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.
Another example would be, “Chipmunk-like, my cheeks packed with warm nuts, I cocked my head” (Journey 2). Also, Sedaris’s comparison with how the spiders on the window were like “tenant on a building” and how the dark isle is like “corridors”, and flight attendant are “nurses. Both “April & Paris” and “Journey” are a compelling piece of work. I have never read a book with such interest. His humor in “Journey” is outstanding as well as his compassion in “April” His writing style as well as him being a funny wordsmith may have been the root to his success in attracting such a wide range of audience that admire his works.
Orwell feels like an outcast rebel, he wants the Burmese to stand up against the British Empire. Young Orwell sets the tone of how he is torn between doing his job and doing what was morally and ethically right. (shooting the elephant or letting it live) 3. Some analogies that Orwell uses are: the elephant looked no more dangerous than a cow, grandmotherly. They watched me like a conjurer about to perform a trick.
It almost leads us to question Henry’s morals if he is willing to kill infants. Although we assume that Henry is just playing up what will happen because he hasn’t lost control of them yet we have to play with the notion that Henry isn’t on as high of a moral ground as we thought even though it might be a just ground. This speech also uses a lot more detail to describe certain events than the other two speeches. He vividly states, “ the blind and bloody soldier with foul hand defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters:”(34-35). This is very detailed and horrific because he is saying he won’t be able to stop his soldiers from raping the women in the city.
He first starts by saying: “As I started forward practically the whole population of the quarter flocked out of the houses and followed me (287).” The crowd misunderstood him when he was holding the gun. It was to protect him and not to kill the elephant. The narrator explains his feelings as: “It made me vaguely uneasy (287).” And he goes on saying “it was unnerving to have a crowd following you (287).” He felt pressured with everyone watching
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.
George was a British sub-divisional police officer in the town of Lower Burma, Moulmein. George was against imperialism; he believed it was an evil thing and the sooner he got rid of his job the better. One day he was asked by the sub-inspector to take care of a crazed elephant at the other end of town. It’s unfortunate that when he got there he decided, by pressure of a group, to shoot the elephant instead of letting it live. I have been in situations such as this and, over time, I have taught myself how to not give into the complications of life.
Orwell refers to himself as being “young and ill-educated and I had had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East,” (Orwell) but according to Peter Firchow “even though Orwell had joined the Imperial Indian Police, thereby making an apparently overt anti-intellectual choice rather than go to university, as most of his classmates at Eton did, he was definitely not uneducated or even unsophisticated” (Firchow, 81). “Shooting an Elephant” was written in the first person point of view, which I feel makes the writer and the
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 .
“Must” is when male elephant is sexually active and extremely violent, so it is dangerous for it to be around people. The elephant does eventually kill a man in the street. The man’s mangled body lay in the mud with his back skinned off. “The friction of the great beast's foot had stripped the skin from his back as neatly as one skins a rabbit.”(Orwell). The danger this elephant brought to the people was evident.