (even if it undercuts his own verse), his vision of the common soldier is a doe-eyed cartoony caricature of a stupid but devoted servant of the Empire. He's basically a horrible square that nobody could possibly like- but because he speaks in platitudes, he still communicates realities about the world on a "good bad poet[ic]" level that makes him memorable and accessible. He is mostly awful, but occasionally a guilty pleasure. And he's the only written resource we have of a certain time and place in British Imperial history, because other people who would be gifted or 'civilized' enough to write strongly avoided service.

Some raw observations, that might not be touched on in that synopsis:

• " There is no 'Law', there is only power."
• " All left-wing parties in the highly industrialized countries are at bottom a sham, because they make it their business to fight against something which they do not really wish to destroy."
• Kipling "sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them. "
• poetry is "the least tolerated of the arts." Heh, agreed.
• "A good bad poem is a graceful monument to the obvious."
• look up E.M. Forster

This was a good, interesting read. Interesting reflections on Imperial power, on political and class distinctions, on populist poetry. Kipling would be great to read if you're interested in getting a stuffy caricature of Victorian Imperialist ambition.