"What makes this even more difficult is that Mr. Montivelo never outright lies and, on the rare occasions he tells a half-truth, he immediately follows it with a painful fact to win back your trust." |
This is taken from Alexander Phillips’ introduction to the second edition of For the Next Killer Who Dies.
When I was asked to write an introduction discussing this book’s legitimacy, I will admit I almost refused. As with most things related to Kingsley Montivelo, it is hard to determine truth from a Kingsley truth. He spent many years cultivating a mythos around himself that is hard to penetrate, and even I, who have interviewed Mr. Montivelo and his living associates for many years, still have a hard time telling the Killer from the legend. What makes this even more difficult is that Mr. Montivelo never outright lies and, on the rare occasions he tells a half-truth, he immediately follows it with a painful fact to win back your trust. I think it is a safe assumption, that only a quarter of his memoir is a hundred percent accurate and the rest is made up of Kingsley truths. "The KLA does not kill its own." |
What is true? Not much. We know that Kingsley joined the KLA when he was sixteen and that there was a sharp divide between Heron Massie, the leader of the KLA, and Siegfried Von Hult, Kingsley's cousin and idol, that eventually tore the KLA in two. Although Kingsley only mentions a select number of members who were loyal to Siegfried, there were many Heron supporters his cousin either intimidated, manipulated, or killed in his bid for power. We also know that Kingsley was the only survivor of Siegfried’s Day and that he became the de facto leader of the KLA simply because everyone else was dead. Other historians scoff at Kingsley’s mental breakdown after Siegfried’s Day, but I believe that that part of the book is the only time he didn’t hold back. I think he truly believed in the cause and in his cousin and that Siegfried’s Day shattered that faith. As someone who knows a little bit about battle fatigue, I am confident in my judgment that Kingsley’s portrayal is true-even though it is slightly dramatized. Unfortunately, that is all I am certain of.
It is in his portrayal of both Heron and Siegfried, that the reader sense his first hint of incredulity. Heron comes and goes as the narrative needs him and there are times when he is portrayed as an old man and other times when he is portrayed as a wily opponent. He is often at loggerheads with Siegfried and tries to turn the others against Von Hult but is Kingsley’s most trusted supporters after Siegfried’s Day. Siegfried, himself, alternates between being the harsh rebel leader who will sacrifice the entire KLA for freedom and the kind, understanding Killer who shows Ernest leniency when he dares to question the cause. It gives the reader the impression that Kingsley, himself, is still subconsciously trying to reconcile his boyish faith in the perfect revolutionary with the flawed leader Kingsley recognized his cousin to be after Siegfried’s Day while simultaneously trying to shore up the KLA mythos.
It is through Ernest Childers, that Kingsley comes close to acknowledging the flaws of Siegfried’s leadership only to have Ernest apologize for his lack of faith in Siegfried and the cause. Again, this is hard to pull apart as Kingsley’s conversations with Ernest in chapters eight and nine contain enough of his bite to seem real, and yet, one is left to wonder how much arm twisting Siegfried had to do before Ernest finally agreed to return to the KLA. It is hard to imagine that Siegfried would have tolerated such dissent (not only from Ernest, but also from Devin Tossier) unless they proved their loyalty. Kingsley walks a fine line between remaining truthful to events and building a righteous and justifiable history of the KLA. It is another example of a Kingsley truth-yes, Ernest broke away from the KLA (the truth), but returned because he ‘saw the light’ (the lie-he was most likely intimidated into returning). Another bit of half-truth concerning Siegfried is his attempts to consolidate the other Killer rebel groups under the KLA banner. Again Kingsley tells a truth (he mentions the desire for a united front) but completely ignores the bloody civil war that emerged from that unification.
|
Which leads to Kingsley’s mantra that the KLA ‘does not kill our own’, a noble sentiment except the KLA’s bloody history contradicts it. Not only did Siegfried consolidate the other rebel groups by force, but Kingsley was responsible, not only for Marcus Galloway's death, but also for the deaths of all the IFM members who remained loyal to him. Although the Shivians have, yet again, sealed their official regards regarding the Killer-Shivian war there has been enough evidence released that hints that Kingsley also sold out Philip Edwards to Police Chief, Bernard Griffin, in order to become governor of the Killbraugha. It fits the pattern Kingsley established during the Second Shadow War and is far more believable than the version he presents in this book. Kingsley’s history is long and bloody and he rarely spared his own friends the noose if it meant his own skin. As the Demon, Rezan Masters, once said, Kingsley was a survivor.
He was also a self-made martyr who delicately crafted an image of being the vanguard of Siegfried’s legacy and the Killer Free State. Anyone who stood in his way was either sidelined, like Heron, or destroyed, like Marcus Galloway. Kingsley takes great pleasure in alternatively portraying him as an arrogant buffoon and a raging murderer that had to be cut from the IFM and KLA before he ruined the cause. In reality Marcus was one of the major reasons the Shivians granted the Killers the limited freedoms that they did. While the KLA was still trying to gather its bearings, Marcus unleashed all-out war on the Shivian forces in the Killbraugha and successfully broke their intelligence ring (something Kingsley mentions only in passing in his book) and provided the framework Kingsley and Heron needed to turn the KLA into the efficient organization that brought the Shivians to the bargaining table. |
"Siegfried, himself, alternates between being the harsh rebel leader who will sacrifice everyone in his path for freedom and the kind, understanding Killer who shows Ernest leniency when he dares to question the cause. It gives the reader the impression that Kingsley, himself, is still trying to reconcile his boyish faith in the perfect revolutionary with the flawed leader Kingsley recognized his cousin to be after Siegfried’s Day." |
"The only thing that can be said with certainty is that Kingsley shed no tears for either Kerry or Marcus when their time came.
It is hard to tell if Kingsley’s hatred of Marcus and the IFM came from the fact that it seemingly created a wedge between him and Devin Tossier (a wedge, that for once, Kingsley does not seem to have imagined judged by Devin’s letters to his family and Kerry McNair’s letters to his sisters) or because Marcus’ achievements threatened to overshadow Siegfried’s legacy and Kingsley’s view of himself as the martyr for the Killer race. Either way, a note in Éamon’s diary confirms that Kingsley had Marcus assassinated after he broke away from the KLA. There was tension between the IFM and KLA simply because Marcus’ team was harder, more experienced, and could honestly claim that they had accomplished more than the KLA. Kingsley may have increased this tension when he sensed that Devin and Kerry were growing close as they ran the KLA in Shiva. There is a half burnt letter from Kingsley to Devin asking that Kerry be recalled. Obviously, Devin refused. There are also a number of letters from Kerry to his sister in which he complains about Kingsley bullying Devin into submission. This may be the source of the argument between Kingsley and Devin in chapter twenty-seven. Whether this was part of a plan Marcus and Kerry had created to undermine Kingsley’s authority, it is hard to tell. The only thing that can be said with certain is that Kingsley shed no tears for either Kerry or Marcus when their time came.
However, the most egregious of Kingsley truths that occur in the book, is his handling of the Shadow Ambassador, Damon Glasgow. It is hard to determine how Damon became involved in the peace negotiations as he never wrote anything down in his life, but I am fairly confident it was where Kingsley and Damon met for the first time. I also think the brief conversation that took place in chapter twenty-eight is accurate. However, one is baffled by Kingsley’s brazen mention of Damon at his own inauguration as governor as he spent most of his life denying that any deal prior to the Second Shadow War had ever been made between him and Damon. He always claimed that the Shivian politician Sebastian Wallace pushed him to side with the Shadows once the war started because it seemed like they were most likely to win and yet, we are supposed to believe that Damon did not utilize the inauguration to discuss David’s plans for the war and the future of the KLA? I think I have done enough in my novels, articles, and presentations to prove that Damon and Kingsley discussed plans for the Second Shadow War on the night of his gubernatorial inauguration and that Kingsley, himself, visited Paradise later that year to further discuss the war. I also argue that it was during this visit that he first met Rezan Masters and decided to side with him against David and Emmy once they had won the war-all of which Kingsley has spent a lifetime denying.
However, the most egregious of Kingsley truths that occur in the book, is his handling of the Shadow Ambassador, Damon Glasgow. It is hard to determine how Damon became involved in the peace negotiations as he never wrote anything down in his life, but I am fairly confident it was where Kingsley and Damon met for the first time. I also think the brief conversation that took place in chapter twenty-eight is accurate. However, one is baffled by Kingsley’s brazen mention of Damon at his own inauguration as governor as he spent most of his life denying that any deal prior to the Second Shadow War had ever been made between him and Damon. He always claimed that the Shivian politician Sebastian Wallace pushed him to side with the Shadows once the war started because it seemed like they were most likely to win and yet, we are supposed to believe that Damon did not utilize the inauguration to discuss David’s plans for the war and the future of the KLA? I think I have done enough in my novels, articles, and presentations to prove that Damon and Kingsley discussed plans for the Second Shadow War on the night of his gubernatorial inauguration and that Kingsley, himself, visited Paradise later that year to further discuss the war. I also argue that it was during this visit that he first met Rezan Masters and decided to side with him against David and Emmy once they had won the war-all of which Kingsley has spent a lifetime denying.
So what conclusion have I come too in regards to this book's
legitimacy? There are parts of this novel that are true and other parts that,
despite being buried by Kingsley truths, reveal more than I think he intended.
The value of the book is not in the truth it sheds on events, but on what it
reveals about Kingsley’s character and psyche. I believe he wrote the memoir in
an attempt to justify his actions, but also as an attempt to rearrange events
to fit his own worldview. Even when I interviewed him, it was clear that he had
mentally rearranged events either for my benefit or because he was unable to
come to terms with what he did during the Second Shadow War and his stint as a
KLA member. This is why I believe his chapter on suffering from battle fatigue
is the only truly honest part of the book. It is something I don’t think he
ever truly recovered from and I think the Second Shadow War simply added new
ghosts to haunt him in his old age.
Alexander Phillips
Janus 15th 1899
Alexander Phillips
Janus 15th 1899
