You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.54 AVERAGE
3.54 AVERAGE
adventurous
lighthearted
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
Even better now than when I was a child
This is the first time I have read this book since I was a little girl. The stories are well written, for adult and child alike. It is a great thing to get to know these classical characters.
This is the first time I have read this book since I was a little girl. The stories are well written, for adult and child alike. It is a great thing to get to know these classical characters.
That was a really interesting re-read. I thought I'd read this book several times as a kid, but after reading it through, I feel like I read Mowgli's story a couple of times, Rikki Tikki Tavi's story many times (it was in one of those basal readers in about 4th grade, and I adored it), but I have zero recollection of the other stories in the book.
Reading racist shit as a kid and then again as an adult is also pretty interesting. I'd like to say I was at least dimly aware that Kipling was looking at things from a ridiculously superior, colonial POV, but I don't know if that's true or not. Given that I was surprised and horrified upon re-reading both A Horse and His Boy and Little House on the Prairie as an adult, I suspect I was pretty oblivious to all of that as a kid. (Yep, I'm that white.)
Kipling is a product of his times as surely as we are, and his writing became famous for reasons beyond being supportive of the regime. He was obviously passionately fond of animals in his own way. I know that my lifelong fear of dangerous snakes owes a huge amount to Nag and Nagina's presence in Rikki Tikki's yard, and it is impossible to hear "mongoose" without a rush of affection, despite never having actually seen one in real life. I can't rate this book any higher than a three, but neither can I rate it any lower.
Reading racist shit as a kid and then again as an adult is also pretty interesting. I'd like to say I was at least dimly aware that Kipling was looking at things from a ridiculously superior, colonial POV, but I don't know if that's true or not. Given that I was surprised and horrified upon re-reading both A Horse and His Boy and Little House on the Prairie as an adult, I suspect I was pretty oblivious to all of that as a kid. (Yep, I'm that white.)
Kipling is a product of his times as surely as we are, and his writing became famous for reasons beyond being supportive of the regime. He was obviously passionately fond of animals in his own way. I know that my lifelong fear of dangerous snakes owes a huge amount to Nag and Nagina's presence in Rikki Tikki's yard, and it is impossible to hear "mongoose" without a rush of affection, despite never having actually seen one in real life. I can't rate this book any higher than a three, but neither can I rate it any lower.
adventurous
medium-paced
Lesson learned from this book: having been much- and long-beloved does not automatically make a book worth reading.
The only particular reason I picked this one off my shelf was the feeling it's a "classic" of children's lit, which I felt slightly ashamed of never having had a chance to enjoy – I assumed must be classically marvellous. (I mean, I don't know if I ever even watched the Disney adaptation all the way through. I was actually expecting all Mowgli stories. More than half are not, actually, about Mowgli in any way.) What I was sorry to find, however, is that these stories are just classically bad. In its own way, this is frankly one of the weirdest books I've ever read. Even its age doesn't pardon it, in my opinion.
One of my first thoughts, rather unaccountably it may seem, was "This reads like the Bible." This isn't wholly a negative thing. For example, I recognize and appreciate the often-poetic language used in the Bible, and I can do the same here. The little songs and poems between the chapters are metrically perfect (this counts for a lot, with me) and if not beautiful, are nicely-formed; in form and language, they always evoke the characters he's created for the animals. Here are a couple verses of the Song of the Bander-log [monkeys:]:
Here we sit in a branchy row,
Thinking of beautiful things we know.
Dreaming of deeds that we mean to do,
All complete, in a minute or two-
Something noble and wise and good,
Done by merely wishing we could.
We've forgotten, but- never mind,
Brother, thy tail hangs down behind!
All the talk we ever have heard,
Uttered by bat or beast or bird-
Hide or fin or scale or feather -
Jabber it quickly and all together!
Excellent! Wonderful! One again!
Now we are talking just like men!
Let's pretend we are – never mind,
Brother, thy tail hangs down behind!
This is the way of the monkey-kind.
See? It's cute... the charm fades, though, with re-reading.
Now for what I really dislike. Two words: imperialism and anthropocentrism. Actually, anthropomorphism as well, but that can hardly be avoided, to a degree, so I'll let it go.
The 'best' of the various animal characters speak like noble British subjects (of about the sixteenth century, no less – people in Kipling's day didn't even talk like this – "thee-thy-thou, overformality considering we live in a jungle" etc, it's maddening), they have their own strict Jungle Law, and they call themselves people. Could it be any more obvious that these animals are meant to represent humans? Furthermore, that the non-humanlike animals are fated by nature to kowtow to the more 'civilized' species? Too obviously allegorical = another commonality with parts of the Bible. This kind of attitude may be common enough in folktales and mythology, but doesn't excuse the gross colonial bias with which the whole jungle universe, both inhabitants and organizing principles, are presented.
The animals respect, virtually worship, the humans. Though nearly all the characters are animals, everything about the stories centers around humanity, that is the glorious courage, order and reason of the British empire. If that's supposed to be modern folktale, it's akin to religious brainwashing. Not in the stories it tells, but in the value judgements implicit within these stories. And by the way, also like the Bible, I had to hate many of Kipling's 'heroes.' Little Toomai is a sneak and a traitor; I almost cried at the treatment of the elephants truthfully and matter-of-factly depicted in his chapter. Elsewhere: Rikki-Tikki made me want to stamp on a member of the family Herpestidae, pronto. I was rooting for the cobras.
To conclude, if you're willing to accept a whack of disgustingly antiquated values threaded into not-especially-imaginative stories, you can enjoy The Jungle Book. I'm sorry that I couldn't find more to like in it. But it's safe to say, for once, that Walt Disney's job is probably better (at the very least, less offensive)!
The only particular reason I picked this one off my shelf was the feeling it's a "classic" of children's lit, which I felt slightly ashamed of never having had a chance to enjoy – I assumed must be classically marvellous. (I mean, I don't know if I ever even watched the Disney adaptation all the way through. I was actually expecting all Mowgli stories. More than half are not, actually, about Mowgli in any way.) What I was sorry to find, however, is that these stories are just classically bad. In its own way, this is frankly one of the weirdest books I've ever read. Even its age doesn't pardon it, in my opinion.
One of my first thoughts, rather unaccountably it may seem, was "This reads like the Bible." This isn't wholly a negative thing. For example, I recognize and appreciate the often-poetic language used in the Bible, and I can do the same here. The little songs and poems between the chapters are metrically perfect (this counts for a lot, with me) and if not beautiful, are nicely-formed; in form and language, they always evoke the characters he's created for the animals. Here are a couple verses of the Song of the Bander-log [monkeys:]:
Here we sit in a branchy row,
Thinking of beautiful things we know.
Dreaming of deeds that we mean to do,
All complete, in a minute or two-
Something noble and wise and good,
Done by merely wishing we could.
We've forgotten, but- never mind,
Brother, thy tail hangs down behind!
All the talk we ever have heard,
Uttered by bat or beast or bird-
Hide or fin or scale or feather -
Jabber it quickly and all together!
Excellent! Wonderful! One again!
Now we are talking just like men!
Let's pretend we are – never mind,
Brother, thy tail hangs down behind!
This is the way of the monkey-kind.
See? It's cute... the charm fades, though, with re-reading.
Now for what I really dislike. Two words: imperialism and anthropocentrism. Actually, anthropomorphism as well, but that can hardly be avoided, to a degree, so I'll let it go.
The 'best' of the various animal characters speak like noble British subjects (of about the sixteenth century, no less – people in Kipling's day didn't even talk like this – "thee-thy-thou, overformality considering we live in a jungle" etc, it's maddening), they have their own strict Jungle Law, and they call themselves people. Could it be any more obvious that these animals are meant to represent humans? Furthermore, that the non-humanlike animals are fated by nature to kowtow to the more 'civilized' species? Too obviously allegorical = another commonality with parts of the Bible. This kind of attitude may be common enough in folktales and mythology, but doesn't excuse the gross colonial bias with which the whole jungle universe, both inhabitants and organizing principles, are presented.
The animals respect, virtually worship, the humans. Though nearly all the characters are animals, everything about the stories centers around humanity, that is the glorious courage, order and reason of the British empire. If that's supposed to be modern folktale, it's akin to religious brainwashing. Not in the stories it tells, but in the value judgements implicit within these stories. And by the way, also like the Bible, I had to hate many of Kipling's 'heroes.' Little Toomai is a sneak and a traitor; I almost cried at the treatment of the elephants truthfully and matter-of-factly depicted in his chapter. Elsewhere: Rikki-Tikki made me want to stamp on a member of the family Herpestidae, pronto. I was rooting for the cobras.
To conclude, if you're willing to accept a whack of disgustingly antiquated values threaded into not-especially-imaginative stories, you can enjoy The Jungle Book. I'm sorry that I couldn't find more to like in it. But it's safe to say, for once, that Walt Disney's job is probably better (at the very least, less offensive)!
adventurous
lighthearted
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Fabulous collection of short stories by Kipling! My favorites being the stories of Mowgli (what we normally think of when we hear about The Jungle Book), Rikki Tikki Tavi (which I have read many times previously) and The White Seal. Looking forward to reading The Second Jungle Book and learning more about Mowgli, Baloo, Akela, Bagheera and gang. Lots of fun!
I'm giving this two stars, instead of one, because I know for a fact I loved the story of Rikki Tikki Tavi as a child.
However, as an adult, reading this was soooo painful. It's an older book and just the language being used and the way the words and sentences were put together. I couldn't enjoy it at all. It took me forever to get through it and I only did so I could be ready for book club on Saturday. And, it's only like 250 pages long!! uggggh
However, as an adult, reading this was soooo painful. It's an older book and just the language being used and the way the words and sentences were put together. I couldn't enjoy it at all. It took me forever to get through it and I only did so I could be ready for book club on Saturday. And, it's only like 250 pages long!! uggggh
Förutom Rikki-Tikki-Tavi var det inte mycket att hänga i granen. Och varför är nästan alla illustrationer mörka och monotona? Det gjorde det svårt för mig att urskilja vad de föreställer.
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes