Analysis of Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell
George Orwell's essay 'Shooting an Elephant' gives remarkable insight into the human psyche. The essay presents a powerful theme of inner conflict. Orwell feels strong inner conflict between what he believes as a human being, and what he believes and should do as an imperial police officer. The author is amazingly effective in illustrating this conflict by providing specific examples of contradictory feelings, by providing an anecdote that exemplified his feelings about his situation, and by using vivid imagery to describe his circumstances.
Orwell begins to show his inner conflict by stating how he felt about being a European imperial policeman. By serving Britain is a policeman he is showing that he is loyal to his country, but at the same time he believed that ??imperialism was an evil thing?? His conflict results form the fact that he hates the British Empire which should make him pity the Burmese people but he does not. This is made clear when he says, ?All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited beasts who tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakably tyranny, as something clamped down, in saecula saeculorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest?s guts.?
The primar...
In the novel, Fahrenheit 451 written by Ray Bradbury demonstrates why illiteracy can lead to a dystopia. On the contrary, the short story The End of the whole Mess written by Stephen King reveals why having too much literacy can be horrific to the world. Steve jobs once said, “The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.” In both the novel and the story people try to set up certain rules or are born with talent that is driven to change the world for good, nevertheless they end up in dystopias.
Every day, each individual will look back on decisions he or she have made and mature from those experiences. Though it takes time to realize these choices, the morals and knowledge obtained from them are priceless. In George Orwell’s nonfictional essay, “Shooting an Elephant”, a young Orwell was stationed in Burma for the British imperial forces, tasked to deal with an elephant who destroyed various parts of the village Moulmein while its owner was away. Backed by second thoughts and a crowd of thousands, he finds himself shooting the elephant and reflecting that it was not justified; however, it was a choice pushed by his duty and the people. Written with a fusion of his young and old self’s outlook on shooting the elephant, Orwell’s essay is a sensational read that captivates his audience and leaves them questioning his decision.
Fahrenheit 451 is a dystopian novel, by Ray Bradbury, where individuality and knowledge is frowned upon, and books are illegal. Although, the protagonists, Montag, starts to question why these things are considered horrific in their despotic society. On Montag’s journey, he becomes close to several people who assist him in pondering the true reason books are banned and how it leads to society's low standards of knowledge. Readers can use the author’s tone to infer his purpose. By analyzing his diction, the purpose can be seen, and related back to our society today.
Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451, is set in a dystopian future where books are illegal and firemen start fires instead of putting them out. The theme is to fight for your freedom when it is taken away by society. The first reason that illustrates this theme is, life before Montag had books was boring and depressing for him. Second, when Montag discovers his excitement about books he finds a purpose in life, something worth fighting for. Third, without dissenting voices society would be just like it is in Fahrenheit 451. Throughout history, there have been dissenting voices that changed our society. Without them, many minorities would be forgotten.
As a British Man In Burma George Orwell already sticks out in a crowd and being an authoritative figure does not help. Most Englishmen at the time were imperialists trying to push their European ways on the Burmans, however George was not like that, he believed that the imperialist ways are wrong, and that
One feeling that is carried out through the end of the narrative is guilt. Orwell despised his job as he stated, “I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British.” (323) In a job like Orwell’s at the time, he got to see the dirty work of the empire at close quarters. As Orwell states, “The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey, cowed faces of the long-term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos-all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of
George Orwell, an ardent opponent of endemic social inequality, records in his persuasive essay Shooting an Elephant a life changing moment that discloses far more than just shooting an elephant. In his essay Orwell eloquently describes the scene of killing an elephant and articulates the sensations he feels during the brief yet emotional event. Orwell utilizes a myriad of literary techniques to convey the situational ironical presentation of imperialism. Orwell objective is to convince his audience, the working class of Britain, that imperialism both has a negative impact on those governed and degrades those exercising their power.
In “Shooting an Elephant” writer George Orwell illustrates the terrible episode that explains more than just the action of “shooting an elephant.” Orwell describes the scene of the killing of an elephant in Burma and reveals a number of emotions he experienced during the short, but traumatic event. Effectively, the writer uses many literary techniques to plant emotions and create tension in this scene, leading to an ironic presentation of imperialism. With each of the realistic descriptions of the observing multitude and the concrete appeal of the narrator’s pathos, Orwell thrives in persuading the audience that imperialism not only has a destructive impact on those being governed under the imperialists’ oppressive power, but also corrupts
Orwell, George. “Shooting an Elephant.” The Brief Arlington Reader. Ed. Nancy Perry. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. 334-339.
The state of power established through the imperialistic backdrop show that Orwell should have control over the Burmese. Orwell is a British colonial officer in Burma, which is under the control of the British, and because of this he should have authority and control over the Burmans. The presence of the empire is established when Orwell explains that, “with one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny...upon the will of the prostrate people; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest’s gut.” (144) This ideal imperialistic circumstance, where ...
The character, himself, is part of the British rule and is supposed to have all of the power. The Burmese, though, dangle the power in front of him. He is weak and unsure of himself, stating that he “wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it” (60). The character is not able to stand up for what he believes in -- that is, not shooting the elephant. There is a back and forth struggle in his mind about whether or not the elephant needs to be killed. Orwell’s character is fully aware that it is wrong and immoral to shoot an innocent creature, but eventually secedes to the demands of the Burmese, attempting to prove his cooperation and loyalty to those watching. In a way, the Burmese represent the pressures of society. Because of this, the audience can sympathize with the main character. There are always times when we, the readers, are unsure of ourselves, but we eventually make a decision. Whether we make the decision for ourselves or are assisted by others, in the end, we must take responsibility for our own actions. In a broader sense, Orwell’s character represents the internal conflict that everyone faces: should we conform to society or should we be our own
Orwell speaks of how he is so against imperialism, but gives in to the natives by shooting the elephant to prove he is strong and to avoid humiliation. He implies that he does not want to be thought of as British, but he does not want to be thought the fool either. Orwell makes his decision to shoot the elephant appear to be reasonable but underneath it all he questions his actions just as he questions those of the British. He despised both the British Empire as well as the Burmese natives, making everything more complicated and complex. In his essy he shows us that the elephant represents imperialism; therefore, the slow destruction of the elephant must represent the slow demise of British Imperialism.
The glorious days of the imperial giants have passed, marking the death of the infamous and grandiose era of imperialism. George Orwell's essay, Shooting an Elephant, deals with the evils of imperialism. The unjust shooting of an elephant in Orwell's story is the central focus from which Orwell builds his argument through the two dominant characters, the elephant and its executioner. The British officer, the executioner, acts as a symbol of the imperial country, while the elephant symbolizes the victim of imperialism. Together, the solider and the elephant turns this tragic anecdote into an attack on the institution of imperialism.
Orwell is an unhappy young policeman who lives in mental isolation. He hates British imperialism, he hates Burmese natives, and he hates his job. He is completely alone with his thoughts since he cannot share his idea that "imperialism was an evil thing" with his countrymen. Orwell sees the British rule as "an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down. . . upon the will of prostate peoples" because he observes firsthand the cruel imprisonments and whippings that the British use to enforce their control. Nor can he talk to the Burmese because of the "utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East." This "utter silence" results from the reasoning behind imperialism that says, "Our cultures are different. My culture has more power than your culture. Therefore, my culture is superior in every way, and it will rule yours." If one is a member of a superior culture, one must not make jokes, share confidences, or indicate in any way that a member of the inferior culture is one's equal. A wall, invisible but impenetrable, stands between the British and the Burmese. His hatred for...
Orwell?s extraordinary style is never displayed well than through ?Shooting an Elephant,? where he seemingly blends his style and subject into one. The story deals with a tame elephant that all of a sudden turns bad and kills a black Dravidian coolie Indian. A policeman kills this elephant through his conscience because the Indians socially pressurized him greatly. He justified himself as he had killed elephant as a revenge for coolie.