Book Review: My Boy Jack
Whoa. This is single-handedly the most heartbreaking play I think I have ever read. I have often said that reading ‘Othello’ was like watching a train crash happen in slow motion. But ‘My Boy Jack’ ups the ante. The play centres around the onset of the First World War and the romanticism that was built around heroism, empire and duty. Rudyard Kipling’s son Jack is 17 years old; he is being cajoled by his father into getting into the armed forces. He was already turned down by the Royal Navy and, through his father’s extensive connections, is being interviewed by the army. Jack has terrible eyesight, and due to this, he always fails. But Rudyard Kipling buys his son a commission despite this, and Jack joins the Irish Guards and is sent off to fight in the trenches.
The hubris of Rudyard Kipling is devastating. If you know anything about Kipling, he wrote the famed Jungle Books, which were as popular when he was alive as they are today (thank you, Disney). He was born and raised in India and, as such, saw the impact of Empire, which left a strong impression on him. He was deeply patriotic and very pro-Empire and Imperialism, which explains much of the ideals he tried to impress upon his only son. He believed in ‘doing one’s part’ as he had done, and his son was going to be no different. This is where we find Kipling’s hubris: Jack is his only son, and this was at a time when men were ‘men’. They were strong, resilient, good leaders; the world was theirs to rule and determine. Rudyard is determined for his son to be in the army and even more determined, to the point of stubbornness, that his son should sign up and fight, to the point where Jack is coached on what to say in his army interviews. Each time Jack fails to enter the armed forces is seen as a personal affront more to his pride than to his son because he is The Rudyard Kipling: famed author and patriot. He has influence, he has prestige; why would they say no to him? We do quietly need to look at Jack’s hubris. Jack’s hubris is that he wants to please his father to the point of complacency, and even though he proves to be an effective leader to his men, fulfilling his father’s pride, he still goes missing 2 weeks after he leaves home for the war.
What this play did very well is showcase the challenge of our preconceived perceptions of national identity. Edwardian ideals inherited the notion of ‘progress’ and ‘duty ’, which is still apparent in Kipling even when he discovers the fate of his son. He believes that his son died heroically with honour and died happy, not in the detested and miserable circumstances which were described to him by Jack’s comrades. It is a disappointing ending, but you do see the veneer cracking slowly as the truth about the war and unmitigated slaughter slowly but surely comes to light.
This play was released on television for Remembrance Day; whether you see this as an anti-war play or a hard lesson in the folly of blind belief is up to you. But it is a play based on real events, and while it is just one story out of thousands from that time, it sheds a light on how unnecessary that war was, and it only caused more devastation and heartbreak not even 20 years later.