What do you think?
Rate this book
The Man Who Would Be King
Las peripecias de dos aventureros ingleses para hacerse con el reino de Kafristán. Ambos sentirán el desgarro de la lucha entre su presunto origen divino y sus necesidades humanas, hasta verse abocados a un desastre.
96 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1888
About the author
Rudyard Kipling
6,738 books3,391 followersJoseph Rudyard Kipling was a journalist, short-story writer, poet, and novelist.
Kipling's works of fiction include The Jungle Book (1894), Kim (1901), and many short stories, including The Man Who Would Be King (1888). His poems include Mandalay (1890), Gunga Din (1890), The Gods of the Copybook Headings (1919), The White Man's Burden (1899), and If— (1910). He is regarded as a major innovator in the art of the short story; his children's books are classics of children's literature; and one critic described his work as exhibiting "a versatile and luminous narrative gift".
Kipling was one of the most popular writers in the United Kingdom, in both prose and verse, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Henry James said: "Kipling strikes me personally as the most complete man of genius (as distinct from fine intelligence) that I have ever known." In 1907, at the age of 41, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, making him the first English-language writer to receive the prize, and its youngest recipient to date. He was also sounded out for the British Poet Laureateship and on several occasions for a knighthood, both of which he declined.
Awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1907 "in consideration of the power of observation, originality of imagination, virility of ideas and remarkable talent for narration which characterize the creations of this world-famous author."
Kipling kept writing until the early 1930s, but at a slower pace and with much less success than before. On the night of 12 January 1936, Kipling suffered a haemorrhage in his small intestine. He underwent surgery, but died less than a week later on 18 January 1936 at the age of 70 of a perforated duodenal ulcer. Kipling's death had in fact previously been incorrectly announced in a magazine, to which he wrote, "I've just read that I am dead. Don't forget to delete me from your list of subscribers."
Kipling's works of fiction include The Jungle Book (1894), Kim (1901), and many short stories, including The Man Who Would Be King (1888). His poems include Mandalay (1890), Gunga Din (1890), The Gods of the Copybook Headings (1919), The White Man's Burden (1899), and If— (1910). He is regarded as a major innovator in the art of the short story; his children's books are classics of children's literature; and one critic described his work as exhibiting "a versatile and luminous narrative gift".
Kipling was one of the most popular writers in the United Kingdom, in both prose and verse, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Henry James said: "Kipling strikes me personally as the most complete man of genius (as distinct from fine intelligence) that I have ever known." In 1907, at the age of 41, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, making him the first English-language writer to receive the prize, and its youngest recipient to date. He was also sounded out for the British Poet Laureateship and on several occasions for a knighthood, both of which he declined.
Awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1907 "in consideration of the power of observation, originality of imagination, virility of ideas and remarkable talent for narration which characterize the creations of this world-famous author."
Kipling kept writing until the early 1930s, but at a slower pace and with much less success than before. On the night of 12 January 1936, Kipling suffered a haemorrhage in his small intestine. He underwent surgery, but died less than a week later on 18 January 1936 at the age of 70 of a perforated duodenal ulcer. Kipling's death had in fact previously been incorrectly announced in a magazine, to which he wrote, "I've just read that I am dead. Don't forget to delete me from your list of subscribers."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 723 reviews
July 6, 2023
SEMBRA FACILE ESSERE RE
L’abilità di narratore, il gusto per intreccio e avventura che sin dalla prima pagina Kipling dispiega in questo racconto lungo del 1888 (Kipling aveva all’epoca solo ventitré anni), a me fanno immediatamente tornare alla mente l’inizio al fulmicotone del primo Indiana Jones.
Ma anche dalla novella di Kipling è stato tratto un film più che notevole, con ottimo cast (Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Christopher Plummer) e superba firma di regista, John Huston.
Inoltre, Kipling dispiega subito un gusto per il gioco d’incastri, e il tradizionale prologo che dovrebbe fare da cornice qui si espande e diventa racconto a sé: e le due linee narrative fanno a gara nell’essere più ghiotte e fantasiose, eccitanti e colorate, divertenti e ironiche.
L’incontro prima del lungo viaggio tra Kipking/Plummer con Connery/Dravot e Caine/Carnehan.
L’io narrante è lo stesso Kipling, che a bordo di un treno indiano, in un vagone di classe né bassa né alta, ma “intermedia”, incontra un vagabondo che viene dal suo stesso paese, l’Inghilterra. Il nome dell’uomo è Peachy Carnehan: affida a Kipling un messaggio da consegnare a un altro vagabondo inglese a nome Daniel Dravot.
Qualche tempo dopo, una sera, Kipling riceve la visita dei due inglesi che gli confessano di essere in partenza per una zona remota dell’Afghanistan: per questo gli chiedono di poter consultare tutte le mappe, le guide e i libri che ha sul percorso che dovranno compiere. Il viaggio che li aspetta è lungo e pericoloso, ma i due uomini sanno di andare incontro a un’avventura dal potenziale unico. A ogni occorrenza, nascondono nel loro bagaglio un buon numero di fucili inglesi.
Tre anni dopo, sempre di sera e sempre nello stesso luogo, la redazione del giornale per il quale Kipling lavora, si presenta quello che restava di un uomo, un molto malridotto Peachy che racconta a Kipling l’avventura che ha vissuto insieme al collega e amico ormai defunto Daniel Dravot.
Dravot è l’uomo che “volle essere re”. E per riuscirci raggiunse quella zona estrema dell’Afghanistan, il Kafiristan, dove prima di loro l’unico occidentale a esservi arrivato è Alessandro Magno – sempre che lo si possa definire occidentale. Duemila anni prima dei due inglesi: i quali giunti in quella parte di mondo selvaggia e primitiva, armati dei loro fucili, e con le loro moderne conoscenze, riescono a intortare i locali. Dravot sarà effettivamente incoronato re. Ma la vicenda non finisce nel migliore dei modi: tutt’altro, come lo stato fisico in cui è ridotto Peachy e il misterioso sacco che si porta dietro testimoniano senza ombra di dubbio.
Il film è stato girato in Marocco e nelle Alpi dell’Alta Savoia.
Si parla anche molto di massoneria: entrambi gli inglesi appartengono a questa società segreta (setta?) – in Kafiristan trovano lo stesso simbolo della Loggia, portato proprio dal grande Alessandro. E la simbologia massone ricorre per tutto il racconto. D’altronde quest’accolita di malpensanti e malfacenti si è formata proprio a Londra (1717).
Peachy Carnehan e Daniel Dravot incarnano la parabola dell’imperialismo inglese con la loro conquista di un territorio arretrato dove portano civiltà e giustizia (la loro giustizia). Kipling non è particolarmente critico sul fenomeno, anzi, ne era caso mai cantore. E forse negli anni Ottanta dell’Ottocento le occupazioni inglesi non avevano ancora preso quella deriva che implacabilmente arriverà col nuovo secolo.
Quasi un secolo dopo (1975) il regista John Huston ha potuto permettersi di essere più critico e demitizzante: introducendo anche una maggiore dose d’ironia perfettamente trasmessa dalla recitazione sorniona ed elegante di Dravot-Connery.
L’abilità di narratore, il gusto per intreccio e avventura che sin dalla prima pagina Kipling dispiega in questo racconto lungo del 1888 (Kipling aveva all’epoca solo ventitré anni), a me fanno immediatamente tornare alla mente l’inizio al fulmicotone del primo Indiana Jones.
Ma anche dalla novella di Kipling è stato tratto un film più che notevole, con ottimo cast (Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Christopher Plummer) e superba firma di regista, John Huston.
Inoltre, Kipling dispiega subito un gusto per il gioco d’incastri, e il tradizionale prologo che dovrebbe fare da cornice qui si espande e diventa racconto a sé: e le due linee narrative fanno a gara nell’essere più ghiotte e fantasiose, eccitanti e colorate, divertenti e ironiche.
L’incontro prima del lungo viaggio tra Kipking/Plummer con Connery/Dravot e Caine/Carnehan.
L’io narrante è lo stesso Kipling, che a bordo di un treno indiano, in un vagone di classe né bassa né alta, ma “intermedia”, incontra un vagabondo che viene dal suo stesso paese, l’Inghilterra. Il nome dell’uomo è Peachy Carnehan: affida a Kipling un messaggio da consegnare a un altro vagabondo inglese a nome Daniel Dravot.
Qualche tempo dopo, una sera, Kipling riceve la visita dei due inglesi che gli confessano di essere in partenza per una zona remota dell’Afghanistan: per questo gli chiedono di poter consultare tutte le mappe, le guide e i libri che ha sul percorso che dovranno compiere. Il viaggio che li aspetta è lungo e pericoloso, ma i due uomini sanno di andare incontro a un’avventura dal potenziale unico. A ogni occorrenza, nascondono nel loro bagaglio un buon numero di fucili inglesi.
Tre anni dopo, sempre di sera e sempre nello stesso luogo, la redazione del giornale per il quale Kipling lavora, si presenta quello che restava di un uomo, un molto malridotto Peachy che racconta a Kipling l’avventura che ha vissuto insieme al collega e amico ormai defunto Daniel Dravot.
Dravot è l’uomo che “volle essere re”. E per riuscirci raggiunse quella zona estrema dell’Afghanistan, il Kafiristan, dove prima di loro l’unico occidentale a esservi arrivato è Alessandro Magno – sempre che lo si possa definire occidentale. Duemila anni prima dei due inglesi: i quali giunti in quella parte di mondo selvaggia e primitiva, armati dei loro fucili, e con le loro moderne conoscenze, riescono a intortare i locali. Dravot sarà effettivamente incoronato re. Ma la vicenda non finisce nel migliore dei modi: tutt’altro, come lo stato fisico in cui è ridotto Peachy e il misterioso sacco che si porta dietro testimoniano senza ombra di dubbio.
Il film è stato girato in Marocco e nelle Alpi dell’Alta Savoia.
Si parla anche molto di massoneria: entrambi gli inglesi appartengono a questa società segreta (setta?) – in Kafiristan trovano lo stesso simbolo della Loggia, portato proprio dal grande Alessandro. E la simbologia massone ricorre per tutto il racconto. D’altronde quest’accolita di malpensanti e malfacenti si è formata proprio a Londra (1717).
Peachy Carnehan e Daniel Dravot incarnano la parabola dell’imperialismo inglese con la loro conquista di un territorio arretrato dove portano civiltà e giustizia (la loro giustizia). Kipling non è particolarmente critico sul fenomeno, anzi, ne era caso mai cantore. E forse negli anni Ottanta dell’Ottocento le occupazioni inglesi non avevano ancora preso quella deriva che implacabilmente arriverà col nuovo secolo.
Quasi un secolo dopo (1975) il regista John Huston ha potuto permettersi di essere più critico e demitizzante: introducendo anche una maggiore dose d’ironia perfettamente trasmessa dalla recitazione sorniona ed elegante di Dravot-Connery.
May 30, 2015
I must admit I find the modern backlash against colonialism to be somewhat ridiculous; as if colonialism were something new, something purely European, something malicious and unnatural. What else has mankind done since it rose in Africa but displace its neighbors? What else does any animal do but seek to thrive where it can?
Any successful group soon becomes cramped as their population rises, and hence spreads out to new areas. In this way, each species has developed and then expanded to its limits. Whenever there is a significant change in environment, a new species takes over the place of the old. But this does not in any way lessen the worth of the displaced group.
It is a mistake to see Darwinian evolution as leading towards 'something greater'. Human beings are no better than jellyfish, indeed, place a human being underwater with only small fish for his sustenance, and see how long he lasts. No animal is better, each is specialized for a certain environment.
Mankind has colonized the world, but so have ants, and pound for pound, there are more ants than people. Humans have altered their atmosphere and environment, but so did algae millions of years ago, and they drove most of the other animals extinct. Our ability to affect the world does not make us unique.
Populations of early man expanded across Africa and out into Europe and Asia. Some of these were Homo Sapiens, like modern man, others neanderthals, australopithecines, and other variations. These different groups fought for territory and resources, and one-by-one, wiped each other out. The expansion of animals across the globe is never one of peaceful balance. There can be no balance in a constantly-shifting environment.
Eventually, we began to develop early cultures, not because any group of humans was 'better', but because of environmental effects (for a theory about what sorts of effects these were, check out Guns, Germs and Steel). The populations who developed things like agriculture and tool-use were able to expand, and when they expanded, they ran into the neighboring populations, who they fought, slew, sublimated, and combined with.
Humans moved all around the globe, taking over land from other groups and wiping out the previous cultures. There is archaeological evidence that suggests that when the most recent migration came to America from Siberia, they completely wiped out the previous inhabitants and their culture.
Places like Australia, America, and Oceania are remote, so new waves are infrequent. Africa, Europe, and Asia, on the other hand, have been in a constant state of flux since prehistory. The Indo-Aryans conquered northern India, the Phoenicians founded Carthage, the Trojans founded Rome (on the heads of the Latins), and the Old Testament Jews committed wholesale genocide on the Amalekites and the Midianites to expand the tribe of Israel.
As cultural ties grew stronger and new technologies were developed, larger and larger areas could be taken over and ruled by a single culture. The Roman Empire and China expanded under their technological and social successes, sublimating all the distinct peoples who surrounded them. In Europe, Rome fell, giving way to the North Africans, the Byzantines, and the Normans. Each group took what they could and tried to homogenize the cultures in the territories they controlled.
But they did not destroy the cultures they conquered. Cultures are always in constant flux, growing, changing, mutating, combining, and cleaving. There is no 'pure culture' in the world, nor has there been, and though some have been destroyed, their traditions and practices did not actually disappear.
Take for example the epic of Gilgamesh, the product of a nearly forgotten culture. Though the tradition it comes from is lost to time and its cities are buried beneath the sand, when we rediscovered Gilgamesh, it became clear that the story had influenced many cultures, including the writings of Homer. Forgotten, but not annihilated.
The conquering culture overwhelms some parts of the previous culture, but it adopts others, often without recognizing it, and thus both cultures progress and change. Just as the Indo-Aryans changed Indian culture, which changed Chinese culture, which changed Korean culture, which changed Japanese culture, so was the colonial conflict between Britain and India a cultural exchange. The terms of the exchange weren't fair, but such exchanges rarely are, and it certainly wasn't one-sided.
By the time of colonialism, the geographical space in Europe had reached something approaching equilibrium. The most successful groups had sublimated those around them and expanded to an area of land they could roughly control and homogenize. Many wars were fought over the same pieces of land, which were passed back and forth again and again.
Technologies increase more and more quickly over time, as illustrated by transportation at the beginning of colonialism. Tallships traveled to foreign lands, like America and Japan, and when they arrived, they discovered that the local cultures were not able to contend with the wartime technologies the Europeans brought with them.
The unification of China and remoteness of Japan meant that new technologies, such as navigational aids, water-clocks, and gunpowder, were not widely adopted. The Chinese bureaucracy did not value these changes, because change always means political restructuring, and they had no threat of close neighbors (like Europe) to drive them to an arms race.
The Europeans were not better or smarter than the Chinese, they were merely adapted to different requirements. It's rather like the case of Tibbles the cat:
On Stephen's Island in New Zealand, there was a species of flightless bird. There was also a lighthouse. The lighthouse-keeper owned a cat, named Tibbles, who hunted the birds. By the time it was recognized that they were a new, unique species, Tibbles the cat had eaten them all. They are the only species known to have become extinct due to the actions of a single animal.
The flightless birds were not 'less advanced' than the cat, they were merely specialized for a certain kind of lifestyle. The cat could not have survived on the island by itself, after all, which the wrens had no problem doing. The wrens were as good as they could be at surviving on a remote island, which meant they didn't waste energy on nonexistent predators. But, when conditions changed, they were overcome.
It is said that the Aboriginal people of Australia have a social system whereby two members meeting for the first time, no matter how remote, can determine their genetic relationship to one another within a few sentences. Their culture is not an inferior one, it merely specializes in different areas.
The Europeans had a different background than the people of Africa or the Americas. They were not better-suited to life in those parts of the world, as the many deaths of the Virginia colony showed, nor were their cultures in any way 'better', but they were specialized in killing people efficiently and holding land.
Since the Europeans had already expanded roughly to their limits in Europe, it produced a great change when trains and steamboats allowed them to access remote areas of the globe. It was easier for them to fight for land in Africa, America, and Oceania than it was for them to fight for land against their powerful neighbors.
They expanded, as humans always have, in waves, the more physically powerful culture dominating the one with other specializations. There is nothing new about this, except the range at which they were able to expand, and there is no 'pure culture' that did not establish itself after the displacement of others.
Colonialism was remarkable because it was unprecedented for people to commit war on others so far away, and because in terms of military technology, it was often one-sided. The extinction rate for animals is at an all-time high right now, but this is chiefly because the variety of animals is at a high. Land has been separating and breaking up since the age of the super-continents, and so there are more islands, more mountains, and hence, more remote areas to produce extra-specialized animals.
In the wake of global travel, many species are finding themselves in the position of the Stephen's Island Wren, as rats, cats, pigs, and rabbits are taking over the world. This is because the specialization only thrives in a closed environment. In open competition, the generalized animal survives. Think of weight classes in boxing.
But it is a mistake to equate one sort of superiority with another. Just because you can kill another man does not make you smarter than him. And yet, for all his knowledge, it avails him not in death. This is the pain we feel from colonialism, that those who 'won' did not do so because they were smarter or better, but merely because they were more skilled at killing.
But people do not kill merely to kill. We kill to propagate ourselves, our ideas, and our cultures. No culture ever really destroys another, and even the culture that 'loses' the war does not lose itself.
The Africans who were enslaved by their fellows, sold to Europeans, separated, and forced to work did not lose their culture, even though they faced as daunting a path as can be imagined. Indeed, their culture combined with the European cultures in America and blossomed in new and unpredictable ways.
Rome brought back people and culture from all of the lands into which it expanded, and was eventually overtaken by one small, insignificant group, The Christians. Cultural interaction is not a bad thing, and the pure, unadulterated, unchanging culture is a myth.
And this myth is what allows White supremacists, Black nationalists, and Islamic fundamentalists to unite under the same banner of 'racial purity'. The mixing of cultures is natural and produces the most remarkable effects. It is by the transfer of ideas that humanity grows.
Kipling is called an imperialist because he was descended from the most recent wave of conquerors in India. He was born there and worked there, and learned the language before he knew English. The British suffered the same fate under the Normans, who replaced half of the Germanic English language with French.
Kipling claims no moral superiority to the Indians, nor does he pretend to know their culture, inside and out. In this story, particularly, he seems to recognize that even the most foolish, unremarkable man can achieve something when he has guns and other men do not.
He does not claim that it is in the blood of the British to rule, nor the blood of the Indians to be ruled. Even in 'The White Man's Burden', one can see that he is more concerned with the cultural and technological relationship than with some in-born quality.
Even so, Kipling and his contemporaries did not know what the source of European power was. They had the technology, but it would be many years until academics began to theorize why this inequality in technology developed.
At the time, Europeans traveled around the world and found that no one else had developed steam power or guns, and surely they wondered why. The more simplistic stated it was the will of god, or some innate superiority of their evolution. But we still don't know what it was, for sure.
We still don't know how racial difference affect the mind. We can all interbreed, which means we are all the same species, all related that closely at least, but beyond that, it is difficult to say just what our in-born differences may be, or how strong they are.
While many cling to the ideals of egalitarianism, 'all men are born equal', this is clearly not true at all. Some are more mathematically-minded, some are taller, some stronger, some cannot parse words, some sickly, some attractive. It is almost impossible, at this point, to separate genetic elements from cultural elements, but slowly, we are learning to do so to some degree.
Kipling does not put forth the ignorant ideal that 'Europeans are better', and even if some authors do, it is no more true than the ideal 'humans are equal'. Though just because we are not equal does not mean some are 'better', like animals, our differences specialize us for different tasks and different environments.
Morality is a small and personal game. It is not the source of culture, it is the result of culture. Trying to fit human society into any ideal, from 'fairness' to 'equality' to 'superiority' is just mincing words. Colonialism is merely a new word to describe the balance of power between the physically dominant and those they overwhelm.
I don't suggest that we ignore or excuse this unequal balance merely because it is ancient, natural, and as far as we know, inescapable, any more than I would suggest we stop fighting against death and disease because they are ancient, natural, and inescapable. I would only suggest that we try to look at the situation as a dynamic of political power.
Colonialism was not a conspiracy, it was not a small, deliberate decision made by some few people. It was the predictable outgrowth of the interactions between states and people.
When Kipling makes his most damning remark in 'The White Man's Burden', that English culture has become parent to the Indian culture's 'half-devil, half-child', he is describing the eternal relationship between any government and people. The populace is ignorant and violent everywhere, and they are the burden of the government, but also its supporters.
Britain took on this burden willfully, sensing that the economic benefits it would bring would counterbalance the difficulty of maintaining it. Compounding this was the sense that India could be 'educated', pulled up into the 'modern world', as the West is still trying to do all over the world today.
This sense that First World powers can and should transfer knowledge to the rest of the world does reflect the roles of child and parent, doubly so because the rest of the world at once resents and desires it.
They desire the knowledge, production, and technology of the First World, but to get it, they must create an economic agreement. The First World trades what it has as dearly as possible, using the economic ties to increase their influence and their profit.
It is not a new, remarkable, personal state of inequality, it is the same state we have been living under since culture developed, and the same state we're living under today. If there were a good pejorative definition of colonialism, it is that people in power feel they deserve to be in power, and people under their power resent that they are not in power. It is this unwarranted sense of entitlement which should chafe, not the facts of power dynamics.
We are not created equally, we are not treated equally, and those of us who attain power feel entitled to use it. Demonizing this ancient, ever-repeating relationship isn't going to change anything, and it won't help us to better understand the world, ourselves, or power. Like many social debates about inequality, 'colonialism' boils down to entitlement vs. resentment, and neither stance is of any use to ideas or discourse.
Any successful group soon becomes cramped as their population rises, and hence spreads out to new areas. In this way, each species has developed and then expanded to its limits. Whenever there is a significant change in environment, a new species takes over the place of the old. But this does not in any way lessen the worth of the displaced group.
It is a mistake to see Darwinian evolution as leading towards 'something greater'. Human beings are no better than jellyfish, indeed, place a human being underwater with only small fish for his sustenance, and see how long he lasts. No animal is better, each is specialized for a certain environment.
Mankind has colonized the world, but so have ants, and pound for pound, there are more ants than people. Humans have altered their atmosphere and environment, but so did algae millions of years ago, and they drove most of the other animals extinct. Our ability to affect the world does not make us unique.
Populations of early man expanded across Africa and out into Europe and Asia. Some of these were Homo Sapiens, like modern man, others neanderthals, australopithecines, and other variations. These different groups fought for territory and resources, and one-by-one, wiped each other out. The expansion of animals across the globe is never one of peaceful balance. There can be no balance in a constantly-shifting environment.
Eventually, we began to develop early cultures, not because any group of humans was 'better', but because of environmental effects (for a theory about what sorts of effects these were, check out Guns, Germs and Steel). The populations who developed things like agriculture and tool-use were able to expand, and when they expanded, they ran into the neighboring populations, who they fought, slew, sublimated, and combined with.
Humans moved all around the globe, taking over land from other groups and wiping out the previous cultures. There is archaeological evidence that suggests that when the most recent migration came to America from Siberia, they completely wiped out the previous inhabitants and their culture.
Places like Australia, America, and Oceania are remote, so new waves are infrequent. Africa, Europe, and Asia, on the other hand, have been in a constant state of flux since prehistory. The Indo-Aryans conquered northern India, the Phoenicians founded Carthage, the Trojans founded Rome (on the heads of the Latins), and the Old Testament Jews committed wholesale genocide on the Amalekites and the Midianites to expand the tribe of Israel.
As cultural ties grew stronger and new technologies were developed, larger and larger areas could be taken over and ruled by a single culture. The Roman Empire and China expanded under their technological and social successes, sublimating all the distinct peoples who surrounded them. In Europe, Rome fell, giving way to the North Africans, the Byzantines, and the Normans. Each group took what they could and tried to homogenize the cultures in the territories they controlled.
But they did not destroy the cultures they conquered. Cultures are always in constant flux, growing, changing, mutating, combining, and cleaving. There is no 'pure culture' in the world, nor has there been, and though some have been destroyed, their traditions and practices did not actually disappear.
Take for example the epic of Gilgamesh, the product of a nearly forgotten culture. Though the tradition it comes from is lost to time and its cities are buried beneath the sand, when we rediscovered Gilgamesh, it became clear that the story had influenced many cultures, including the writings of Homer. Forgotten, but not annihilated.
The conquering culture overwhelms some parts of the previous culture, but it adopts others, often without recognizing it, and thus both cultures progress and change. Just as the Indo-Aryans changed Indian culture, which changed Chinese culture, which changed Korean culture, which changed Japanese culture, so was the colonial conflict between Britain and India a cultural exchange. The terms of the exchange weren't fair, but such exchanges rarely are, and it certainly wasn't one-sided.
By the time of colonialism, the geographical space in Europe had reached something approaching equilibrium. The most successful groups had sublimated those around them and expanded to an area of land they could roughly control and homogenize. Many wars were fought over the same pieces of land, which were passed back and forth again and again.
Technologies increase more and more quickly over time, as illustrated by transportation at the beginning of colonialism. Tallships traveled to foreign lands, like America and Japan, and when they arrived, they discovered that the local cultures were not able to contend with the wartime technologies the Europeans brought with them.
The unification of China and remoteness of Japan meant that new technologies, such as navigational aids, water-clocks, and gunpowder, were not widely adopted. The Chinese bureaucracy did not value these changes, because change always means political restructuring, and they had no threat of close neighbors (like Europe) to drive them to an arms race.
The Europeans were not better or smarter than the Chinese, they were merely adapted to different requirements. It's rather like the case of Tibbles the cat:
On Stephen's Island in New Zealand, there was a species of flightless bird. There was also a lighthouse. The lighthouse-keeper owned a cat, named Tibbles, who hunted the birds. By the time it was recognized that they were a new, unique species, Tibbles the cat had eaten them all. They are the only species known to have become extinct due to the actions of a single animal.
The flightless birds were not 'less advanced' than the cat, they were merely specialized for a certain kind of lifestyle. The cat could not have survived on the island by itself, after all, which the wrens had no problem doing. The wrens were as good as they could be at surviving on a remote island, which meant they didn't waste energy on nonexistent predators. But, when conditions changed, they were overcome.
It is said that the Aboriginal people of Australia have a social system whereby two members meeting for the first time, no matter how remote, can determine their genetic relationship to one another within a few sentences. Their culture is not an inferior one, it merely specializes in different areas.
The Europeans had a different background than the people of Africa or the Americas. They were not better-suited to life in those parts of the world, as the many deaths of the Virginia colony showed, nor were their cultures in any way 'better', but they were specialized in killing people efficiently and holding land.
Since the Europeans had already expanded roughly to their limits in Europe, it produced a great change when trains and steamboats allowed them to access remote areas of the globe. It was easier for them to fight for land in Africa, America, and Oceania than it was for them to fight for land against their powerful neighbors.
They expanded, as humans always have, in waves, the more physically powerful culture dominating the one with other specializations. There is nothing new about this, except the range at which they were able to expand, and there is no 'pure culture' that did not establish itself after the displacement of others.
Colonialism was remarkable because it was unprecedented for people to commit war on others so far away, and because in terms of military technology, it was often one-sided. The extinction rate for animals is at an all-time high right now, but this is chiefly because the variety of animals is at a high. Land has been separating and breaking up since the age of the super-continents, and so there are more islands, more mountains, and hence, more remote areas to produce extra-specialized animals.
In the wake of global travel, many species are finding themselves in the position of the Stephen's Island Wren, as rats, cats, pigs, and rabbits are taking over the world. This is because the specialization only thrives in a closed environment. In open competition, the generalized animal survives. Think of weight classes in boxing.
But it is a mistake to equate one sort of superiority with another. Just because you can kill another man does not make you smarter than him. And yet, for all his knowledge, it avails him not in death. This is the pain we feel from colonialism, that those who 'won' did not do so because they were smarter or better, but merely because they were more skilled at killing.
But people do not kill merely to kill. We kill to propagate ourselves, our ideas, and our cultures. No culture ever really destroys another, and even the culture that 'loses' the war does not lose itself.
The Africans who were enslaved by their fellows, sold to Europeans, separated, and forced to work did not lose their culture, even though they faced as daunting a path as can be imagined. Indeed, their culture combined with the European cultures in America and blossomed in new and unpredictable ways.
Rome brought back people and culture from all of the lands into which it expanded, and was eventually overtaken by one small, insignificant group, The Christians. Cultural interaction is not a bad thing, and the pure, unadulterated, unchanging culture is a myth.
And this myth is what allows White supremacists, Black nationalists, and Islamic fundamentalists to unite under the same banner of 'racial purity'. The mixing of cultures is natural and produces the most remarkable effects. It is by the transfer of ideas that humanity grows.
Kipling is called an imperialist because he was descended from the most recent wave of conquerors in India. He was born there and worked there, and learned the language before he knew English. The British suffered the same fate under the Normans, who replaced half of the Germanic English language with French.
Kipling claims no moral superiority to the Indians, nor does he pretend to know their culture, inside and out. In this story, particularly, he seems to recognize that even the most foolish, unremarkable man can achieve something when he has guns and other men do not.
He does not claim that it is in the blood of the British to rule, nor the blood of the Indians to be ruled. Even in 'The White Man's Burden', one can see that he is more concerned with the cultural and technological relationship than with some in-born quality.
Even so, Kipling and his contemporaries did not know what the source of European power was. They had the technology, but it would be many years until academics began to theorize why this inequality in technology developed.
At the time, Europeans traveled around the world and found that no one else had developed steam power or guns, and surely they wondered why. The more simplistic stated it was the will of god, or some innate superiority of their evolution. But we still don't know what it was, for sure.
We still don't know how racial difference affect the mind. We can all interbreed, which means we are all the same species, all related that closely at least, but beyond that, it is difficult to say just what our in-born differences may be, or how strong they are.
While many cling to the ideals of egalitarianism, 'all men are born equal', this is clearly not true at all. Some are more mathematically-minded, some are taller, some stronger, some cannot parse words, some sickly, some attractive. It is almost impossible, at this point, to separate genetic elements from cultural elements, but slowly, we are learning to do so to some degree.
Kipling does not put forth the ignorant ideal that 'Europeans are better', and even if some authors do, it is no more true than the ideal 'humans are equal'. Though just because we are not equal does not mean some are 'better', like animals, our differences specialize us for different tasks and different environments.
Morality is a small and personal game. It is not the source of culture, it is the result of culture. Trying to fit human society into any ideal, from 'fairness' to 'equality' to 'superiority' is just mincing words. Colonialism is merely a new word to describe the balance of power between the physically dominant and those they overwhelm.
I don't suggest that we ignore or excuse this unequal balance merely because it is ancient, natural, and as far as we know, inescapable, any more than I would suggest we stop fighting against death and disease because they are ancient, natural, and inescapable. I would only suggest that we try to look at the situation as a dynamic of political power.
Colonialism was not a conspiracy, it was not a small, deliberate decision made by some few people. It was the predictable outgrowth of the interactions between states and people.
When Kipling makes his most damning remark in 'The White Man's Burden', that English culture has become parent to the Indian culture's 'half-devil, half-child', he is describing the eternal relationship between any government and people. The populace is ignorant and violent everywhere, and they are the burden of the government, but also its supporters.
Britain took on this burden willfully, sensing that the economic benefits it would bring would counterbalance the difficulty of maintaining it. Compounding this was the sense that India could be 'educated', pulled up into the 'modern world', as the West is still trying to do all over the world today.
This sense that First World powers can and should transfer knowledge to the rest of the world does reflect the roles of child and parent, doubly so because the rest of the world at once resents and desires it.
They desire the knowledge, production, and technology of the First World, but to get it, they must create an economic agreement. The First World trades what it has as dearly as possible, using the economic ties to increase their influence and their profit.
It is not a new, remarkable, personal state of inequality, it is the same state we have been living under since culture developed, and the same state we're living under today. If there were a good pejorative definition of colonialism, it is that people in power feel they deserve to be in power, and people under their power resent that they are not in power. It is this unwarranted sense of entitlement which should chafe, not the facts of power dynamics.
We are not created equally, we are not treated equally, and those of us who attain power feel entitled to use it. Demonizing this ancient, ever-repeating relationship isn't going to change anything, and it won't help us to better understand the world, ourselves, or power. Like many social debates about inequality, 'colonialism' boils down to entitlement vs. resentment, and neither stance is of any use to ideas or discourse.
September 1, 2023
This short story is a curiosity mainly because of its style. In short, almost abrupt, it constantly uses an indirect narration, that of the main narrator first, then that of Carnehan, who relates the events in Kafiristan and their tragic conclusion. An author today would have made it into a six-hundred-page book (a film had made of it), but Kipling produces a long short story, dry, factual, without dwelling on the motivations or the moods of the protagonists. Everything has been reading between the lines: we guess, we imagine, and we make our way as a reader in this text, which says a lot in a few words and, although fiction, bears witness forcefully (and probably involuntarily) to the dominant ideas in the British Empire during this period.
May 2, 2018
This is of course the short story from Rudyard Kipling that inspired the 1975 John Huston film starring Sean Connery and Michael Caine.
First published in 1888, and (as in the film) told from the perspective of Kipling as the story is related to him by Peachy, this is about two British adventurers who leave the empire, cross the border in Kafiristan (an actual region of present day Afghanistan) and set themselves up as kings.
There is some suggestion that the populace of that state is descended from Alexander the Great’s soldiers and that connection prompted the easy revolution where Peachy and Danny were revered as kings and gods. The possession of a heavy cache of modern rifles certainly helped their persuasiveness as well; but they are, alas, all too human and that is the lesson in colonialism that Kipling imparts.
A short and spirited tale, told by a master, this can nonetheless be somewhat hard to follow as Kipling uses colloquial language and terms that, while certainly accurate, diminishes the enjoyment somewhat.
First published in 1888, and (as in the film) told from the perspective of Kipling as the story is related to him by Peachy, this is about two British adventurers who leave the empire, cross the border in Kafiristan (an actual region of present day Afghanistan) and set themselves up as kings.
There is some suggestion that the populace of that state is descended from Alexander the Great’s soldiers and that connection prompted the easy revolution where Peachy and Danny were revered as kings and gods. The possession of a heavy cache of modern rifles certainly helped their persuasiveness as well; but they are, alas, all too human and that is the lesson in colonialism that Kipling imparts.
A short and spirited tale, told by a master, this can nonetheless be somewhat hard to follow as Kipling uses colloquial language and terms that, while certainly accurate, diminishes the enjoyment somewhat.
February 24, 2016
I found this book quite boring and feel guilty for the feeling. I have loved most everything else I have read by this author. The charictors hold no appeal for me and the plot just kind of trugged a long.
Enjoy and Be Blessed.
Diamond
Enjoy and Be Blessed.
Diamond
February 5, 2020
Priče su zanimljive i neobične.
Knjigu sam kupio novu u knjižari za svega 80 dinara?!
Knjigu sam kupio novu u knjižari za svega 80 dinara?!
Want to read
April 8, 2020The 1975 film,starring Sean Connery and Michael Caine,based on this story is an interesting one.
Two British army sergeants in 19th century India look to turn their fortunes around.They decide to travel to remote Kafiristan.
It's a tough,hazardous journey,but they get there.They have rifles and seeing the effects of bullets,the locals treat them as gods.
Inevitably,this state of affairs does not last and what happens in between,makes for an entertaining movie.Sean Connery is in his element and gives a memorable performance,overshadowing Michael Caine.
It works very well on the screen,but it seems that the original Kipling story is not quite as entertaining.
Two British army sergeants in 19th century India look to turn their fortunes around.They decide to travel to remote Kafiristan.
It's a tough,hazardous journey,but they get there.They have rifles and seeing the effects of bullets,the locals treat them as gods.
Inevitably,this state of affairs does not last and what happens in between,makes for an entertaining movie.Sean Connery is in his element and gives a memorable performance,overshadowing Michael Caine.
It works very well on the screen,but it seems that the original Kipling story is not quite as entertaining.
January 12, 2021
Εδώ και πολύ καιρό θέλω να δω την ταινία "Ο άνθρωπος που θα γινόταν βασιλιάς", σε σκηνοθεσία του τρομερού Τζον Χιούστον και με πρωταγωνιστές τους φοβερούς Σον Κόνερι και Μάικλ Κέιν, αλλά μιας και είμαι από αυτούς που θέλουν να διαβάσουν πρώτα το μυθιστόρημα ή το διήγημα πάνω στο οποίο βασίζεται μια ταινία (αν, φυσικά, υπάρχει αυτή η δυνατότητα), τότε έπρεπε οπωσδήποτε να διαβάσω την ιστορία του Κίπλινγκ. Λοιπόν, δεν ήταν απλά μια... αγγαρεία που έπρεπε να φύγει από τη μέση για να δω επιτέλους την ταινία, αλλά ένα πραγματικά πολύ δυνατό, καλογραμμένο και εντέλει συγκλονιστικό διήγημα, με την τρέλα του και με μια υποδόρια σάτιρα απέναντι στην αποικιοκρατία και τους επίδοξους βασιλιάδες/αυτοκράτορες, αλλά και με ένα τέλος αν μη τι άλλο ανατριχιαστικό. Με τέτοιο υλικό, ο Κίπλινγκ άνετα θα μπορούσε να γράψει ένα ολόκληρο μυθιστόρημα, αλλά και σαν διήγημα νομίζω ότι λειτουργεί εξαιρετικά καλά, από τη στιγμή που ο συγγραφέας αυτός ήταν ένας μεγάλος παραμυθάς. Το μόνο σίγουρο είναι ότι πρέπει να διαβάσω περισσότερες ιστορίες του Ράντγιαρντ Κίπλινγκ, γιατί μάλλον τον έχω αδικήσει πάρα πολύ (ειδικά αν λάβω υπόψιν ότι λατρεύω τις κλασικές περιπέτειες και τις ιστορίες που διαδραματίζονται σε άλλες εποχές και σε εξωτικά μέρη).
March 9, 2017
Brilliantly told. The ending gives me shivers. Wild and unsettling.
April 13, 2011
Oh my fickle heart. Oh my shifting allegiances.
I find a curious principle at work in my reading. And that priciple is that I will often change my mind... with a fervor. To wit: I will love love love an author and then years later I will find myself passionately renouncing their writing for absolutely no good reason. I used to love C.S. Lewis and Jack Kerouac. But now Lewis' charming Britishness grates on my reading ear and Kerouac's free-spirited writing just sounds like what it is: the work of a crazed alcoholic hopped up on Benzedrine.
I don't know why this is. I don't know why I will suddenly turn on something I once loved so dearly and attack it. But spurned authors are like spurned lovers. You wish they would drop off the face of the earth. They remind you of a past you want to forget.
Rudyard Kipling is one of my old flames. About five years ago I really got into The Jungle Books and The Phantom Rickshaw and even read a biography of him. For a few months I lived in and breathed the air of his dark India. But then we drifted apart. I moved on to other authors, other places. After reading heated criticism of Kipling's work in G. K. Chesterton's Heretics, I wrote off old Rudyard's work forever.
... or did I?
I picked up this novella this week because I love everything put out by Melville House Publishing. And I read it. And I must admit it was a bittersweet experience, like seeing the face of an old lover on the street. Oh, Kipling! How I remember your sense of adventure. How I remember the sensory details of your exotic locales and now, yes, I remember your strange humor and the dark magic that you saw that drove men to murder.
So, what's wrong with me? Why can I not just wholly embrace this man's writing?
I want to love Kipling, but for some reason I cannot fully commit to him. I think the problem is that I don't understand his Imperialist mindset. That's to say, I don't disagree with it. But I plain don't understand it. I know I'm not supposed to admit that. I know I'm supposed to be Super Reader Who Understands All. But Kipling's books are a hundred years old and a continent removed from mine. So much of his work references this crazy part of England's history when white guys in pith helmets went around shooting tigers. And I can never tell if Kipling is satirizing this era or if he is tacitly backing this jingoistic, racist imperialism. Try as I might I cannot understand exactly what Kipling is getting at in his books. So while I love his adventure (in The Man Who Would Be King a guy gets crucified and there's a severed head involved, too) I cannot ever make sense of the point he's trying to get across. A little research on my part would, I feel, remedy this situation. But I want Kipling to communicate his message to me in his work.
Like any relationship, communication is the key, Mr. Kipling. Based on the romance and adventure of this novella I am extending you another chance. I’m going to revisit your work. Talk to me. Make me understand your worldview; perchance to convince me of its validity. Maybe there’s something there, still, between us.
Maybe.
I find a curious principle at work in my reading. And that priciple is that I will often change my mind... with a fervor. To wit: I will love love love an author and then years later I will find myself passionately renouncing their writing for absolutely no good reason. I used to love C.S. Lewis and Jack Kerouac. But now Lewis' charming Britishness grates on my reading ear and Kerouac's free-spirited writing just sounds like what it is: the work of a crazed alcoholic hopped up on Benzedrine.
I don't know why this is. I don't know why I will suddenly turn on something I once loved so dearly and attack it. But spurned authors are like spurned lovers. You wish they would drop off the face of the earth. They remind you of a past you want to forget.
Rudyard Kipling is one of my old flames. About five years ago I really got into The Jungle Books and The Phantom Rickshaw and even read a biography of him. For a few months I lived in and breathed the air of his dark India. But then we drifted apart. I moved on to other authors, other places. After reading heated criticism of Kipling's work in G. K. Chesterton's Heretics, I wrote off old Rudyard's work forever.
... or did I?
I picked up this novella this week because I love everything put out by Melville House Publishing. And I read it. And I must admit it was a bittersweet experience, like seeing the face of an old lover on the street. Oh, Kipling! How I remember your sense of adventure. How I remember the sensory details of your exotic locales and now, yes, I remember your strange humor and the dark magic that you saw that drove men to murder.
So, what's wrong with me? Why can I not just wholly embrace this man's writing?
I want to love Kipling, but for some reason I cannot fully commit to him. I think the problem is that I don't understand his Imperialist mindset. That's to say, I don't disagree with it. But I plain don't understand it. I know I'm not supposed to admit that. I know I'm supposed to be Super Reader Who Understands All. But Kipling's books are a hundred years old and a continent removed from mine. So much of his work references this crazy part of England's history when white guys in pith helmets went around shooting tigers. And I can never tell if Kipling is satirizing this era or if he is tacitly backing this jingoistic, racist imperialism. Try as I might I cannot understand exactly what Kipling is getting at in his books. So while I love his adventure (in The Man Who Would Be King a guy gets crucified and there's a severed head involved, too) I cannot ever make sense of the point he's trying to get across. A little research on my part would, I feel, remedy this situation. But I want Kipling to communicate his message to me in his work.
Like any relationship, communication is the key, Mr. Kipling. Based on the romance and adventure of this novella I am extending you another chance. I’m going to revisit your work. Talk to me. Make me understand your worldview; perchance to convince me of its validity. Maybe there’s something there, still, between us.
Maybe.
August 10, 2013
the first book of Kipling I got to read after Mowgli (The jungle book). very interesting and breathtaking story. always loved Kipling, he basically made me dream of India, hope one day I will get to visit it. Just as usual the atmosphere is very realistic, the story is simply crazy, but good crazy, if you know what I mean. I think it is a must read.
June 6, 2020
"Neither God nor Devil, but a man!"
The first time I explore Kipling's work beyond his poetry. I was very surprised by this one.
Although the great interest by the fact that the story is based in real facts, what left me very pleased was the satirical tone of Kliping, especially in what it refers to the british presence on India.
Too bad my portuguese translation (by Vega) isn't very good and makes difficult to understand some parts of the plot.
The first time I explore Kipling's work beyond his poetry. I was very surprised by this one.
Although the great interest by the fact that the story is based in real facts, what left me very pleased was the satirical tone of Kliping, especially in what it refers to the british presence on India.
Too bad my portuguese translation (by Vega) isn't very good and makes difficult to understand some parts of the plot.
June 9, 2024
The adaptation of this Kipling story into the 1975 film of the same name was brilliant. The combination of legendary director John Huston and the perfect casting of Sean Connery and Michael Caine made this tale of colonial high jinx in a remote corner of Afghanistan a classic to remember.
Unfortunately, the original story doesn’t measure up to its film adaptation. The story of a couple of rough soldiers of fortune gambling all on a wild adventuring scheme had promise, but Kipling used an awkward, indirect narration to tell the tale. He inserted himself as a character in the story, and he relates the wild tale to us, as told to him by one of the adventurers. This method saps the tale of much of the excitement and interest it should have had. Add to that his use of period slang that is all but unintelligible, and pretty much everything but the premise is ruined.
The Man Who Would Be King is one of those rare occasions when you should ignore the book and watch the movie.
Unfortunately, the original story doesn’t measure up to its film adaptation. The story of a couple of rough soldiers of fortune gambling all on a wild adventuring scheme had promise, but Kipling used an awkward, indirect narration to tell the tale. He inserted himself as a character in the story, and he relates the wild tale to us, as told to him by one of the adventurers. This method saps the tale of much of the excitement and interest it should have had. Add to that his use of period slang that is all but unintelligible, and pretty much everything but the premise is ruined.
The Man Who Would Be King is one of those rare occasions when you should ignore the book and watch the movie.
September 27, 2017
Kipling has become problematic due to his retrograde ideas about race, and his depiction of societies other than English. Both of those issues are present here as well, but more prominent, at least for me, was the fairly explicit critique of the colonialism that created the British Empire. Here two rascals set out for a distant land with the explicit aim of becoming kings thanks to their advanced weaponry and innate "superiority." At first they succeed, but eventually their reach exceeds their grasp, and their adventure ends in death and mutilation.
There's no question that Kipling believed the native societies he depicts, even the one where its people seem to be Caucasian, are innately inferior. He certainly has no explicit criticism of the British role in India. But by both condensing colonialization to the efforts of two men, and then carrying it to its logical end, he does seem to be saying that what's happened under British rule is both wrong, and destined to fail. However, that failure isn't due to comprehending that these native societies are made up of human beings equal to the British: it's because the Brits simply don't know when to stop.
There's also no question Kipling could write, and that his perspective is, from the modern perspective, blatantly racist. Each reader has to decide on their own whether the former in any way outweighs the latter enough that they can enjoy the tale.
There's no question that Kipling believed the native societies he depicts, even the one where its people seem to be Caucasian, are innately inferior. He certainly has no explicit criticism of the British role in India. But by both condensing colonialization to the efforts of two men, and then carrying it to its logical end, he does seem to be saying that what's happened under British rule is both wrong, and destined to fail. However, that failure isn't due to comprehending that these native societies are made up of human beings equal to the British: it's because the Brits simply don't know when to stop.
There's also no question Kipling could write, and that his perspective is, from the modern perspective, blatantly racist. Each reader has to decide on their own whether the former in any way outweighs the latter enough that they can enjoy the tale.
August 13, 2022
I do not understand the reputation of this story being one of the best in the English language. First of all, it is hardly written in actual English at all. Most of the meat of the story is told through the voice of one of the uneducated supposed heroes who can't speak properly, mispronouncing and misspelling words. To add to the unreadability is the absolute infestation of Victorian British slang, idioms, phrases, and vocabulary that hasn't been used since the final years of the Anglo-Indian era.
Everything about this story smells of yesterday's gin bender seeping out of the author's pores during a hangover. Nothing happens for any logical reason whatsoever. Two white "loafers" decide that India bores them, and so they hatch a plan to disguise themselves as mullahs and sneak into Afghanistan to see what trouble they can get into there. Evidently, Afghanistan wasn't very different in the late 1800s than it is now, because the hazards to our heroes include getting dismembered if they are caught. But these are no ordinary hobos. These are well-trained mercenary types who have been adventuring for years, so they are equally as dangerous. In fact, they mean serious business. Their goal is somehow to get into a place called Kafiristan and usurp the throne. They want to be kings. Why? Boredom.
These are our heroes? Two guys who want to interfere with foreign affairs, exploit a culture, and risk adding to the local political instability of a region--all for shits and giggles?
Their meddling causes a lot of trouble, but they also bring new technologies to the villages, such as the plough, and their success further escalates their mania to the point where they dream of turning their social experiment into an empire of proper little Englishmen. Eventually, the once illiterate vagabonds of the British Queen aren't just wearing crowns of their own, but are thought to be gods by the locals, the ultimate goal of their narcissism. Until one of them bleeds. Oops.
"If it bleeds, we can kill it."
And so good riddance to the men who would be king. But was Kipling trying to make an allegory of these two as Christ figures? I hope not. Was he painting a critical microcosm of British imperialism? No, I don't think his aim was that sophisticated. I believe what he was doing was simply passing on elements of actual tales he had heard over the years, thinking these would appeal to the sense of high adventure in the armchair traveler.
The only redeeming factor is that I learned that this kind of insanity did in fact occur, and still does to an extent today. The two main characters are very much like some real historical sociopathic adventurers from various parts of America and Europe who loved nothing more than running around exotic environs, serving as guns for hire, getting in sword and knife fights, and ingratiating themselves with the local chiefs and their daughters. I think some of the accounts of these exploits were exaggerated or have become the stuff of myth, but the fact is, these people weren't dashing heroes or innocent hippies. They were scruffy and scarred land pirates who lived and died violently.
So I can't say my life was enriched very much from reading this. Kipling is actually a very good writer, but this particular tale has more legendary status than it deserves. For more compelling reading, check out some information on the real historical region of Kafiristan and the Kafir people.
Everything about this story smells of yesterday's gin bender seeping out of the author's pores during a hangover. Nothing happens for any logical reason whatsoever. Two white "loafers" decide that India bores them, and so they hatch a plan to disguise themselves as mullahs and sneak into Afghanistan to see what trouble they can get into there. Evidently, Afghanistan wasn't very different in the late 1800s than it is now, because the hazards to our heroes include getting dismembered if they are caught. But these are no ordinary hobos. These are well-trained mercenary types who have been adventuring for years, so they are equally as dangerous. In fact, they mean serious business. Their goal is somehow to get into a place called Kafiristan and usurp the throne. They want to be kings. Why? Boredom.
These are our heroes? Two guys who want to interfere with foreign affairs, exploit a culture, and risk adding to the local political instability of a region--all for shits and giggles?
Their meddling causes a lot of trouble, but they also bring new technologies to the villages, such as the plough, and their success further escalates their mania to the point where they dream of turning their social experiment into an empire of proper little Englishmen. Eventually, the once illiterate vagabonds of the British Queen aren't just wearing crowns of their own, but are thought to be gods by the locals, the ultimate goal of their narcissism. Until one of them bleeds. Oops.
"If it bleeds, we can kill it."
And so good riddance to the men who would be king. But was Kipling trying to make an allegory of these two as Christ figures? I hope not. Was he painting a critical microcosm of British imperialism? No, I don't think his aim was that sophisticated. I believe what he was doing was simply passing on elements of actual tales he had heard over the years, thinking these would appeal to the sense of high adventure in the armchair traveler.
The only redeeming factor is that I learned that this kind of insanity did in fact occur, and still does to an extent today. The two main characters are very much like some real historical sociopathic adventurers from various parts of America and Europe who loved nothing more than running around exotic environs, serving as guns for hire, getting in sword and knife fights, and ingratiating themselves with the local chiefs and their daughters. I think some of the accounts of these exploits were exaggerated or have become the stuff of myth, but the fact is, these people weren't dashing heroes or innocent hippies. They were scruffy and scarred land pirates who lived and died violently.
So I can't say my life was enriched very much from reading this. Kipling is actually a very good writer, but this particular tale has more legendary status than it deserves. For more compelling reading, check out some information on the real historical region of Kafiristan and the Kafir people.
October 25, 2014
Kipling's poetry was extravagantly admired during his life time and even for a while after his death. This was certainly because he wrote quite vigorously and was regarded as a great advocate of the great British Empire upon whom the sun never set. While some of his poetry is still appreciated, it hasn't aged well and one can only read about "The White man's burden" with embarrassment and give him a pardon for being a child of his times.
But the same cannot be said about his prose--the short stories in particular. He had an astonishing versatility and fecundity of inspiration and this frequently includes a darkly cynical edge with the British characters who are neither enlightened nor civilised. This is the case with "The Man Who Would Be King". The two main characters are certainly rogues, swindlers, liars and cheats.
But do they deserve what happens to them?
And what of the strange ambiguous ending?
Indeed who are the villains in this amazing evocative story set in India?
This is the "dark" Kipling at his best.
But the same cannot be said about his prose--the short stories in particular. He had an astonishing versatility and fecundity of inspiration and this frequently includes a darkly cynical edge with the British characters who are neither enlightened nor civilised. This is the case with "The Man Who Would Be King". The two main characters are certainly rogues, swindlers, liars and cheats.
But do they deserve what happens to them?
And what of the strange ambiguous ending?
Indeed who are the villains in this amazing evocative story set in India?
This is the "dark" Kipling at his best.
July 19, 2022
Worst I have ever Read. Never expected that bad coming from the legendary writer like him. I'm now in real doubt for whether to pick his either of rest books or not? So so bad.
May 14, 2022
2.5 \ 5
trochę nudne... jedna z tych książek ,którą zapomina się równie szybko, co czytało
trochę nudne... jedna z tych książek ,którą zapomina się równie szybko, co czytało
November 15, 2022
3.5 en realidad.
«Tú también tienes que conseguirte una esposa, Peachey... una buena chica, regordeta y fuerte, que te mantenga caliente en invierno. Son más guapas que las inglesas y podemos coger a las mejores. Hiérvelas una o dos veces en agua caliente y saldrán tan blancas como el pollo o el jamón.»
Daniel Dravot.
👑🗞️🚂🐫🏜️💀🏔️🐴🗞️👑
👑Se trata de un relato largo, o una novela corta, que cabría en el género de aventuras, aunque con tintes de tragedia. Se sitúa en la India de mediados del siglo XIX, y presenta la historia de un triángulo de personajes: el narrador, un periodista afincado en la India (que no es otro que el propio álter ego del autor, por así decirlo), y dos pícaros aventureros, Daniel Dravot y Peachey Carnehan, quienes le piden ayuda en su plan para convertirse en reyes de Kafiristán, una parte remota de Afganistán.
👑Novela corta o relato largo, como prefiráis llamarlo, que está basado en la historia real de James Brooke, un británico que consiguió convertirse en el primer Rajá de Sawarak, en Borneo.
👑La primera parte es más confusa, hasta cómica diría yo.
En cambio luego, la última parte, es más oscura, más interesante. Más cruel, también. Todo el tono cómico que pudiera existir en la primera parte, se evapora. Al final, queda una sensación extraña, como de haber asistido a una broma que se ha salido de madre y que ha terminado pasando factura a sus protagonistas.
P. D.: el 0.5 por las maravillosas ilustraciones, como siempre, de Fernando Vicente 😍
«Tú también tienes que conseguirte una esposa, Peachey... una buena chica, regordeta y fuerte, que te mantenga caliente en invierno. Son más guapas que las inglesas y podemos coger a las mejores. Hiérvelas una o dos veces en agua caliente y saldrán tan blancas como el pollo o el jamón.»
Daniel Dravot.
👑🗞️🚂🐫🏜️💀🏔️🐴🗞️👑
👑Se trata de un relato largo, o una novela corta, que cabría en el género de aventuras, aunque con tintes de tragedia. Se sitúa en la India de mediados del siglo XIX, y presenta la historia de un triángulo de personajes: el narrador, un periodista afincado en la India (que no es otro que el propio álter ego del autor, por así decirlo), y dos pícaros aventureros, Daniel Dravot y Peachey Carnehan, quienes le piden ayuda en su plan para convertirse en reyes de Kafiristán, una parte remota de Afganistán.
👑Novela corta o relato largo, como prefiráis llamarlo, que está basado en la historia real de James Brooke, un británico que consiguió convertirse en el primer Rajá de Sawarak, en Borneo.
👑La primera parte es más confusa, hasta cómica diría yo.
En cambio luego, la última parte, es más oscura, más interesante. Más cruel, también. Todo el tono cómico que pudiera existir en la primera parte, se evapora. Al final, queda una sensación extraña, como de haber asistido a una broma que se ha salido de madre y que ha terminado pasando factura a sus protagonistas.
P. D.: el 0.5 por las maravillosas ilustraciones, como siempre, de Fernando Vicente 😍
August 19, 2016
Este libro contiene dos relatos de Rudyard Kipling, uno de los reyes de la novela de aventuras.
El primero es el afamadísimo "El hombre que quiso ser rey" que fue adaptado por la igualmente afamada "El hombre que pudo reinar" de John Huston. Nos cuenta la arriesgada (y loca) aventura de dos buscavidas ingleses que pretenden ser coronados reyes en un lugar llamado Kafiristán, que al parecer se halla al norte de Afganistán. Combina muy bien aventuras y cierto suspense, porque el desarrollo de la historia se nos cuenta poco a poco, desde la perspectiva del narrador, que se va topando con ellos en diferentes momentos. Y también consigue que empatices con el personaje de Peachey al final. Por supuesto, al ser un relato corto, cosas como una mayor profundidad en los personajes o su desarrollo, se ve disminuido, pero la historia es muy dinámica y sale airosa sin ello. Otra pega son los ramalazos de racismo y la flipada esa de que pueda haber masones al norte de Afganistán (porque son descendientes de Alejandro Magno y bla, bla, bla). Es un relato de aventuras de Rudyard Kipling, es lo que hay.
El segundo relato, "Al final del camino", no es una historia de aventuras, sino un relato inquietante sobre las consecuencias en varios hombres de su estancia en un país extranjero, en pleno bochorno. Me ha resultado interesante, y tenía cierto aire a los relatos de terror clásico, con ese final intrigante y dado a múltiples interpretaciones. Como pieza ambiental, es interesante.
En definitiva, una edición sencilla (y barata) de historias de Rudyard Kipling que puede merecer la pena para aquellos que no conozcan al autor o les apetezca leer una de sus más famosas historias.
El primero es el afamadísimo "El hombre que quiso ser rey" que fue adaptado por la igualmente afamada "El hombre que pudo reinar" de John Huston. Nos cuenta la arriesgada (y loca) aventura de dos buscavidas ingleses que pretenden ser coronados reyes en un lugar llamado Kafiristán, que al parecer se halla al norte de Afganistán. Combina muy bien aventuras y cierto suspense, porque el desarrollo de la historia se nos cuenta poco a poco, desde la perspectiva del narrador, que se va topando con ellos en diferentes momentos. Y también consigue que empatices con el personaje de Peachey al final. Por supuesto, al ser un relato corto, cosas como una mayor profundidad en los personajes o su desarrollo, se ve disminuido, pero la historia es muy dinámica y sale airosa sin ello. Otra pega son los ramalazos de racismo y la flipada esa de que pueda haber masones al norte de Afganistán (porque son descendientes de Alejandro Magno y bla, bla, bla). Es un relato de aventuras de Rudyard Kipling, es lo que hay.
El segundo relato, "Al final del camino", no es una historia de aventuras, sino un relato inquietante sobre las consecuencias en varios hombres de su estancia en un país extranjero, en pleno bochorno. Me ha resultado interesante, y tenía cierto aire a los relatos de terror clásico, con ese final intrigante y dado a múltiples interpretaciones. Como pieza ambiental, es interesante.
En definitiva, una edición sencilla (y barata) de historias de Rudyard Kipling que puede merecer la pena para aquellos que no conozcan al autor o les apetezca leer una de sus más famosas historias.
April 6, 2011
Errrr.....An imperialistic view on an insanely unconvincing event. The writer, Rudyard Kipling, employs heavy usage of 19th Century jargons and idioms unique to England and India which makes the reading a bit challenging and difficult for 20th Century Americans. I am fan of history however, fictionalized history about a soldiering society is foreign to me which I was not prepared to invest in. I noticed there were few typos and misspellings. Not too bad for free book.
There is a movie named, "The Man Who Would Be King", played by Sean Connery and Michael Caine. I think I might will enjoy the movie better than the book.
There is a movie named, "The Man Who Would Be King", played by Sean Connery and Michael Caine. I think I might will enjoy the movie better than the book.
June 16, 2016
I have been getting into audiobooks a lot recently, and I tend to enjoy them a lot, but somehow, I got a bit lost with this one. It didn't grasp my attention enough. I struggle when reading classics, because I cannot get into some of them the way I should, I lose focus quickly, which is what happened with this book. Maybe I listened to it at the wrong time. Maybe I'll try again someday, when I've had more than four hours of sleep. Until then, I'm leaving this here as it is.
July 26, 2015
Two Englishmen in India, charlatans, fraudsters, impersonators, swindlers, cheats, who wander about the length of breadth of the country tricking and deceiving people to earn their dough, decide one day that they will journey up the northern mountains to become joint kings of Kafiristan, a mountainous region then outside the borders of British India but which now falls in present-day Pakistan and where old pagan tribes still exist.
Once in Kafiristan they make a show of force with their guns which the pagans take to be divine power and come to accept the two men as gods. After initial success their plans begin to go downhill when one of the man wants a wife from the tribe so he can produce heirs to the throne. Thus commences conflict which ends on a terribly sad note.
Kipling’s style of diction and the pace of action demands that it is read slowly, meticulously, and patiently. It look me longer to finish it then I’d initially thought.
It has some similarity with Indiana Jones Temple of Doom film. The blue-eyed Westerner who accidentally lands in some part of tribal India is also taken as god and worshiped. Why, perhaps white people so like to see themselves as gods to the people they subjected to colonialism and ruled as their right?
Kipling wrote in the late 19th century when British colonialism and its attendant racism was in full swing and you can detect those typical oriental remarks about the ‘unruly savages’ and the superiority of the English race and its efficient ways. But this is just to keep the context in mind.
Once in Kafiristan they make a show of force with their guns which the pagans take to be divine power and come to accept the two men as gods. After initial success their plans begin to go downhill when one of the man wants a wife from the tribe so he can produce heirs to the throne. Thus commences conflict which ends on a terribly sad note.
Kipling’s style of diction and the pace of action demands that it is read slowly, meticulously, and patiently. It look me longer to finish it then I’d initially thought.
It has some similarity with Indiana Jones Temple of Doom film. The blue-eyed Westerner who accidentally lands in some part of tribal India is also taken as god and worshiped. Why, perhaps white people so like to see themselves as gods to the people they subjected to colonialism and ruled as their right?
Kipling wrote in the late 19th century when British colonialism and its attendant racism was in full swing and you can detect those typical oriental remarks about the ‘unruly savages’ and the superiority of the English race and its efficient ways. But this is just to keep the context in mind.
February 19, 2020
It's hard to forget the images of Sean Connery and Michael Caine as Daniel Dravot and Peachey Carnehan respectively in John Huston's adaptation of the Kipling story. It is also disconcerting to think the director originally wanted to film the story with Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable. Would have been a different movie.
Then the Kipling dialogue takes hold and we see his superb eye for the complex and precarious relationship between the British soldiers, in this case ex-soldiers and their fevered dreams of power in a rugged and dangerous land. Their hold on their subjects was as brittle as their hold on their own sanity.
And what ever happened to King Daniel's jewell-encrusted crown?
Then the Kipling dialogue takes hold and we see his superb eye for the complex and precarious relationship between the British soldiers, in this case ex-soldiers and their fevered dreams of power in a rugged and dangerous land. Their hold on their subjects was as brittle as their hold on their own sanity.
And what ever happened to King Daniel's jewell-encrusted crown?
April 23, 2021
Este relato del Nobel de Literatura en 1907, nos traslada a la India que en aquellos años era colonia de Reino Unido. Aquí, un par de ingleses motivados por la aventura y la avaricia querrán reinar en un lugar sin saber qué consecuencias podría traer este proyecto. De la mano de nuestro narrador conoceremos las peripecias de estos personajes, así como una situación del momento que se presenta como ficción pero que no estaba tan lejos de la realidad.
July 10, 2020
I had read a Malayalam translation of The Jungle Book early in my childhood, and remember re-reading it many times since. But this one couldn't engage me even half through.
June 17, 2018
A great read with a very good moral to it.
October 6, 2018
Short story for Saturday coffee. 2 guys want to build a kingdom in Aphganistan, fine. Has bit of humour but I founded it a bit dry, maybe back then was exotic and adventurous.
May 24, 2019
The reviews on this book very greatly although seemingly more people got something out of it than I did. It is antiquated and without reading other things, I don't know where it is, and it takes a while to figure out the narrator and just what is going on. You don't have that long to set the stage in such a short book.
Peachy Carnehan and Dan Dravot, con artists, decide they want to be king and take off from India for some remote place in what is now North West Afghanistan. Two years later we are told of their escapades, unbelievable as they are. POV was nearly impossible for me to follow and the places were totally unfamiliar to me, and so this still proved difficult to follow along. By reading other reviews, I can see this was made into a movie, and perhaps I will have to check that out one day just so I can understand and appreciate this story better.
I liked The Jungle Book, but this left me wanting something else. I really need to find a book that I will thoroughly enjoy; one where I cannot turn the pages fast enough.
Peachy Carnehan and Dan Dravot, con artists, decide they want to be king and take off from India for some remote place in what is now North West Afghanistan. Two years later we are told of their escapades, unbelievable as they are. POV was nearly impossible for me to follow and the places were totally unfamiliar to me, and so this still proved difficult to follow along. By reading other reviews, I can see this was made into a movie, and perhaps I will have to check that out one day just so I can understand and appreciate this story better.
I liked The Jungle Book, but this left me wanting something else. I really need to find a book that I will thoroughly enjoy; one where I cannot turn the pages fast enough.
May 13, 2020
What even is this
Displaying 1 - 30 of 723 reviews