I tried reading Kim recently and was immediately put off by the seemingly archaic dialogue. The book is set at the turn of the 20th century in India, and there is dialogue such as:

Lama: “Nay, if it please thee to forget⁠—the one thing only that thou hast not told me. Surely thou must know? …”

Curator: "I am bound,” said the Curator. “But whither goest thou?”

I read several pages and this kind of dialog seemed prevalent, including by Kim, the orphan boy protagonist. I spot checked ahead in the book and saw more instances of this. To be clear, not all the dialogue was like this, but there was enough to put me off the book, so I set it aside.

It’s not the dialogue itself, it is that it is anachronistic in this setting. I read Ivanhoe recently and this style of dialog was used throughout the book and I thought nothing of it.

Any other readers of Kim out there who care to comment on this?

  • basil_not_the_plantOPBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Well, it’s more than just the use of “thou/thee”, which are just prominent examples in a style that seems to me anachronistic for the time period of the book. Here’s a longer sample

    “To what, child?” said the lama.
    “God knows, but so my father told me. I heard thy talk in the Wonder House of all those new strange places in the Hills, and if one so old and so little⁠—so used to truth-telling⁠—may go out for the small matter of a river, it seemed to me that I too must go a-travelling. If it is our fate to find those things we shall find them⁠—thou, thy River; and I, my Bull, and the Strong Pillars and some other matters that I forget.”

    But maybe this fomral/informal distinction proposed with respect to “thou/thee” is extended to the rest of the dialogue.