It might appear modish to be writing on Kim and Orientalism so soon after the publication of a book on the subject of 'Kipling and "Orientalism,,,l but this essay is in some respects born of a double dissatisfaction with that book: first, because although the author confines himself to Kipling's Indian material, Kim receives very little consideration, and secondly, because in spite of the fact that the concept of Oriental ism as elaborated by Edward Said2 does have its problems, MooreGilbert's treatment of it is unnecessarily reductive.