“Letting in the Jungle,”
“The Undertakers,” “The King’s Ankus”
Answer TWO of the
following:
Q1: In “Letting in the
Jungle,” Mowgli denounces the Man-Pack in no uncertain terms: “They are idle,
senseless, and cruel; they plan with their mouths, and they do not kill the weaker
for food, but for sport...I hate them!” (196). In a sense, does Man teach
Mowgli to become a killer, someone who has smelled blood and vows revenge? Does
his education parallel the Creature’s (from Frankenstein)?
Q2: Somewhat related to
Q1, Mowgli is a complete innocent (like the Creature) and is mystified by the
ways of man. How does Kipling use his perspective as a true innocent—not just a
child, but a wolf-child—to satirize the ideas of the Man-Pack? Are these native
or British ideas? Or simply ‘human’ ones?
Q3: The strange tale of
“The Undertakers” seems to be a fable about British progress as told from the
perspective of a crocodile. How has progress affected the Mugger of the Ghaut,
and how does it ironically end his career by the story’s conclusion?
Q4: The White Cobra warns
Mowgli, “See, then, that the thing does not kill thee at last. It is Death!
Remember, it is Death!” (236). Why is the King’s Ankus death to all men who
touch it? How might elements of this story parallel certain works by J.R.R.
Tolkein, who certainly knew his Kipling well (Kipling wrote in the generation
just before Tolkein, so he would have grown up reading The Jungle Books,
etc.).
Q1: Mowgli had never really had any dealing with Man, and didn’t have much of an opinion about them. Seeing what they would to Messua simply because she had been kind to him was a complete shock to him because it defied any logic that he had ever known. Like the Creature, the pointless cruelty shown by the villagers turns Mowgli into a bitter creature that wants nothing to do with them. Having been raised with the Laws of the Jungle, Mowgli has values and beliefs more similar to that of a jungle beast, but being a cub of Man means that he will act on them where an animal will not.
ReplyDeleteQ2: A human child raised in by other humans may be innocent, but they still have an inkling as to how the world of Man works because they’re in it from the moment they’re born. Mowgli and the Creature were not raised in human culture; Mowgli was raised by wolves and the Creature was abandoned at ‘birth’ and grew up on spying and books. As such, the actions of the Man-Pack were completely alien to Mowgli. As a complete outsider looking in he saw what they were doing as no one else would. While it may seem that Kipling is mocking the native ideas more, I think that he is mocking all of the human race. Humans lie and turn on each other for no reason in all cultures, and that was what really got to Mowgli. They attacked Messua not only out of misplaced fear but also out of jealousy, greed, and superstition. Traits which are mostly only found in the Bandar-log.
Ashley Bean
ReplyDelete1. Mowgli had never been exposed to the true hated of man, something the Jungle folk don’t have. They may have disdain for some, such as Shere Khan, but not the hate for the “devil child.” After smelling the blood of his mother, he vows revenge, much like the Creature. However, he doesn’t want to spill blood, he just wants them to leave. He never wants to smell human blood again, and that holds him back from hurting anyone, even though he seethes with hatred, as Bagheera notices. Mowgli had already understood killing, since he did slay Shere Khan, but not the binding mutilation that man does to their enemies, and the killing of one’s own kind.
4. It isn’t the ankus killing them, it’s greed. Each man wants the jewels in the ankus for themselves, and kills the one who has it to get it. This creates a trail of dead men who fought for the precious jewels, valuing them above their own lives. This type of greed is personified in Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings, where the ring embodies greed itself. Creatures from all over are trying to get the ring, for themselves or for their master. It ultimately ends in wars and battles and the final death of Smeagol. So the ring also leads a trail of death, much like the ankus.
Elyse Marquardt
ReplyDeleteQ1: Man does not teach Mowgli to become a killer, but they do teach him that being a killer is necessary to survival. Having grown up in the wild, Mowgli already has the killer instincts, which we see in the story where he cheerfully kills and skins Shere Khan. Like the monster from Frankenstein, Mowgli has gradually learned about the killer in himself, but he has not used it because there has been no need. No need, that is--until man brings it out of him through their cruel, ruthless behavior. He believes that they are not worth the air they breathe, and he considers it a duty to destroy them as they destroy the lives of others.
Q2:I believe the ideas that Kipling presents are directed at all of humankind, not just at British or native people in his stories. However, he does use those two types of people to make a point. The British represent the organized, practical higher class that good creatures like Bagheera recognize as respectable. They symbolize the civilized people that Kipling is trying to teach his readers to be. The natives represent the base, common people whom Kipling finds detestable in their desire to wrong others and satisfy only their own low wants. This lesson can be applied to all of mankind. Mowgli's innocence and almost total separation from these two types of people is used as the objective scope through which we can view them. Mowgli, in his innocence, is not a part of either type; and therefore he is the ideal that we compare all other men to in Kipling's stories.
Elyse Marquardt
1. Mowgli doesn't know enough about man to be like one. He did, however, understand that it was implanted in his creation. He is like the Creature in the way that he learned of evil. He knew some of the bad animals but he didn't know the extent of evil that man could accomplish, such as killing for sport. He learns from what he is exposed to--the same way that the Creature did.
ReplyDeleteq2. Stemming from my idea in q1, Mowgli is innocent because he doesn't know otherwise. That's like asking a child who should be president when he or she doesn't know what the process of the government consists of. He would choose the nicest looking person to be president because he is innocent. I feel that, like Jane Austen, Kipling realizes that these topics are worth writing about because they'll be relevant for more than just one time period. I like to be able to think of the characters in a bigger sense as someone or something else. That's what's fascinating about this seemingly children's-themed book.
Q1: I don't think that Man gave Mowgli a taste for blood. He does want revenge, but not revenge in a cruel way, he only wants Man to leave the jungle. Mowgli's education does parallel The Creature's education because Mowgli's innocence was ripped from him in a cruel and unnecessary way. He had to learn very quickly.
ReplyDeleteQ2: Kipling uses Mowgli's true innocence to satirizes the ways of men, not just British men, but all humans. Humans do kill animals for sport instead of for food, and by killing Mowgli's mother, Kipling makes sure that we see how hurtful our hunting ways can be. And how much they could effect the animal kingdom.
Q3: The progress of the British has actually been quite beneficial for the Mugger. He speaks of how the river has been bursting with men and beast which, consequentially, has made his belly full. He is curious about the newcomers and wants to "try something new." In the case of the Mugger, this meant trying the flesh of a white infant. He was unsuccessful in his attempt, but ultimately it is what led to his demise. The same child he hoped to sample grows to be the man who takes the Mugger's life.
ReplyDeleteQ4: The King's Ankus is deadly because it triggers one of man's biggest faults - greed. From the moment Mowgli tosses it away from him, men are killing one another just to have it in their possession. Even though Mowgli is a man, he was not raised to value what they value; therefore, he is not susceptible to the power of the King's Ankus. This is very reminiscent of the ring in J.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Although beautiful, the ring proves to be deadly as it consumes its host with an undying greed and lust for power.