Short Assignment: Dulce et Decorum Est

Max Liebl

4/7/17

Wilfred Owen makes many changes to his manuscript in order to better capture the audience and all them to better see the emotion and desperation of the men in a gas attack. One of the first changes is to add in “Quick, boys!” following the signaling of the gas attack. Owen initially writes, “Gas! Gas! An ecstasy of fumbling,” which describes the somewhat chaotic and clumsy movement to don the protective gas masks in a hurry. However, his addition allows for the audience to better picture the speed required for the men to don the masks. It shows how dire the situation is and that speed is crucial and how that plays into the next stanza with the description of the young man who couldn’t get his on in time, thus suffering from the effects of the deadly gas.

Owen also takes out a major portion of his poem where he describes the sound of incoming gas shells. He describes how the men had loosened their masks in case it was gas and the quiet listening of their surroundings waiting for the inevitable. Eliciting this portion allows for the reader to better understand the desperation of a surprise gas attack, since this part paints the picture of men awaiting an oncoming attack. Owen seems to want to create a sense of urgency and surprise and show how these attacks took the lives of young men like the one described in the poem at random whether they had prepared or not.  

ERH 205WX The Man Who Would Be King Essay

Max Liebl

3/23/17

The story, The Man Who Would Be King, per Jeffrey Meyers, asserts the claim that the story is flawed because of Kipling’s apparent lack of moral authority and approval of Peachey and Dravot’s imperialistic goals. The two men the story revolves around tells the tale of how some everyday crooks manage to undermine an entire culture for their own personal gain. While it does end in demise, Kipling attempts to create a sense of vindication for Peachey and Dravot’s sacrifice by implicitly sympathizing with their situation. According to Meyers, this clearly presents to the audience a lack of seriousness and issues of morality that as greedy and rogue as the men were, they still deserve a sort of praise. However, by examining Kipling as an author in this time it is possible to see the irony in his style of writing and how Peachey and Dravot’s situation displays tongue-in-cheek humor. As flawed as the story may be in the backgrounds and behaviors of the main characters, it may have been the intention of Kipling to bring to light his view on national colonialism and implicitly show the humor of Britain’s politics abroad during this time.

Jeffrey Meyers asserts his claim of how Kipling lacks addressing the moral issues throughout the story and condemns him for showing sympathy to their imperialistic ambitions. In a rather harsh tone, Meyers examines Peachey and Dravot as men who lack the education, fidelity, and morality required for kingship and seek the power and riches for purely selfish reasons. In his comparison of the men to James Brooke, “…Dan’s vainglorious ambition is to surpass even Brooke in absolute power…” (Meyers 724), Meyers shows how his view of Brooke is purely materialistic. He desires the wealth and power he achieved by conquering Borneo in 1841 and fails to see the sense of morality and duty to lead that Brooke displayed throughout his rule. In describing Peachey and Dravot, it is easy to see Meyers’ opinion of the men and the evidence he provides backs his condemnation of the author. But Meyers doesn’t take into account the difference between the narrator and the author, assuming the two are indeed separate. While the narrator tells the tale that Meyers is condemning, it is possible that Meyers is pointing fingers at the wrong voice which may not necessarily be that of Kipling.

As a reader, Meyers’ article may come across as condemning to Kipling’s writing. It is easy to get lost in the story and realize the tongue-in-cheek humor that Kipling presents through Dan and Peachey’s situation. Because of this it is apparent to see how the voice of the author can be confused with that of the narrator. The narrator of the story is simply telling the story and may not be expressing exactly the points that Kipling is trying to make about British Colonialism. For example, Kipling creates the situation of Dan and Peachey rapidly taking over territory by using firepower and weapons that were not available to the people of Kafiristan. This poorly illustrates how the British could colonize India and the rapid onset of British culture in the region. While it may seem as simple as Dan and Peachey being able to kill their enemies without ever coming within hand-to-hand range, Kipling makes a mockery of colonialism and the humor arises in the fact that it could simply never happen the way it did in the story. Meyers tends to focus on the literal meaning of the story which is not incorrect, but rather one’s own interpretation which is that if colonizing nations were to forget their sense of morality and humanity, this is what would ensue. By picking up certain context clues, it is easier to see the difference in voice between the narrator and Kipling.

Identifying the voice of the narrator versus that of Kipling allows the reader to see the “joke” that Kipling implicitly creates. The story creates a sense of irony towards the ending especially as the two men are soon ousted from the community that only minutes before had praised them as gods. “They are Englishmen, these people, — and it’s my blasted nonsense that has brought you to this,” (Kipling 23), as Dan states this, they are running out of the community while under fire from its citizens that they had equipped and trained. The irony comes from the fact that they had sought to gain purely personal riches, but instead became self-proclaimed kings and brought western culture to an indigenous people roughly representing colonialism. How they’re plan backfired, in a sense, could be how Kipling saw colonialism and how it could backfire on the British as well should they exploit the indigenous population as Dan and Peachey had. As Meyers writes, he seems to not see past the voice of the narrator and condemn Kipling as being accepting to this kind of behavior and illegitimate rule. It was commonly known that Kipling expressed views related to that of fascism which could be grounds for Meyers scrutiny of the message he portrays in the story. To Meyers, this may be Kipling’s fascist views becoming known through Dan and Peachey’s abusive use of power and intolerance towards other cultures. While it was never confirmed that Kipling was a fascist, Meyers’ argument could support this point of view as well. Identifying the voice of the narrator versus that of Kipling allows for the reader to see the irony of the story being told, however, it is up to the reader to scrutinize between which message Kipling delivers.

Meyers delivers his interpretation of The Man Who Would Be King by addressing the apparent issues of morality as his argument. He identifies how Kipling does not condemn the men for their actions but rather sympathize with their situation. However, it is never stated by Kipling that his intention was to scrutinize Dan and Peachey’s journey to fraudulent kingship. The point of view of the author is that of an outside character and completely disconnected from the story. Kipling never agrees or disagrees with the actions of the characters but instead provides an impartial view of how everyday crooks sought out an adventure for monetary gain and power and achieved their goal which later turned to disaster. While Meyers scrutinizes Kipling’s message, he neglects to look at the deeper meaning of the writing and find the humor in it. While it is possible Kipling uses the voice of the narrator to push his alleged fascist agenda, the irony of two men taking over a region steeped in cultural values to adopt a western way of life is what is most apparent and the theme that Meyers neglects to notice.

Works Cited

Kipling, Rudyard, and Jan Montefiore. The Man Who Would Be King. London: Penguin, 2011. ProQuest. Web.

Meyers, Jeffrey. “The Idea of Moral Authority in The Man Who Would Be King.” Studies in English Literature 1500-1900.Vol. 8, No. 4, Nineteenth Century (1968): 711-23. JSTOR. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.

Max Liebl

ERH-205WX Meyers Article Summary

3/19/17

Jeffrey Meyers’ article focuses on Moral Authority, or lack thereof, in the novel The Man Who Would Be King. Meyers begins his article by making the claim that Peachey and Dravot fail in kingship because of their lack of moral standards that would be typical of a king such as that of the British Empire. Beginning with their backgrounds which Meyers describes as “soldiers” which is comparable to that of the lowest class of socially acceptable working people in England during that time period. Peachey and Dravot are, “…uneducated and corrupt adventurers,” (Meyers 712), who spend their time committing petty acts of crime such as blackmailing and fraud which makes it clear that their intentions lack integrity and are not genuine. Meyers shows that the vulnerability of the land that which they are conquering also plays a major role in their lack of authenticity since the men have “purely materialistic” ambitions for the land, they seek areas outside of control of the Queen and British governance. Dan and Peachey refer throughout the novel of the comparison of their adventure to that of James Brooke in 1841 who conquered Borneo in much of the same way as the pair conquered Kafiristan. As time goes on, however, Meyers explains that where Brooke took genuine concern to the people of Borneo and acted with compassion and chivalry, Dan and Peachey did not in their case. The pair, “…aspire[d] to Brooke’s power, titles, wealth and fame,” (Meyers 714), but not the level of responsibility and the sense of duty Brooke felt towards his people. Because of the lack of moral values, Meyers shows that is how the men wrongfully assume that their form of government will be better than the primitive institution of power that was in place before. Meyers explains that the pair was able to exploit the gullibility of the people in this manner which is one of the main reasons their rise to power was so swift. Through their use of firepower and technology that was unavailable to the people of Kafiristan at the time, the men never recognize the brutality of their conquest in what Meyers refers to as “unprincipled colonialism”. Meyers shows throughout his article how Dan and Peachey make a mockery out of colonialism and while it may seem as though he is condemning British colonialism, it is rather that he is showing what would happen if morality was suddenly thrown out of the equation.

Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V

Cadet Max Liebl

ERH-205WX

2/20/17

Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 version of Shakespeare’s Henry V is reputed as one of the most important adaptations of the play because of his portrayal of Henry as the King and leader the audience imagines him to be. The remake is often seen as being dark and with harsh scenes of combat and gore that one would not expect of a screenplay of a Shakespeare production. However, Branagh created his version in a post-Cold War world at a time when violent war movies were on the rise, and the heroes were portrayed as larger than life characters. Branagh sought to recreate Henry in the light that was originally intended and in a way, that would appeal to an audience of this era. With scenes that allow the audience to see the more human side of Henry that is more ideologically and politically aware. This allows for a better view into his emotions which in turn creates a better understanding for Henry not as the king, but as the man. Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 version of Henry V brings to life the true Henry that Shakespeare creates in the play, in that he is portrayed as a strong and confident leader who the audience can feel an emotional connection with.

In the original play by Shakespeare, the theme ubiquitous throughout is the theme of coming of age. There is a constant struggle for Henry to break free from the reigns of his childhood innocence and take on the persona of a great king. It is without a doubt that Henry demands and receives an immense amount of respect from his subordinates, and as shown in the beginning of the play, it is apparent that they have taken notice:

The courses of his youth promised it not.

The breath no sooner left his father’s body

But that his wildness, mortified in him,

Seemed to die too. Yea, at that very moment

Consideration like an angel came

And whipped th’ offending Adam out of him, (I.i.24-27)

It is clear that Henry is no longer viewed in the same light he was in his youth and in the scene where he condemns Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey, his resolve is solidified. It is known during his condemnation of the three men that Henry and Lord Scroop have a history with roots going back to their early years. However, Henry puts aside any personal emotions that may exist between him and Scroop for the sake of England and marks him as a traitor and is sentenced to death. Throughout the play Henry has more run-ins with his past that lead to him making decisions that reflect a coming of age and a forging of a new level of maturity that will mark him as one of the greatest kings in history.

In 1944, Laurence Olivier brought Henry V to life on screen as an effort to rally the English population during the time of war. In his version, Olivier seems to glamorize the king as the ideal character without allowing the audience to take note of his true persona. The idealized version of Henry makes for a poor connection between the audience and the actor and paints an unrealistic picture of the struggles of Henry’s reign. In an article comparing the Branagh and Olivier films, “…[the] investment in the unkempt and harsh side of physical life–is not debasing but provides an almost ritual immersion from which Henry emerges…” (Donaldson 65). By the audience becoming more in tune with the emotional side of Henry, it creates a better picture for how Henry got to be the king that he is renowned to be throughout history. The gore and scenes of intense battle allow the audience the kind of interaction that Shakespeare originally sought. By placing Henry in the kind of treacherous situations one would never imagine a king of sort in, it is easier to portray him as the leader that he is imagined to be.

A striking difference between the Branagh and Olivier films is the level of intimacy created to better understand Henry and his relationships with others. Many times, throughout the film, the man behind the crown is revealed and the audience gets a glimpse of the spontaneous and empathetic side of Henry. Henry’s Crispin’s Day speech is one of those situations where Branagh portrays him as if he is reaching for an “invisible essence” and imagining the glory that would come from this victory. Throughout the speech, the audience sees two sides of Henry, the ambitious, eager king, and the serious and well-spoken leader in which the acting fades away and reveals his feelings of immense pride and love for his “band of brothers.” Branagh develops Henry in a way that allows us to see into his past life through the relationships he shared with others. The audience sees his coming of age when he orders the deaths of Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey and the death of his childhood mentor, Falstaff and how cutting these ties opens the doors to new ones. Henry’s past relationships are, “…intense and mistrustful, charged with the emotional weight of tangled primary family dynamics” (Donaldson 67), but out of the strife of war, new bonds are formed and are proven to last far beyond those of his youth. Henry changes throughout the film and he finds his new self through the bonds of love and brotherhood which Shakespeare had intended to show.

Kenneth Branagh creates an image of Henry that was originally intended by Shakespeare as a confident and charismatic, yet reserved and thoughtful leader. Branagh brings Henry to life as a dynamic character who is constantly being developed throughout the film. However naïve Henry may seem, the audience is reminded of his hard-headedness and serious drive for victory through the scenes of intense battle and betrayal that confirm his commitment to being king. As compared to Laurence Olivier’s version of the film, the audience often does not get a proper view of the man that Henry is, but instead a static “acting” performance which seems forced and undeveloped which leaves the audience satisfied, but without knowledge of the real Henry. Branagh opens the door to Henry’s mind and allows for us to see into his emotions and his love for companionship formed and solidified in battle and hardship.

Works Cited

Donaldson, Peter S. Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), 60-71.

Shakespeare, William, and Claire McEachern. Henry V. New York: Penguin, 1999. Print.

Reflective Essay ERH 205WX

Max Liebl

5/1/17

In taking this course, I learned immensely about the cultural practices and values reflected in British literature. One common theme that stuck with me amongst many of the readings we covered in class was the role of honor in British society. It occurred to me that even more so than the impact that religion and imperialism have on the culture, the underlying root to conduct in warfare and in society in general revolves around a sense of honor. Beginning in the medieval era with Shakespeare’s Henry V, honor plays a critical role in the decisions the young king must make and how that will rally his troops and bring about a sense of national pride and justify their cause. Following into the era of imperialism and the issues of morality that Dan and Peachey face in The Man Who Would Be King, by Rudyard Kipling. Their judgement, or lack thereof, of deciding to journey to Kafiristan seeking power and riches sheds a light on what would happen if British values such as honor and civility were thrown out the window. All leading up to World War I where young men were pressed into service for their nation to defend their homeland and way of life. In what is known as The Great War, the true value of honor and sacrifice are told firsthand through poetry written in wartime by poets such as Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. It is apparent that honor is the touchstone of British culture seeing as it is unwavering and a source for confidence, courage, and guidance for the protagonists of these texts and it is something that I find very interesting and significant to examine further.

In British culture, honor has played a major role in creating a sense of national pride dating back to the times of Queen Elizabeth when the different regions of England came together to better serve country instead of their individual region. There is no better example of this kind of unity than in Shakespeare’s Henry V when the young king manages to bring together an army to invade France despite the questionable moral issues and legality of the invasion. Henry, like much of the population of Britain in this time, value relationships with others and mutual trust with those they respect. When it is discovered that there are traitors among the ranks of the king’s top advisors, Henry shows no mercy to the men who attempted to exploit him, severing the bond of trust:

What shall I say to thee, Lord Scroop, thou cruel,

Ingrateful, savage, and inhuman creature?

Thou that didst bear the key of all my counsels,

That knew’st the very bottom of my soul, (II.ii.94-97)

Despite the circumstances, Henry lead his army in a successful war against France and stirs a tremendous pride in the cause they are fighting for.  I believe that Henry V, epitomizes the British sense of honor and shows the root of the pride, the British have for their homeland.

With honor being such an integral part of British society, it is easy to forget what could happen if it were not that way. In Rudyard Kipling’s The Man Who Would Be King, Dan and Peachey seek to gain personal riches by exploiting the culture of the people of Kafiristan. In the 19^th century, the British empire began imperializing eastern countries in hopes to impart western culture and values on the “savage” nations such as India, Burma and the Middle East. In an attempt to catapult developing nations into the current times with western values, the British brought infrastructure, technology and laws to these countries. In the case of Dan and Peachey, the lack of personal honor and morality leads to their untimely demise after being exposed as frauds to the people of Kafiristan. I find this story to be particularly interesting because it is easy to see how imperialism and the colonization of less developed nations could be a slippery slope without regard to personal honor. This reading shows, while far-fetched, how naive the British people in their attempt to bring western influence to a country that follows strict adherence to traditions. The British saw it was their right to expand their empire, but to do it correctly and effectively, they could not exploit other cultures. While the story has undertones of humor, it is a prime example of where honor and glory-seeking collide. Many critics saw this story as appalling because of Kipling’s lack of addressing the issues of moral authority and recklessness that is apparent throughout. In a society that prides itself on being men and women of honor, I believe this story reveals what could happen if the idea of honor was misinterpreted.

This leads into the First World War where so many young men were pressed into service of the nation and lost their lives in the name of protecting their homeland. In the beginning of the war, poets wrote about how the war would unite the nation and would be a glorious way to bring honor back the nation that seemingly lost its way during the time of imperialism. However, by the end of the war, the true honor came from the sacrifices of the so many men that were killed in action and the lives that they gave up serving their country. Honor became a matter of whether you wore a uniform during that time and did your part during the war, “Two bleeding years I fought in France, for Squire: I suffered anguish that he’s never guessed. Once I came home on leave: and then went west… What greater glory could a man desire?” (Sassoon). At the outbreak of war, many young men were eager to join the fight and bring honor and glory to themselves in combat. However, the trenches were a brutal place to fight and so many young men, such as the one Siegfried Sassoon writes about in his poem, Memorial Tablet (Great War) received only the glory of having died overseas. The strife that came with serving in the trenches lead poets to write about the realistic brutality of war and how a whole generation of British men was lost in that short span of four years. World War I brought on the same sense of national pride that is shown in Henry V, re-affirming the loyalty the British people carry for their fellow man and their homeland.

The British have a proud heritage with honor as its base. From the times of knights and the forming of large armies for an invasion, to the bloody trenches of France, honor has been the foundation for great leadership, confidence and sacrifice and it is why England has remained one of the greatest world superpowers. As a future Army Officer, I find it fascinating to study what makes a population so proud of their heritage and continue the legacy of honor throughout the ages to the present day. By studying the poetry and stories told by Britain’s most renowned authors, I now have a better understanding of British culture and role that honor plays in keeping traditions alive.

Works Cited

Kipling, Rudyard, and Jan Montefiore. The Man Who Would Be King. London: Penguin, 2011. ProQuest. Web.

Sassoon, Siegfried. “Memorial Tablet (Great War).” The Desperate Dance. William D. Badgett. 38. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and Claire McEachern. Henry V. New York: Penguin, 1999. Print.