Though both characters' conflict was similar in that truly the conflict was in how each of them felt. Orwell felt conflicted in shooting the elephant because the elephant was not harming anyone. He was under pressure to do the right thing, the right thing being shooting the elephant that had already killed a man, and Orwell was a man of authority. Orwell did shoot the elephant, but Gideon, on the other hand, was conflicted on sharing his medicinal secret to those that only wanted to profit from it, yet he wanted to share his cure because it would help so many people, but he did not. The difference between Orwell's and Gideon's internal conflict was the outcome.
Appius did not care about the truth of a case that passed through his courthouse. Not only did he allow a completely untrue case to be tried by the false churl, he asked for it to occur. The doctor shows that he does not approve of this occurrence by the fate of that judge, who is thrown in jail and later kills himself. This being said, finding justice would be the most important factor in his role as a judge. Many folks do not realize how difficult life can be out in the world.
We are left at the end wondering if shooting the elephant was really the best action for Orwell to have taken. Did shooting the elephant begin to cut his ties with the imperial force, or with his moral disposition? His ambivalence nonetheless brings out his true character and vulnerability. Furthermore, we see him as a victim, being influenced by “the army” of Burmans, although he in fact is the murderer. This alone shows us the persuasion of ambivalent tone, ironic, but true.
The blame can not be placed on Lennie for this woman s death. Lennie had no idea what he had done, the only thing he knew was that George would be upset. George did not kill Lennie out of spite. It was not because his thoughtless, innocent, act had dashed George’s hopes of having a small farm. George had to do this because the other choices were more terrible.
There are many turning point situations in the following writings:’’Shooting an elephant by George Orwell,’’ Graduation by Angelou,’’letter from Birmingham Jail ‘’ by Dr King Jr and turning point by myself- Tamara Brutus. The purpose of this paper is to find common similarities among the aforementioned writings, and to relate each writing with Dr. Martin Luther King’s letter. There is one standing issue that can be found in these writings. This issue is freedom or more precise the lack of it. In the case of’’Shooting an elephant ‘’ we find the main character to be trapped in a dilemma which is that he hates the British Empire yet he represents it in Burma .
think that Steve Harmon is innocent. I think the reason why he is locked up because he wanted to be bad like the other guys and make people terrified of him , He was maybe able to get what ever he wanted just by being with these friends. Steve Harmon to me had nothing to do with crime, Like I said he was with the wrong crew, And the ended up getting him in trouble. I don't think that Steve Harmon knows Bobo I think that is Kings friend being that King and Steve were friends and Bobo and King made it seem like that they knew each other. But other from that I think that Bobo and Steve doesn't know each other.
DID HE HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE? In ma opinion I would say this is a grey situation meaning that it’s not black and it’s not white its in the middle, basically it’s a 2 sided case. I would start off by saying lennie had no right to act as God in taking his best friend’s life just because he made a mistake, God is the giver and taker of life so George had no right to take lennie’s life. There are many other ways in which George could have dealt with lennie for instance he could have taken lennie to the police, if he could have killed someone like a brother to him just like that then obviously he could have easily taken him 2 the police station and left him there to be taken care of. He could have easily told the police men what was wrong
The narrator tries to prove how sane he really is before the reader has read enough to make any kind of judgment about him. The narrator is so scared of the old man's evil eye that he has decided to kill him just to get rid of the evil eye. The narrator admits to committing a senseless crime. The old man was never mean to him or treated him wrong. The old man had nothing of value that the narrator wanted.
You gonna get me in trouble jus’ like George says you will” (91). He thought he was just keeping her quiet, not killing her. It’s not like he had the intention to kill her. His mental disability keeps him from thinking like a normal person. Lennie is not responsible for her death because he did not understand what was
The Pharisees and Sadducees accused him of not following the Jewish law because they felt that what he shared with the people was going against the traditional Jewish scripture and they felt that he deserved to be punished. I found this very unfair, just because Jesus had his own way of going about things and it wasn’t “their” way they felt that he was wrong. Now a days we all have our own views and opinions and we definitely would not have been hung on a cross nor would we have been treated as he was. I felt that his punishment was very serious, whether he was the messiah or not, no one deserves to be put to death for something of that matter. When I read that the crucifixion was a punishment that was usually given to people who committed crimes of thievery and other serious cases I became a little more upset.