In Rudyard Kipling’s The Man Who Would Be King and Ari Aster’s Eddington, characters pursue power with a confidence that borders on delusion. What begins as bold ambition gradually mutates into hubris, and ultimately into a distorted relationship with power itself. In Kipling’s story, this transformation is dramatic and mythic, culminating in a literal fall from godhood. In Eddington, the transformation is more diffuse and contemporary, shaped by media ecosystems, ideological certainty, and the intoxicating feedback loops of modern influence.
Write a 1,000-word argumentative essay in which you compare how both works portray the dangers of unrestrained ambition and the intoxication of power. In your analysis, consider how each work defines “power,” how characters justify their rise, and how their environments either reinforce or challenge their sense of authority. You should also examine how hubris manifests differently in each work—whether as overt self-deification or as a quieter, more insidious certainty—and how these differences shape each narrative’s resolution.
In developing your argument, you may consider the following questions: Does power corrupt in the same way across different historical and cultural contexts, or does it simply adapt to new environments? Is the downfall in each work caused by external forces, internal flaws, or a combination of both? To what extent are the characters victims of their circumstances versus architects of their own collapse? Support your claims with specific evidence from both texts, and be sure to include a counterargument that challenges your interpretation before offering a rebuttal.
Cinemorphosis 
Leave a comment