1. For decades many critics have shown great disdain for
Kipling, equating his work with the idea that British imperialism
was a righteous and justified act. Is this assessment fair? Was
Kipling simply writing what he knew or structuring his literature
on his political beliefs?
2. As Kim moves from the intellectual world of school to the
spiritual world he finds with the lama later in the story, he
continually questions who he is. Is this questioning simply that of
a young orphan or does it hint at larger political unease?
3. What is the purpose of the prophecy Kim brings to the
soldiers?
4. Is it surprising, given Kim's spirituality, that he joins the
Secret Service? How does he reconcile his two separate lives?
5. In a 1943 essay, critic Edmund Wilson referred to the ending
of Kim as a "betrayal" of the relationship of the old man
and the young Kim, which made the book more literary than a mere
adventure story. Do you agree with this? Why or why not?
6. In her article "Adolescence, Imperialism, and Identity in Kim
and Pegasus in Flight," Nicole Didicher says, "Adults writing for
adolescents inevitably use imperialist discourse to influence their
readers' maturation. Kipling . . . uses an existing imperialist
society to present the protagonist's establishment of his
psychosocial identity." Do you agree that all adult writers
"inevitably" use imperialist discourse to reach their adolescent
audiences? Did Kipling use imperialist India because that is what
he knew, or was he simply entertaining a young audience?