I am finding Mr. Chalk's paper to be rather dismal.
First of all, I am wondering just what sort of institution this University of Bristol is running. The instances of bad grammar and many punctuation errors indicate to me that Mr. Chalk did not proofread his paper, or that the University of Bristol accepts poor writing as normal for students. An institution for higher learning is supposed to be training students for the professional world, and if their students can't even master basic writing for an important paper like this, I confess that I am very underwhelmed by whatever program they are selling to their students and to the people who hire them.
Second, I note Mr. Chalk's use of very pretentious language -- he certainly tries to
sound like he is an expert about his topic. A brief examination of his logic indicates that, while his wording attempts to indicate one thing, his logic reveals him to be a "poser" when his expertise is considered. For instance, ponder this mouthful:
Corbett's books belong to a reasonably distinct genre with a conventionalised form that was adopted by many British officials and officers who cast accounts of their experiences in India in the form of sporting memoirs.40 However a number of methodological problems exist for the historian using these hunting narratives as sources. Despite often being corroborated elsewhere, these anecdotal texts have limitations as precise records of events. They are bounded by the personal experiences of the narrators, who cannot be treated as completely representative of British colonial society but are likely to be among the more self-conscious exemplars of their type. Tellingly, Corbett candidly admits at the beginning of Man-Eaters of Kumaon that 'Shikar yarns as everybody knows never lose anything in repetition'.41 Moreover, there is often a considerable time lag between the publication of the narrative and the occurrence of the events which it details. Corbett begins one hunting tale with the claim that 'the events of the five days I spent hunting the man-eating tiger of Talla Des are as clear cut and fresh in my memory today as they were twenty-five years ago',42 yet one cannot help but doubt the accuracy of his apparently verbatim recollections.
I wonder: Does Mr. Chalk just propose to dismiss the recollections and narratives of hunters for some reason that has to do with hunters in particular (and which he has neglected to share with us)? Or, would he assert that there are other narrators who cannot be treated as completely representative of other British societal classes who cannot be trusted? For instance, would he claim that Winston S. Churchill's
The Story of the Malakand Field Force or
The Second World War have methodological problems for the historian, which causes this primary historical material to be viewed with a historian's jaundiced eye, as well? Should we, on the bases Mr. Chalk uses for discounting Corbett, such as accuracy and subjectivity. Consider this:
These sources incorporate elements of autobiography and diary, both of which have been identified by historians as non- essentialist literary forms that involve a construction of the 'self' by the author and Michel Foucault has demonstrated that these 'selves' belong to various indecipherable discursive contexts.
Mr. Chalk pulls up the name of a philosopher (Foucault) to buttress his dismissal of Corbett by a historian. Does Foucault offer Philosophy's last word on the subject, such that he is the only philosopher that needs to be quoted? What would Hannah Arendt have to say about Foucault's ruling on this matter? There are a number of philosophical views about anything, and Mr. Chalk doesn't delve into why we should take Foucault's viewpoint on the matter, or even get into a discussion about how Foucault's views indicate the conclusion Mr. Chalk expects us to accept.
Mr. Chalk, however, does observe that writings like Corbett's tell us more than what happened, but also tell us what the author thought of himself and what he wanted to do. Does Mr. Chalk assert then, in the words of his often-used florid prose, that Corbett thought of himself as "a spectacular and violent demonstration of the potency of the virile imperialist," and did Corbett think that his "hunting served metaphorically as 'a bulwark against revolution' that affirmed the fitness of the structure of colonial domination"? Mr. Chalk tends to use highly charged words in the same fashion that little girls try on their mothers' shoes when they are playing "lady": he seems to feel the need to appear like a mature historian, but his writing strikes me as much more histrionic than historically-related.
Mr. Chalk tries to link hunting as the primary reading material, from which British readers get a vicarious thrill of danger and adventure. I wonder, what of Churchill's account of his Boer War experiences and Shackleton's descriptions of his explorations? Is hunting literature really so different from others in the minds of the Imperial public? It's Mr. Chalk's obligation to present the data that will convince his readers, if he makes the assertion. He does not succeed, in this reader's viewpoint.
Certainly, Mr. Chalk holds Corbett responsible for the interpretations and views of others who read his works, when he says, "Corbett's books helped to develop myths and legends of startling proportions that surrounded man-eaters, who consequently approached equivalent status to the werewolf of European lore." Can Mr. Chalk really be representing such observations as something of scholarly merit? Is Jim Corbett really responsible for the myths and legends that arise in the minds of others?
Furthermore, Mr. Chalk expects that Jim Corbett should have been acting as the Sierra Club and identifying natives who burned forests for their agricultural use as eco-terrorists or some such thing. Would Mr. Chalk have preferred Corbett to single-handedly take his rifle and enforce some Imperial Raj edict on these folks? The man was a hunter, but Mr. Chalk wants to discredit any spark of environmental sensibility in Corbett by Corbett's not instituting a full blown environmental plan. I presume Mr. Chalk will, for his Master's, take on Teddy Roosevelt the hunter, as well?
Mr. Chalk concludes, "The continued vitality of the Jim Corbett legend in postcolonial India is therefore indicative of a general failure to acknowledge the inherent, deep and intricate connections between the exploits he describes in his books, and the context of late colonial rule in which they took place." Frankly, this is insulting. Not only does Mr. Chalk fail to support this point with his richly layered blathering, but he also takes upon himself to categorize the thinking process and opinions of all people who value Mr. Corbett, his deeds, and his memory. Mr. Chalk wraps all of Corbett's deeds and all the thoughts of those who admire Corbett into one nicely tied little bag, as if there were not many reasons that people admire Corbett and as if there was but one facet to Corbett's deeds, motivations, and thoughts.
Does the University of Bristol really encourage and reward such shallow analysis?
Does Mr. Chalk really intend to equate Jim Corbett's hunting of big cats with Rudyard Kipling's strenuous congratulation of Reginald Dyer for his actions in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre when he says: "The competent colonist's destruction of a predatory threat to Indian society prevented unruly nature from interfering in the quotidian practices of colonial governance whilst also legitimising the righteousness of the structure of colonial domination"?
Frankly, I think that Mr. Chalk's paper fails on a number of levels. Reading this paper, I am reminded of the words President Theodore Roosevelt delivered at the Sorbonne in 1910:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Mr. Chalk is not embarrassed to set himself up as judge of Jim Corbett, and to do so from such a rickety bench. Apparently, he purchased his robes from the same tailor that the Emperor used.
