The following document has been exhumed from the vast archives of Dingo School. This particular paper is written about a well known poem called \”If\“. The document is as follows:

A good deal of literature is predicated on the reader having base assumptions, as it’s impossible to see something from a person’s perspective unless you can look at the issue from a position similar to theirs. Often times, I find the presumed opinions the author doesn’t think to voice much more interesting than the opinions they outright state. The poem in question, “If”, gives me the impression that Kipling thinks of the individual as somehow “above” the environment that surrounds it rather than seeing individuals as products of their environments. My favorite line would have to be “If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue” because I find it to be very fascinating. It almost strikes me as Kipling endowing “virtue” as divine rather than decided upon by humans. Virtues don’t come from the sky - the masses are what dictate what constitutes “virtue”. Moral excellence is incredibly malleable and is passed down rather than remaining a fixed and discrete rule set throughout time. That said, an alternate reading of this line could be “maintain your values as an individual through thick and thin”, but even that interpretation shares the underlying implications. I reiterate: virtues don’t come from the void. Something worldly had to teach each individual their morals, be it the environment and/or individuals in it. Kipling’s implication that old morals hold more validity by virtue of being held for a longer time only furthers the “Virtue is Divine” narrative. To imply that aged and familiar things inherently have more validity than newer or foreign things is fallacious and only serves to paint that which is better-known as sacred. Another interesting thing to note is that Kipling seems to venerate the image of strength while failing to note that the environmental conditions required to uphold such an image are seldom available. Kipling writes, “If you can make one heap of all your winnings…and lose, and start again at your beginnings…and never breathe a word about your loss”. This is a very nice sentiment, but it seems to disregard that “losing everything” means different things in different situations and impacts different people in different ways. A professional losing credibility in their circle is much different than an injured nomad having their food stolen in the midst of a desert. It’s sometimes okay to cry, and Kipling seems to fetishize a sort of cool, disconnected, resoluteness that simply isn’t possible in all situations. It asserts that some individuals can transcend their surrounding environment, which isn’t the case.

Now, I’d like to make it clear that I don’t hate the poem. In fact, I think it’s rather dandy and has some inspirational sentiments. Reading into an author’s unwritten statements is just as important as reading the words on the page.