Talk:Kim (novel)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Kim (novel), or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
Contents |
[edit] 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)
- 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.
-
- 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&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)
-
-
[edit] 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&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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)
[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)
[edit] 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?
