Jump to content

Talk:The Man Who Would Be King

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong title

[edit]

The Kipling story is "The Man Who Would be King," and was first published in The Phantom Rickshaw and Other Ghost Stories. It was NOT retitled for the movie.

IF Kipling's title was originally ... A King then it would logically follow that the article should give some specific attention to when and why the change in title was made. If not, this entry needs to be revised.

As the Kipling Society makes no mention of there ever being a variant title, I strongly suspect that this is an error perpetuated across Wikipedia articles.

Support. Just do it, and fix the refering articles as well. (500 google hits with 'a', 84,000 without, not that that means dick all - The Man Who Would Be King is the correct title. See the Kipling Society) Icundell 00:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

present vs past tense

[edit]

This article seems very well written and complete except for one small annoyance: the summary is told in the past tense while the synopsis uses the present tense. This grates on my ear and I think one should be changed, but which one? Is there a convention? I'm a newbie and reluctant to mess with stuff I don't understand. LA RoeDoe 23:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok to me. The past tense is used when Peachey tells his story. Clarityfiend 06:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


When summarizing a story you should always use present tense.

Billy Fish

[edit]

The article needs to explain who Billy is. I know who he is in the movie, but am not sure about the short story, so I'll leave it to somebody who's read it. Clarityfiend 05:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, its a year later and no one has explained who Billy Fish is and I don't know myself. WHO IS BILLY FISH? If someone knows the details behind this character, please add it. Firewall 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be afraid to read the story.
Read it. Added to the plot summary. Unlike the movie, Billy Fish is the chief of one of the first villages taken over (Bashkai). Clarityfiend 06:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Fish is an english solider who was protecting a bunch of map makers. They needed people to make a map of Kafiristan because the last person there was Alexander (Silkander). The others died in an avalanche and Billy Fish found his way to Ootah tribe etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DOGGIEWEE (talk • contribs) 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify (again) for future readers: only in the movie. In the story, Dravot and Carnehan call one of the chiefs Billy Fish "because he was so like Billy Fish that drove the big tank-engine at Mach on the Bolan in the old days". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the novella, Billy Fish was a chief of a local tribe who was very loyal to the two leads. In the movie he was an ex-servicemen and survivor of a previous map making expedition. Whilst Billy figures largely within the movie, his part in the novel is not hugely significant. See the section I just added to the movie page which describes key differences from the original book. peterai 22:26, 15th Jan 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Movie ending into a cliffhanger

[edit]
  • Prehaps what would have made the Sean Connery & Michael Caine movie into a real cliffhanger--would have been at the end Carnehan wonders away with Dravot's head-and then on the final screen-a quote from the orginal story about how Carnehan dies of sunstroke with no belongings-leaving the audience to wonder if this adventure ever happened-or if it was just the ravenings of a demented ex-soldier turned begger??
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why a separate article for Peachey Carnehan?

[edit]

I've noticed that Peachey Carnehan has a separate article that's small, even for a stub.

I'm recommending that unless the Peachey Carnehan article is substantially expanded, it should be merged with this one. --Superluser 17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for you to kill Peachey's Page, BUT it was created for a specific reason, due to a population request from a Category Talkpage, so finding an alternative solution to that original request would be kind. Full details at the Talk Page of the Peachey Carnehan article. Timothy Titus 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two of us have come to a consensus at Talk:Peachey Carnehan. I'm leaving these merge tags in place for a bit (until June 27, one month from the start of this discussion) in case someone else wants to comment.--superlusertc 13:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. See Talk:Peachey Carnehan. superlusertc 2007 June 27, 15:44 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

India connection

[edit]

In the short story infobox, I listed the country as both "United Kingdom" and "India," and I'd like to add this story to the "Indian short stories" category; however, Kipling is not actually Indian so I'm not sure if that would be appropriate. I'd think that Kipling would have wanted it listed in Indian fiction... thoughts? Should the nation be listed as "British India" instead? -Elizabennet | talk 16:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just signing the changes.

[edit]

I got logged out by delay while editing.

--24.148.0.125 (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes

[edit]

There seems to be some confusion about the title of the 1888 collection in which Kipling's story originally appeared. According to the Kipling Society's online Readers' Guide (http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_wouldbeking1.htm), "The Man Who Would Be King" was first published in The Phantom 'Rickshaw and Other Eerie Tales together with "The Phantom 'Rickshaw," "My Own True Ghost Story," and "The Strange Ride of Morrowbie Jukes." Elsewhere, however (http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_phantom1.htm), the RG refers (erroneously?) to this volume as The Phantom 'Rickshaw and Other Tales. Project Gutenberg's version of The Phantom 'Rickshaw and Other Ghost Stories (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/phric11.txt) contains a fifth story, "'The Finest Story in the World,'" which the RG says was first published in 1891 (http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_finest1.htm). It appears then that the correct title of the original collection is The Phantom 'Rickshaw and Other Eerie Tales.

I have since consulted an online version of E. W. Martindell's Bibliography of the Works of Rudyard Kipling, 1891-1923 (London: John Lane, 1923). On p. 26 Martindell gives the title as The Phantom 'Rickshaw and Other Tales. However, the cover illustration (designed by Kipling's father), which appears facing p. 27, clearly reads "The Phantom 'Rickshaw and Other Eerie Tales." Martindell does not mention the discrepancy, but his bibliography seems pretty authoritative, and titles appearing on the cover or spine of a book don't always match those appearing on the title page. Having no access to an original copy of the book (which must be rare), I am inclined to defer to Martindell rather than the Kipling Society's online Readers' Guide, which is an ongoing project containing numerous inconsistencies and minor errors. Assuming Martindell to be correct, and following standard scholarly practice, I would keep the title as it is on the title page: The Phantom 'Rickshaw and Other Tales. (The Phantom 'Rickshaw and Other Ghost Stories is obviously a later edition.) --Mailedfist (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The narrator never states in which city the offices of his newspaper are located. The RG (http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_lettersonleave_notes.htm) notes that the "Kumharsen Serai" is Kipling's fictional name for the Kashmir Serai, located in Lahore. On the other hand, it also points out (http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_wouldbeking_notes.htm) that the Backwoodsman is his fictional name for the Pioneer, the Allahabad paper where Kipling was working at the time he wrote the story. But Lahore is much closer to the northwestern frontier of India than is Allahabad, and it is inconceivable that Dravot and Carnehan could have made the journey by camel from Allahabad to Peshawur in the time given (less than ten days). Lahore, then, is implied, though never specifically mentioned in the story. Perhaps "they appear at his office in Lahore" should be changed to "they appear at the office of his newspaper." Of course, in the 1975 film version, Kipling (Christopher Plummer) buys a railway ticket and boards a train at Lahore station, where Carnehan (Michael Caine) steals his watch. But this article deals with the story, not the film.

The term "Kafiri" is never used by Kipling, nor can it be found in the Oxford English Dictionary. The proper term for a native of that country is "Kafir," which means "infidel" (i.e., unbeliever in Islam). Carnehan uses this term at one point in the story in order to distinguish the "heathen" inhabitants from the "Mohammedans," but otherwise it is not used, probably because in other contexts (e.g., South Africa) the same term is used as a racial slur. "Kafiri" is used in the film, but, as noted before, the OED does not support this usage. "Kafiri" should be changed to "Kafir," or some other, less offensive word should be substituted.

The plot summary's preference for the word "Kafiri" reflects its general avoidance of a crucial aspect of Kipling's story. As Dravot says, employing another racial slur, "These men aren't niggers; they're English." The point is emphasized again and again in the story that the natives are fair-skinned and fair-haired, not "common, black Mohammedans." It is therefore foolish to refer to Dravot and Carnehan, as the summary refers to them, as "the white men" when Carnehan says of the natives, "They was fair men--fairer than you or me--with yellow hair and remarkable well built." If the racial aspect of the story must be downplayed, "the white men" should be emended to read "the Englishmen." As it stands, whoever composed the summary seems to be thinking of the film, which couldn't very well stress the fair complexions of the Kafirs because the film was shot in Morocco using locals as extras.

--Mailedfist (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

[edit]

I note that we have an other article on this... see: The Man Who Would Be A King (which is the accurate title of Kipling's short story). The two articles should be merged. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC) never mind. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Schlagintweit

[edit]

Adolph Schlagintweit is the spelling used in this article. There is a Wiki entry under the spelling Adolf Schlagintweit, and I would suggest conforming the spelling and/or creating a link. I would have done it, but I did not find an "edit" option for the first paragraph.

Junckerg (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: done. Only way to edit the 1st para is to click the edit link for the whole page. 86.139.254.72 (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Man Who Would Be King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Road to el dorado game

[edit]

Is this really relevant information for this article? 86.1.56.25 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Man_Who_Would_Be_King&oldid=1202011343"