It was Rudyard Kipling who coined the term "Janeite" and so it is only fitting that Twain lovers be called "Twainites", when we read the following about Kipling's idolization of Twain, and it makes me wonder what secrets about Jane Austen the two men shared during their encounter:
"In
1889, having published six short-story collections in a one-year period,
the 23-year-old Rudyard Kipling left India for a tour of America and
Europe. His travels brought him to New York and Connecticut, where he hoped
to locate and "shake hands with" Mark Twain, the "man I had
learned
to
love and admire fourteen thousand miles away." His recollection of that encounter
was published in newspapers from Allahabad to New York. "An Interview
with Mark Twain" is more than a transcription of his conversation
with the author of Tom Sawyer; Kipling also recounts the humorous
story of how he hunted down his idol, his awe at actually meeting him,
and Twain's genteel demeanor to a stranger arriving unannounced at the
door. When Rudyard Kipling traveled to England the following year and soon
became a literary celebrity, Mark Twain did not immediately connect the
young visitor with the rising star of English letters--but Twain's daughter
Susy, enamored with the idea that anyone could hail from such an exotic
locale, had kept Kipling's calling card with its address in India. Twain
then read Plain Tales from the Hills and wrote to a friend, "whereas Kipling's
stories are plenty good enough on a first reading they very greatly
improve on a second." Mark Twain later recalled his initial encounter
with Kipling: "I believed that he knew more than any person I had
met before, and I knew that he knew that I knew less than any person he
had met before--though he did not say it, and I was not expecting that he
would. . . . He was a stranger to me and to all the world, and remained so
for twelve months, then he became suddenly known, and universally known."
Well, today, I have a PS to that PS, that shows that Kipling shared with Twain an intense, but covert, love for Jane Austen's writing:
In Janeites and Austen L, Elissa Schiff responded to my recent post about Frank Churchill's "heir cut" in Emma as follows:
“...on the matter of Frank's haircut or, as we have it in Kipling's story told by a hairdresser, his "aircut." Like Austen, Kipling is obviously using a multiple layer of irony here by giving us the tale told to one man by another with an extremely limited point of view. So what is our Mason/hair dresser/ head-wounded sole survivor of a hideous WW I battalion attack really saying about Frank and the reason for his "aircut"?? [Clearly he believes Frank did have his hair cut in London and seems unaware of the piano purchase.] What is Kipling really saying to us, the readers, about Frank's "haircut" as an excuse??”
I
will answer in a slightly roundabout way. First, I will say that it happens
that the reason why I revisited Frank’s tonsorial adventure six days ago was
that the day before, i.e. ,last Sunday, I attended a very interesting reading
group session of the JASNA chapter in Portland which I’ve been enjoying since
moving here a few months ago. The session….
“...on the matter of Frank's haircut or, as we have it in Kipling's story told by a hairdresser, his "aircut." Like Austen, Kipling is obviously using a multiple layer of irony here by giving us the tale told to one man by another with an extremely limited point of view. So what is our Mason/hair dresser/ head-wounded sole survivor of a hideous WW I battalion attack really saying about Frank and the reason for his "aircut"?? [Clearly he believes Frank did have his hair cut in London and seems unaware of the piano purchase.] What is Kipling really saying to us, the readers, about Frank's "haircut" as an excuse??”
….was
primarily on the topic of how Jane Austen novels have been read during past
wars, and still are read during wartime today---which of course meant that
Kipling’s short story “The Janeites” was an important part of the discussion
mix.
In
doing my own preparation for the session, I reread “The Janeites” for the first
time in a good while, and as I read Humberstall say, “it brings it all
back–down to the smell of the glue-paint on the screens. You take it from me,
Brethren, there’s no one to touch Jane when you’re in a tight place”, it
reminded me of my initial reaction to that phrase when I first read it, which
is that it is exactly the same sort of winking, Mary Crawfordesque daring-you-to-wonder-if-it’s-intentional
sexual innuendo!
But
this time around, knowing what I now know both about Jane Austen’s sexual
innuendoes, and also the innuendoes of great writers who have paid her covert
homage during the past 2 centuries, I went back and re-read Kipling’s story
again through the lens of the hypothetical “what if Kipling’s main point had
nothing to do with the fighting of war, but everything to do with gay
camaraderie during war?”
And
sure enough, I can now tell you that Humberstall’s famous above quoted bon
mot is only (so to speak) the tip of the
iceberg. Everything in the story is pointing to this same theme of same-sex
love—including the names of all the phallic artillery, such as “De Bugg”.
I
then did some scholarly research, and noted that the likes of the well known
Claudia Johnson and the unknown Vincent Quinn
have previously pointed out some aspects of the intense homosocial vibe
of Kipling’s story. And I also noted that there has been serious scholarly
speculation about Kipling’s own sexual orientation. But I don’t believe any of
them was able to make the greater leap to realizing that Kipling was saying, in
Masonic-like code, that there is gay love depicted in Jane Austen’s novels.
And,
having come full roundabout, I am now ready to answer Elissa’s question--- my
answer is that Humberstall’s comment about Frank’s ‘aircut” implies the same thing that Amy Heckerling’s Clueless makes explicit, which is that
Frank Churchill is, if not gay, at least bisexual. Which is one of the reasons
why I have been so confident since June 2007 that Frank was not the father of
Jane’s baby—because he’s really NOT that into Jane, because she’s a woman!
I then responded to a further comment by Diane Reynolds as follows:
Diane: "I recently reread Kipling's Janeites with the idea of
assigning it in class--subtexts or no, it's a terrific story. I decided not
to use it because the Cockney slang is so difficult. I had not thought of
it as having a gay subtext, but it makes sense."
Diane, what's really wonderful is that Kipling goes about it in an absolutely
Austenesque way--a couple of VERY suggestive usages (De Bugg, tight place),
supported by a penumbra of less suggestive phallic winks. So there is
complete deniability, while at the same time it can all be read
campily--the gay subtext lights up like a Christmas tree only when you read
against the grain, through the gay lens. That was Jane Austen's technique
in a nutshell. Point of view is everything.
Diane also wrote: "Henry James and Kipling apparently were friends, and we
know now that James was probably queer. I also have the idea lodged in my
mind that William Dean Howells and Kipling were friends--my 10 second web
search can't confirm it, but I do have that idea. Is this so? And according
to Elaine's book, Howells and James probably had an affair at Harvard (if I
remember correctly)."
I didn't know Howells and James were buds, thanks for alerting me! That's
particularly interesting, because Howells was so tight (so to speak) with
Mark Twain--it was Howells whom Twain put on with his faux-hatred of Jane
Austen's writing! And the full scope of Twain's sexuality has also been
wondered about, and rightly so. And it also fits with Kipling's and Twain's mutual admiration society that I noted in 2013.
Diane also wrote: " A gay subtext, especially buried under impenetrable
dialect, is not at all implausible. James's overt dismissals aside, I think
they were all secret Janeites. What I don't understand is Frank's
haircut--haircut is street slang for gay sex in that period?"
Per Jill Heydt Stevenson, it was slang for a secret romantic assignation.
While it perhaps began in a heterosexual context, it is not implausible
that it would be appropriated by gay and/or lesbian writers like JA and
Kipling.
And I almost forgot to mention one other really cool aspect of the gay
subtext of "The Janeites"---- a short while ago, you may recall that I wrote
about the over-the-top endlessly repeated sexual joke in Dickens's Martin
Chuzzlewit on Tom Pinch's 'organ" as in part an homage to Fanny Price
listening to the street music on his 'hand-organ".
Well, guess what, I think Kipling noticed Dickens's joke, and sent it up in
The Janeites.
Just search for the word 'organ" in "The Janeites" and you
will see exactly what i mean!
Cheers, ARNIE
@JaneAustenCode on Twitter
Cheers, ARNIE
@JaneAustenCode on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment