This essay examines James Clavell's novel King Rat as an allegorical lens for understanding greed, ethical compromise, and the consequences of unchecked arrogance in the business world. Drawing on specific passages from the novel, the paper contrasts the King's purely transactional worldview with Peter Marlowe's conflict-ridden sense of honor rooted in family tradition. The analysis connects these fictional dynamics to real-world economic misconduct, arguing that the King's ultimate downfall — discovering that the currency he risked everything for is worthless — mirrors the fate of modern figures who prioritize material gain over ethical integrity.
James Clavell may not have written King Rat as a metaphor for the business world gone bad, but readers can certainly relate it to industry in modern times. This is especially true when comparing it to the widespread economic turmoil that so many countries and individuals have found themselves in. Much of today's chaos was brought about because the "King Rats" became so arrogant in their business dealings that they believed everything would always turn out right, provided they planned well enough in advance for every contingency.
An example of this arrogance can be found on page 425, when Clavell writes: "Nothing could touch the King now. The stack of notes were safety and life and power. And they were his alone" (Clavell, 1962, p. 425).
Ironically, the King had just completed the sale of a diamond ring while a prisoner of war at Changi. The "stack of notes" referred to are the Japanese dollars he received for his efforts in that transaction. The King was riding high — but it was not long before he discovered that the war was over, they were free men, and, most importantly, that the Japanese dollars he had been dealing with since becoming a prisoner were utterly worthless. Everything he had risked his life, and the lives of others, to accumulate was essentially not worth the paper it was printed on.
What is particularly interesting is that the King and Peter Marlowe — the man he befriends — are frequently confronted with situations that demand ethical consideration. To the King, all is fair in business: there are no ethics involved, and every action is either profitable or non-profitable. Peter, on the other hand, faces his moral dilemmas with a background that makes him far more circumspect. His family carries an honored tradition of service stretching back centuries.
Peter tells the King, "Goes back to 1720. Father to son. That's a lot of tradition to try to fight" (p. 244). That tradition of honorable service causes Peter considerable anguish. One telling example occurs when Peter is faced with accepting money from the King for assisting in the completion of a black market sale. Peter feels that the King should not have sold a counterfeit watch, and he is deeply conflicted about accepting a 10% commission for his role in the deal. He recalls his father telling him, "There is such a thing as honor. If you deal with a man, tell him the truth — then he must of necessity tell you the truth" (p. 179). What is ironic is that Peter ultimately accepts the money because he knows what it can buy him.
"Accepting reward mirrors modern ethical failures in business"
Lately, many of those same individuals have been left holding an empty sack, similar to the sad state of affairs in which the King found himself at the end of the book. Clavell seems to be saying that our choices will haunt us forever — especially when we chase the almighty dollar at the expense of our integrity.
You’re 76% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.