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.