The King Never Smiles Analysis
On October 13, 2016, King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand died at the age of 88. His death marks the end of the world’s longest reigning monarch, at 70 years of service. During this time, King Bhumibol became much beloved and respected, both within his country and without. In this op-ed, written by Paul Handley, esteemed writer of The King Never Smiles: A Biography of Thailand’s Bhumibol Adulyadej, Paul utilizes choice diction to properly eulogize what he considers a great man and to shed light on some of the more controversial aspects of his regime. Bhumibol’s reign was marked by repeated military coups, where he would repeatedly side with the military over a democratically elected government. In describing his attempts to steer away from
democracy, Handley uses negatively connotated words to illustrate the shady, underhandedness of the affair. For instance, Handley writes: “[King Bhumibol] supported a royalist general and rival of Phibun [then Prime Minister of Thailand], Gen. Sarit Thanarat, who seized power in a new coup”. The word “seize” has extremely negative connotations. It invokes a sense of despotic authority and abuse of power, like “The terrorists seized U.S. armaments in their strike on the air base”. Handley utilizes these connotations to create the impression that Gen. Thanarat, and through extension King Bhumibol, overtook Thailand’s parliament in a kind of terrible, bloody battle. Despite this undoubtedly negative perception of Bhumibol, Handley also uses choice diction to explore the more positive aspects of the king’s governance. For example, Handley explains that “While General Sarit and the other generals … lined their pockets, King Bhumibol kept working hard at development projects. His engagement reinforced the perception that he was a sovereign dedicated to his people, especially Thailand’s poorest peasants, whom the government seemed to have forgotten”. The word dedicated, as used in this passage, does wonders to establish this positive perception. Although seemingly benign, dedicated carries with it great weight and responsibility. By using this word, Handley makes it clear that Bhumibol wasn’t simply interested in his people or concerned with their plight; he was absolutely dedicated to the betterment of their well being. In conclusion, the use of contrasting positive and negative diction, in this article, helps the author achieve his purpose in demonstrating exactly why Bhumibol was so loved, despite his controversial political moves.
democracy, Handley uses negatively connotated words to illustrate the shady, underhandedness of the affair. For instance, Handley writes: “[King Bhumibol] supported a royalist general and rival of Phibun [then Prime Minister of Thailand], Gen. Sarit Thanarat, who seized power in a new coup”. The word “seize” has extremely negative connotations. It invokes a sense of despotic authority and abuse of power, like “The terrorists seized U.S. armaments in their strike on the air base”. Handley utilizes these connotations to create the impression that Gen. Thanarat, and through extension King Bhumibol, overtook Thailand’s parliament in a kind of terrible, bloody battle. Despite this undoubtedly negative perception of Bhumibol, Handley also uses choice diction to explore the more positive aspects of the king’s governance. For example, Handley explains that “While General Sarit and the other generals … lined their pockets, King Bhumibol kept working hard at development projects. His engagement reinforced the perception that he was a sovereign dedicated to his people, especially Thailand’s poorest peasants, whom the government seemed to have forgotten”. The word dedicated, as used in this passage, does wonders to establish this positive perception. Although seemingly benign, dedicated carries with it great weight and responsibility. By using this word, Handley makes it clear that Bhumibol wasn’t simply interested in his people or concerned with their plight; he was absolutely dedicated to the betterment of their well being. In conclusion, the use of contrasting positive and negative diction, in this article, helps the author achieve his purpose in demonstrating exactly why Bhumibol was so loved, despite his controversial political moves.