From Lispeth to the Woman of Shamlegh: Rudyard Kipling, India, and Indian Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critics have long grappled with the eccentric, often nature of Kipling's fiction (Said, 160): his complicity in and seeming subversion of Imperialist ideologies; his characterization of Indian people, sometimes sympathetic, sometimes superficial and racially insulting; his portrayal of women, misogynist yet admiring. One of the more interesting of these troubling contradictions is his representation of women, especially Indian women. This article investigates the development of Kipling's representation of Indian women through the cycle of his writing on India: from Plain Tales from the Hills in 1888, to Kim in 1901. The focus is on those Indian women who are central to his stories or novels, who are depicted in other than merely stereotypic ways. Through the fifteen years that lie between Lispeth, the opening story in Plain Tales from the Hills, and Kim, Kipling's last Indian work, Kipling's narrative representations of Indian women, of India itself, are transformed, becoming both more complex and more illuminating, and revealing a growth in maturity and perception that justifies critics' claims for Kim as Kipling's greatest Indian work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".