kIPLINGS POEM
pLEASE~~~Will the poster who posted Kiplings poem post it again? I love itand have lost it.
Found it:
“Have you news of my boy Jack?”
Not this tide.
“When d’you think that he’ll come back?”
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.
“Has any one else had word of him?”
Not this tide.
For what is sunk will hardly swim,
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.
“Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?”
None this tide,
Nor any tide,
Except he did not shame his kind—
Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide.
Then hold your head up all the more,
This tide,
And every tide;
Because he was the son you bore,
And gave to that wind blowing and that tide!
Thank you ~~Beautiful
If you liked that you should read his short story "The Gardener". It's a beautiful story.
In my view Kipling is unjustly criticized as a jingoist or apologist for empire. I've always found him to be more complex than that and while he may have supported the empire I think his motives were much better than the accusation would imply.
Thank you so much for the poem. I will try to find a copy of THE GARDENER.i LOVE HIM MYSELF AND DIDNT HE WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT THE foreign Legion? It has been years since high school but seems like I do remember that and Jungle Boy
I pulled The Gardener up off the internet . It is beautiful but the ending was a little weird. Kipling left his readers with a puuzzle to figure out. Who was the man in the cemetary. I know he had jACK IN HIS MIND WHEN HE WROTE THIS . iT IS HIGH DRAMA.
It's an allegory, so it's meant to be somewhat vague. Once you perceive the hidden meanings though it becomes quite simple and effective.
If you want to get more of a hint of what it's all about, open a Christian Bible and see John 20: verse 15. You should be able to piece it together after reading that passage.
Oh, and when reading the story, the last words the man she supposes to be the gardener says to her are VERY important. It's easy to miss the meaning.
"In my view Kipling is unjustly criticized as a jingoist or apologist for empire. I've always found him to be more complex than that and while he may have supported the empire I think his motives were much better than the accusation would imply."
I agree. The thing that really sickens me is that some have tried to paint him as any more racist than most people of his day. In truth he is possible less; 'Gunga Din' is certainly anti-racism towards Indians.
'Gunga Din' is very much a poem about the unfair treatment of the brave non-Europeans (though in the case of Gunga Din, he could be an Indo-European) in the British Empire by the colonial troops from Europe.
His ideology was faulted but he was hardly an evil man.
"Jai Guru Deva, Om"
as far as i know, kipling is still widely respected as a writer. he's seen as someone who actually had a pretty realistic view of the pros and cons of empire and colonialism, someone like conrad. his art is credited, his politics debated. that said, as someone who profited from the practices of the day and who recognized their evils while continuing to perpetuate the system that allowed them to occur, some might argue that he is even more evil than the ignorant. yet he did criticize... on the other hand, back to the realism, it's not as if there were any way he could have stopped the system - only stayed out of it. and then, selfishly, one might argue that the world would have been deprived of "Kim" and other great pieces. where does that leave us, at the end?
shareKipling was a product of his time.
Britain ruled the world, anybody 'foreign' (particularly if they were of a different colour) were inferior simply because they weren't British - not unlike the American attitude today.
People of different races were a peculiarity in Britain - for example a Hottentot woman was (literally) one of the displays on show at the Great Exhibition in 1851, whilst in India, Africa natives were there to serve the rulers.
He was a product of his own time not only in regard to colonialism and racism, but he certainly knew how to make use of his literary fame and political influence (including direct contact with the King) to get whatever privileges he wanted. In the film, when Jack was rejected several times by officers who undoubtedly made reasonable and responsible decisions, all Kipling could think of was to bypass them altogether by talking to people further up! It was not clear if Kipling truly believed in his own propaganda and that it was his son's duty to fight for King and Country. But certainly, he expected Jack to do what he wanted him to do, and he would use whatever power and influnence he had to get his wish granted.
It was remarkable that later, when Jack was declared missing in action, all that he thought of was to use his political power once again to do things that no one else would have thought of (and would not have been able to do anyway). He demanded the photos of all soldiers that were missing and interviewed several hundred people who had seen Jack at the front! What a waste of the Country's resources! For someone who was directly involved in the Country's war effort, I certainly would have expected something more sensible.
English is not my first language, so I do not understand the poem...I understand every word of it but I do not get the 'whole picture'.
Can someone explain the poem.
Thank you very much.
Briefly, in the poem Kipling grieved the loss of his son, but was proud that Jack had performed his duties bravely and did not let his country down.
share
To Dustin_Wind:
The poem is a bit difficult for non-English speakers because it makes a play on words with the word "tide". The word "tide" usually means the ebb and flow of the ocean. But in its more ancient sense the word means "time" or "season" -- as in the words Christmastide (Christmas season) and eventide (evening).
(This second sense is also related to the old English word "tidings" -- meaning news. For instance, in the Christmas story in the Bible the angel says, "Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.")
So anyway, try re-reading the poem while substituting the word "time" for the word "tide" where appropriate. See if it makes more sense that way. It's this juxtaposition of the two meanings that makes the poem poignant.
If it's still confusing, I can explain the poem further. I know how frustrating it can be trying to understand poetry in a language that is not your first language.
.
[deleted]
Actually, the poem is about a sailor. News of soldiers fates arrived by ship. The pain was obviously too strong for Kipling to write directly about John (Jack) so he conveyed his feelings by making the poem about a British sailor who were nicknamed Jacks. Soldiers were called Tommies
share
It's not "about" a sailor, it's about his son Jack. The lovely sailing imagery which you rightfully note is part of the extended metaphors of the poem, which includes the tide/time metaphor.
.
The poem is about a sailor. Sure, deep down Kipling is really writing it about his son, that's obvious. His son's name was John, however, and he was not called Jack by anyone. John did had a dog named Jack though.
share