The Man Who Would Be King (original 1888; edition 2005)

Should I have been looking for some parallel to the ongoing situation in the -stan's? Or just enjoy the story? ( )

Is it wrong for me to say that I thought the movie was better? Generally I don't find this to be the case, but perhaps this was one place where the exception proved the rule. Still it's a great tale that I do remember enjoying...maybe if I had read it before seeing the movie I wouldn't have felt this way. It just seemed to me that the movie was actually a bit more fleshed out in a few areas of plot and character than the story was. ( )

This is a short book. I saw the movie years ago, starring Sean Connery and Michael Caine. I thought that the movie was brilliant.
This book, short that it is, packs in a punch.
It is rich in imagery, it is rich in style. Not one word is wasted.
You are left thinking deeply about the imaginary events that would have taken place in the mountains of Afghanistan.
It is a story of megalomania, it is a story of superstition. It is a painting cast in words.
It's a story for a lost time, yet one that is alive today. ( )

I was slightly dissapointed with the length of this book having seen the film .normaly large portions of a book are cut out to make a film ,here howeverthe filmbuilt on the books plot,much the same as the legend of sleepy hollow.

A story of adventure or misadventure as the case may be. A traveling man meets two other traveling men. Upon the first one returning back to work, the other two show up and tell him of their plans to become Kings. Many months pass and late one night one of the two returns and tells the story of how they became Kings. ( )