Shooting An Elephant Rhetorical Analysis

1821 Words4 Pages

George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” and Annie Dillard’s “Living Like Weasels” are both profound essays that explore human instincts, ethical dilemmas, and the relationship between humanity and the natural world. Despite their differing contexts and themes, both authors employ a variety of rhetorical strategies to persuade their audiences. This essay will analyze each author’s primary purpose and audience, the strategies they chose to please or persuade the audience (logos, ethos, pathos), specific literary and rhetorical elements, and the effects these elements had on their essays and their readers. Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is a reflection on the moral complexities and inherent injustices of British colonialism. Written from the perspective of a colonial officer in Burma, Orwell’s purpose is to critique the imperial system and expose the mutual destruction it inflicts on both the oppressor and the oppressed. His audience includes scholars, activists, policymakers, and individuals familiar with colonial dynamics. Orwell uses a critical and reflective tone to engage these readers, as evidenced by his statement, “I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.” He is a shaman. In contrast, Dillard’s “Living Like Weasels” seeks to advocate for a simpler, more instinctual way of life inspired by nature. Her essay appeals to a diverse audience, including nature enthusiasts, philosophers, and general readers …show more content…

While this might appeal to a different audience, it would detract from the essay’s poetic and introspective qualities that encourage readers to reflect deeply on their own lives and societal

Open Document