web site hit counter The Man Who Would Be King -- FREE Audiobook Download [Annotated] - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

The Man Who Would Be King -- FREE Audiobook Download [Annotated]

Availability: Ready to download

"My gord, Carnehan," says Daniel, "This is a tremenjus business, and we've got the whole country as far as it's worth having." Literature’s most famous adventure story, this stirring tale of two happy-go-lucky British ne’re-do-wells trying to carve out their own kingdom in the remote mountains of Afghanistan has also proved over time to be a work of penetrating and lasting "My gord, Carnehan," says Daniel, "This is a tremenjus business, and we've got the whole country as far as it's worth having." Literature’s most famous adventure story, this stirring tale of two happy-go-lucky British ne’re-do-wells trying to carve out their own kingdom in the remote mountains of Afghanistan has also proved over time to be a work of penetrating and lasting political insight—amidst its raucous humor and swashbuckling bravado is a devastatingly astute dissection of imperialism and its heroic pretensions. Written when he was only 22 years old, the tale also features some of Rudyard Kipling’s most crystalline prose, and one of the most beautifully rendered, spectacularly exotic settings he ever used. Best of all, it features two of his most unforgettable characters, the ultra-vivid Cockneys Peachy Carnahan and Daniel Dravot, who impart to the story its ultimate, astonishing twist: it is both a tragedy and a triumph. The Art of The Novella Series Too short to be a novel, too long to be a short story, the novella is generally unrecognized by academics and publishers. Nonetheless, it is a form beloved and practiced by literature's greatest writers. In the Art Of The Novella series, Melville House celebrates this renegade art form and its practitioners with titles that are, in many instances, presented in book form for the first time.--- From the Trade Paperback edition.


Compare

"My gord, Carnehan," says Daniel, "This is a tremenjus business, and we've got the whole country as far as it's worth having." Literature’s most famous adventure story, this stirring tale of two happy-go-lucky British ne’re-do-wells trying to carve out their own kingdom in the remote mountains of Afghanistan has also proved over time to be a work of penetrating and lasting "My gord, Carnehan," says Daniel, "This is a tremenjus business, and we've got the whole country as far as it's worth having." Literature’s most famous adventure story, this stirring tale of two happy-go-lucky British ne’re-do-wells trying to carve out their own kingdom in the remote mountains of Afghanistan has also proved over time to be a work of penetrating and lasting political insight—amidst its raucous humor and swashbuckling bravado is a devastatingly astute dissection of imperialism and its heroic pretensions. Written when he was only 22 years old, the tale also features some of Rudyard Kipling’s most crystalline prose, and one of the most beautifully rendered, spectacularly exotic settings he ever used. Best of all, it features two of his most unforgettable characters, the ultra-vivid Cockneys Peachy Carnahan and Daniel Dravot, who impart to the story its ultimate, astonishing twist: it is both a tragedy and a triumph. The Art of The Novella Series Too short to be a novel, too long to be a short story, the novella is generally unrecognized by academics and publishers. Nonetheless, it is a form beloved and practiced by literature's greatest writers. In the Art Of The Novella series, Melville House celebrates this renegade art form and its practitioners with titles that are, in many instances, presented in book form for the first time.--- From the Trade Paperback edition.

30 review for The Man Who Would Be King -- FREE Audiobook Download [Annotated]

  1. 5 out of 5

    J.G. Keely

    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 lim 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.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Lyn

    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 fr 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.

  3. 4 out of 5

    W

    The 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 give The 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.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Steven Walle

    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

  5. 4 out of 5

    Sara

    Brilliantly told. The ending gives me shivers. Wild and unsettling.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Richard

    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 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.

  7. 4 out of 5

    Isabel

    "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. "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.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Maryam

    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.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Travelin

    Perhaps this was shocking or surprising to empire builders in Kipling's era, but to this modern reader, the troubles of two idiot chancers/minor empire builders in Afghanistan seem slightly obvious. I remember it worked exceptionally well, visually, as a movie with Michael Caine. Nor do I see much transparent chauvinism. On the contrary, it appears to be a warning to self-centred empire builders. Also, the tribe who caused them the most trouble were "British" and already knew the ridiculous symbo Perhaps this was shocking or surprising to empire builders in Kipling's era, but to this modern reader, the troubles of two idiot chancers/minor empire builders in Afghanistan seem slightly obvious. I remember it worked exceptionally well, visually, as a movie with Michael Caine. Nor do I see much transparent chauvinism. On the contrary, it appears to be a warning to self-centred empire builders. Also, the tribe who caused them the most trouble were "British" and already knew the ridiculous symbols of empire. It seems to go some way towards revealing how the Brits, including the narrator, adapted to a certain amount of chaos and social preservation. I've sometimes wondered if some of the energy and class-based excesses of the Victorian era owe their origins to adaptations developed in the Jewel of the Empire -- India. Thanks to this book for the reminder regarding how damn hot India can be. Was nearly there just about now and the heat has been killing Indians by the thousand. Not much pity reserved for Peachy, though. He blithely went shooting whatever natives seemed least important at first.

  10. 4 out of 5

    Alex Bledsoe

    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 g 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.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Richard

    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 stor 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.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Jibran

    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 whic 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.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Roni

    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, "Th 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.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Hristina

    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. 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.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Narendrāditya Nalwa

    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. 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.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Sotiris Makrygiannis

    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.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Therese

    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 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.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Ian Laird

    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 fevere 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?

  19. 4 out of 5

    Julie Thilges

    What even is this

  20. 4 out of 5

    Cherie

    The best thing I can say is that I finished. I listened to the audio book several times and I read almost all of them over and I still couldn't tell anyone what some of them were about. A few were simply unfathomable to me. Several were very exciting, but strange. My goal was to get through the title story to see the movie. I didn't want the movie to tell me what Kipling wrote. How pathetic was that? I read every word and all the mumbo-jumbo too. Moving on... I hope Kim is better. I really want t The best thing I can say is that I finished. I listened to the audio book several times and I read almost all of them over and I still couldn't tell anyone what some of them were about. A few were simply unfathomable to me. Several were very exciting, but strange. My goal was to get through the title story to see the movie. I didn't want the movie to tell me what Kipling wrote. How pathetic was that? I read every word and all the mumbo-jumbo too. Moving on... I hope Kim is better. I really want to know the story.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Vicki

    It is sad that I could not make myself love this. I know it is a classic and really who am I to judge a classic. I just did not enjoy it. I found Peachy Carnehan humorous in starts and stops. But I had no love for his companion Daniel Dravo. I did feel compassion towards the end though.

  22. 4 out of 5

    Seher Alvi

    I found The movie better than novella because it is quite boring.

  23. 4 out of 5

    Clay Davis

    A great read with a very good moral to it.

  24. 5 out of 5

    Yigal Zur

    one of the greatesr

  25. 4 out of 5

    Fran

    I read this as a parable (of a sort), warning the reader against getting too big for his britches.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Osama Siddique

    This is such a very strange and often jarring story. Admittedly to be read in its context and seen from the perspective of the two protagonists - as reckless and untamed a pair of Loafers as any - it is nevertheless consistently blatant in its imperialistic aspirations and orientalist outlook. One gathers that many in the West grew up looking upon it as the ultimate adventure story - two audacious men who set out to become kings in an exotic and untamed land called Kafiristan while courting all This is such a very strange and often jarring story. Admittedly to be read in its context and seen from the perspective of the two protagonists - as reckless and untamed a pair of Loafers as any - it is nevertheless consistently blatant in its imperialistic aspirations and orientalist outlook. One gathers that many in the West grew up looking upon it as the ultimate adventure story - two audacious men who set out to become kings in an exotic and untamed land called Kafiristan while courting all manner of peril and if anything making light of it - but it is precious hard to just live with that perspective. In many ways, the dubious duo of Daniel Dravot & Peachey Carnehan epitomize the East India Company when it comes to their utter amorality and rank vaulting ambition for power, wealth and glory; looking down upon the natives, objectifying them, stereotyping them and holding an intransigent sense of superiority; in promoting toxic policies of divide and rule and making violence more efficient and deadly; and, in using myth, legend and lore to acquire legitimacy for their illegitimate rule. So unless one holds a soft corner for the Company, Empire and the Raj it is hard to sympathize with the duo and lament their horrible fate (which Kipling appears to do). Further, one can also detect instances where Kipling tries to valorize them by dint of their sheer audacity and guts. In terms of writing style, the early part of the story where the narrator encounters the duo is full of mystery and anticipation and puts forth the rich description and idiom that distinguish Kipling's prose. His was truly a seeing eye when it came to noticing the intricacies and idiosyncrasies of moods, places, characters as well as a highly a developed ear for dialects, slang and the hybrid anglo-Indian language and phrases that eventually found its place in Hobson Jobson. However, once the duo sets off on its journey to remotest Afghanistan and coerces and deceives all who it comes across, thereby finding a way to rule over a pagan community which it finds elevated and superior (and by no coincidence also white and therefore almost English), the narrative gets jumpy and awkward. There follow several long rambles over hills and meadows ( with much recruiting, marching and shooting) as well as a highly rambling description of the same. Much as the story has acquired great traction in popular British imagination and subsequent storytelling and movies (the highlight being the 1975 Technicolor starring Sean Connery and Michael Cane) it is, barring some early passages, a mediocre tale, drably told and highly problematic in terms of its treatment of empire, race, ethnicities and gender. It is definitely Kipling not at his best when it comes to the telling part and at his worst when it comes to its politics. Arguably, what the duo says can be looked upon as distinct from the authorial voice and in some ways Kipling is perhaps not making heroes out of them but just telling a tale or reflecting on the highs and lows and surprising vagaries of life. But I think it is much more complex than that if you dissect the dense text and its various, often commingling, voices.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Zella Kate

    In the 1880s in British India, former British army sergeants Daniel Dravot and Peachy Carnahan are convinced that the Empire does not properly appreciate their talents, which range from soldiering to smuggling to blackmailing. The two embark on a journey to remote, unexplored Kafiristan, in modern-day Afghanistan/Pakistan. Their retirement plan? Use their skills to convince the locals to hire them as mercenaries, then stage a coup to install themselves as kings so that they can rob the countrysi In the 1880s in British India, former British army sergeants Daniel Dravot and Peachy Carnahan are convinced that the Empire does not properly appreciate their talents, which range from soldiering to smuggling to blackmailing. The two embark on a journey to remote, unexplored Kafiristan, in modern-day Afghanistan/Pakistan. Their retirement plan? Use their skills to convince the locals to hire them as mercenaries, then stage a coup to install themselves as kings so that they can rob the countryside blind. What could possibly go wrong? For years, my father tried to convince me to watch the 1975 movie The Man Who Would Be King. I didn't get around to it until recently, which now makes me angry at myself because it was a fantastic movie. Since it is based on a Rudyard Kipling story, I decided to read the original text. It's written in a quaint 19th century style, which I enjoy when I am in the right mood, and for the most part the story is the same as in the movie. The biggest strength is probably the characters. Danny and Peachy are terrible (but entertaining) people. Kipling's attitude toward colonialism in the story are murky, but it's pretty clear he doesn't condone what they're doing. (Though that's probably more to do with how they're going about it than anything else.) Nonetheless, the tone isn't preachy, so the story ends up serving as a greater cautionary tale than if Kipling had turned it into a sermon. (Personally, I suspect the message has less to do with colonialism than Freemasonry, but I can't find anyone else talking about that.) In any event, the story builds to a memorable, haunting ending. I liked the book, but I honestly think the movie is better. If you haven't seen the movie, you should watch it, even if you don't read the bok. It alters a few things, but the changes work really well. It probably features the best performances of Michael Caine and Sean Connery's careers and manages to be a lot darker, funnier, and more thought-provoking than your standard buddy adventure story. It also has one of the most intense final 15 minutes of any film I've watched. Oh and there are impeccable pith helmets throughout! What more could you want?

  28. 4 out of 5

    Anne Lorena

    what even

  29. 5 out of 5

    Lisa

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. The Man Who Would Be King is nowadays a term signifying grandiose ambition, but it comes from this short story of an ordinary man over-reaching himself. Daniel Dravot is an opportunistic rogue who slips away from the British Raj into the wilds of Afghanistan with his mate Peachey Carnehan. There they set in place their absurd ambition to be kings and with guile and cunning convince the tribesmen of Kafiristan that they are gods. The ruse succeeds until Dravot goes too far, and the girl he demand The Man Who Would Be King is nowadays a term signifying grandiose ambition, but it comes from this short story of an ordinary man over-reaching himself. Daniel Dravot is an opportunistic rogue who slips away from the British Raj into the wilds of Afghanistan with his mate Peachey Carnehan. There they set in place their absurd ambition to be kings and with guile and cunning convince the tribesmen of Kafiristan that they are gods. The ruse succeeds until Dravot goes too far, and the girl he demands for his pleasure sees through him, not unlike the child who denounces the Emperor who has no clothes. When, in fear of a being she believes to be a god, she bites Dravot and draws blood the game is up. He dies a gruesome death when the Kafirs cut the ropes of a rope bridge on which he is standing, while Peachey is crucified. When he is still alive after twenty-four hours, the natives think it is a miracle, and set him free. When he meets up again with the world-weary narrator he is carrying in his bag Dravot’s shrivelled head, complete with crown. He has lost his wits, able only to give a garbled account of events before wandering away, dying shortly thereafter from sunstroke. The real villain of the story, it seems to me, is the weather which drives men mad. To read the rest of my review which includes a review of Wee Willie WInkie and Baa Baa Black Sheep (true, that's their titles, but they're not stories for children!) please visit http://anzlitlovers.com/2009/05/14/th...

  30. 4 out of 5

    Caetlin McFadden

    it is really difficult to give a review about any work by Kipling because he had so many problematic opinions and, quite frankly, was immensely racist. While keeping this fact in mind, “The Man Who Would Be King,” serves a type of cautionary tale for those who want to create an empire for the sake of power. As both empirical seeking characters meet cruel deaths (which were honestly VERY well deserved) Kipling is creating a story that warns those individuals in the British Empire attempting to tr it is really difficult to give a review about any work by Kipling because he had so many problematic opinions and, quite frankly, was immensely racist. While keeping this fact in mind, “The Man Who Would Be King,” serves a type of cautionary tale for those who want to create an empire for the sake of power. As both empirical seeking characters meet cruel deaths (which were honestly VERY well deserved) Kipling is creating a story that warns those individuals in the British Empire attempting to truly occupy India that they will meet a fate very similar to Peachy and Dan. Yet, Kipling himself believed that the British were superior and that the citizens all over India “needed” the British in order to thrive, so all in all, Kipling obviously had a very skewed notion of the idea of what was “right” for the Indian people. The story is very well written and reads like an adventure tale for young audiences, but it has so many issues throughout its underlying messages that I can’t give it any higher of a rating than 3 stars, which honestly was generous to begin with.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.