John Stann
ERH 205WX
3/6/19
HR: Spell Check, Grammar Check, works cited.
Word Count: 1,184
The real meaning behind “The Man Who Would Be King”
“The Man Who Would Be King,” is a tale of adventure and exploration, of two conmen going off to conquer a kingdom for themselves. Many people who have read “The Man Who Would Be King,” assume that this short story is a work either for or against imperialism, due to other works written by Kipling, such asThe White Man’s Burden. Authors such as Jeffry Myers or Paul Fussell argue, and counter argue that the story does a good job depicting anti-imperialism or say that the work fails because some of the qualities that the main characters, Peachy Carnahan and Dan Dravot, show are too redeeming. What if Kipling didn’t have a deeper meaning to the story and purely meant it to be a tale of adventure. While some of the evidence leads readers to believe that it is an anti-imperialist, much of the story doesn’t feel like it is either intentionally supporting or anti-imperialism. This includes the way the characters act, how the plot develops and how the story ends. “The Man Who Would Be King”is purely a story of adventure and while there are signs of anti-imperialism and pro imperialism that was just the feelings of the time and had nothing to do with why the story was written.
Like many novels and stories, “The Man Who Would be King”,is read and interpreted differently by critics who both praise and attack it. Since the author is dead, we do not know what he meant by writing it. Assumptions occur even when the story is known to be fictional and have no second meaning. One example of this is The Lord of the Rings. Many people, who both love and hate the books, have claimed that they are allegories, comparing characters like Gandalf to Jesus. Tolkien himself, however, disagrees and said that “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.” Kipling may have just meant “The Man Who Would Be King,” to be a story, like his book, The Jungle Book.
One of the reasons that make it hard to believe that “The Man Who Would Be King” is supposed to mean something is the way the two main characters act and the tone of the story. The main characters are two conmen named Peachy Carnahan and Danny “Dan” Dravot, these two men lived a life of adventure but were also from the bottoms of civilization. They were criminals who bribed others to keep their stories out of newspapers. “We might threaten a Station-master, and make him send a wire on tick, said my friend, but that’d mean inquiries for you and me.” (Kipling 2) Despite these unredeemable qualities there are some traits that these characters have that Kipling believes in, and thinks are important for men to have. These include self-reliance, loyalty, courage and a spirit of adventure. “Then, the camels passed away along the dusty road, and I was left alone to wonder. My eye could detect no failure in the disguises. The scene in the Serai proved that they were complete to the native mind.” (Kipling 11) Characters are an important part to any story, and if Kipling wanted “The Man Who Would Be King” to be anti-imperialist he should have chosen more effective characters. Instead of characters who could be relatable because of their courage and loyalty, Kipling should have chosen purely evil and corrupt men without any “good” qualities at all. A businessman, industrialist or a banker would have been a perfect choice to fill this role. Kipling, however, chose Peachy and Dan. Instead of meaning his work to be anti-imperialist, the story was just about two men and the spirit of adventure, the courage and loyalty they shared.
Another reason why the story does not seem to be anti-imperialist, is the way it unfolds and how it is presented to the reader. A safer, and clearer way to show that “The Man Who Would Be King” was be anti-imperialist would have been to have the story follow the characters along their journey so the readers could be observers of the actual events happening and make a judgement for themselves as to why the protagonists did what they did. Even the narrator is confused as to what is happening during the story. While Peachy is telling his story, he tells contradictory messages and convolutes the facts. The narrator must interrupt the storytelling and make guesses at times as to what really happened or ask Peachy questions to clarify something he said. This leaves the reader uncertain about what happened on Peachy’s adventures. The narrator himself doesn’t believe Peachy and sends him off to an asylum. The narrator finally believes in the story when Peachy shows him Dan’s head with the crown on it. The head, however, disappears and this makes it impossible for others to believe the story and thus the reader of Kipling’s tale shares a special relationship with the narrator because they are the only people who know what happened. Instead of using fiction as a way of conveying an important message Kipling should have used another genre if he really wanted people to know that imperialism was wrong. He wrote The White Man’s Burden as a poem, and there is no debateor questions asked about the meaning of that. Fiction is such a convoluted way of conveying a message, if Kipling was desperate to show how much imperialism was bad, he should have chosen a different form of writing. While fiction can carry a meaning, it usually is used to tell a story, or the meaning is the motivation of the characters and their growth in the story.
Motives are an important reason for writing a story and it not only drives the author to write, but it also drives the characters, the plot and everything about the story. Every piece and part of a story has a motive and instead of writing about anti-imperialism Kipling just wanted to write a good story about the qualities of a person. What makes someone good, or what makes them bad. This makes more sense with the way that “The Man Who Would Be King” played out. The story was convoluted, with a confusing narrative and interesting characters that flipped between being greedy and self-centered to being loyal to each other and their code. This makes the story about the personality of the protagonists and what they did in different situations instead of anti-imperialist. Character growth is a better meaning for writing a story. Peachy and Danny grow over the course of the story from naive adventurous young men to men who are more mature and changed from their experiences in a foreign and hostile country. While their motives stay the same, instead of wanting to rush in and leave they stay and plan and are more cautious. While their motives may have stayed the same the way they go about accomplishing their goals has changed and this shows a different level of maturity, even if Peachy and Dan are the same devious characters.
The plot the characters and settings make an exciting adventure story about two men, their personalities and how they grow and develop. This does not mean that “The Man Who Would Be King” is about anti-imperialism or pro-imperialism, it could have just been a story like any other and literature should not be critiqued without knowing the author’s intent.
Works Cited:
Jeffery Myers’s: The Idea of Moral Authority in “The Man who Would be King”
Kipling, Rudyard, 1865-1936 Montefiore, Jan (1948~). “The Man Who Would Be King” Penguin
Classics, 2011.