Moral Ambiguity versus Binary Morality

First, foremost, and forever: I owe an enormous debt, conscious and, I have no doubt, unconscious, to Rudyard Kipling and the two volumes of his remarkable work The Jungle Book. I read them as a child, excited and impressed, and I've read and re-read them many times since. If you are only familiar with the Disney cartoon, you should really read the stories

—Neil Gaiman, The Graveyard Book, Acknowledgments

            As Gaiman’s epigraph indicates, Kipling’s influence on The Graveyard Book is fairly pervasive, extending to the novel’s narrative structure, character list, and general themes. Although Gaiman’s adaptation parallels The Jungle Book on numerous levels, his 21^st century version presents a novel spin on the binary opposition between good and evil offered up by Kipling.

            In The Jungle Book, the representation of good and evil is fairly clear-cut and easy to identify. Those animals that stray from the jungle law are marked as evil while those that strictly obey the ominous laws of the jungle are commended for their exemplary actions. For example Shere Khan, Mowgli’s nemesis, is characterized as evil when he breaks the jungle law by becoming the first jungle animal to kill (How Fear Came to the Jungle 159).  His selfish actions create a sense of fear, “that walks up and down the jungle by day and by night”(How Fear Came to the Jungle 170). The tiger is eventually eliminated from the plot when he vows to kill Mowgli, breaking yet another jungle law and showing a complete lack of any redeemable qualities.

              In contrast to the often one-sided characters of Kipling’s work, the potential for both good and evil exists in all of Gaiman’s characters. Even Jack, the novel’s most profound conceptualization of evil, is cast in a more humane light than the typical antagonist. Initially Jack’s predatory nature is brought to the forefront as the parallel between his role in The Graveyard Book and Shere Khan’s role in The Jungle Book becomes clear. Just as Shere Khan hunted for baby Mowgli (Mowgli’s Brothers 8-10), so does Jack use his sense of smell to track down baby Bod (How Nobody Came to the Graveyard 9).

However, as the novel progresses Gaiman’s unique macabre sense of humor begins to distort the reader’s perception of Jack’s nature. During a brief interlude in The Witch’s Headstone, the reader witnesses Jack in the kitchen with his grandmother (138). Given his apparent evil nature, Jack’s residence with his grandmother is incongruous with his previously presented disposition. The idea of dual identities in regards to Jack is further emphasized when it is revealed that the fumbling old bachelor Mr. Frost is actually Jack in disguise. Scarlett’s adamant protests that Mr. Frost is indeed nice (256) force the reader to consider which parts of Jack’s personality are innate: the middle aged man living with his grandmother, the harmless Mr. Frost, or the merciless murderer.

Jack’s moral ambiguity reiterates Gaiman’s preference for delving into the psychological and moral depths of his characters versus Kipling’s reliance on a black and white portrayal of morality. Shere Khan is the epitome of selfish evil while Jack represents the idea that perhaps no one is inherently good or bad.