Talk:The Man Who Would Be King

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Man Who Would Be King article.

Article policies
Novels This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Short story task force. (with unknown importance)
This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.


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)

Contents

[edit] present vs past tense

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)

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

When summarizing a story you should always use present tense.

[edit] Billy Fish

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)

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)
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)

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 (talkcontribs) 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Movie ending into a cliffhanger

  • 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??


[edit] India connection

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)

[edit] Just signing the changes.

I got logged out by delay while editing.

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