Final Exam

"Ozymandias" by Percy Bysshe-Shelley

The narrator tells how he heard a story from a traveller who saw the ruins of the statue of Pharoah Ramses II (Ozymandias) in the desert. He describes the heartless and cruel expression on the statue’s broken face and Ramses boast (carved on the base of the statue). His boast is ironic and becomes laughable because of the setting - all his accomplishments have disappeared.

The point of the poem is the irony: the difference between what we expect and what we actually see. Firstly, since Ozymandias claims to be God ("king of kings"), we expect his statue or buildings ("works") to remain. However, the last 3 lines tell us that nothing remains.

Secondly, since he claims to be God, we also expect him to know that his sculptor is making fun of him. This second irony is a bit more subtle that the first one. There is a double meaning on the word mock: it means "to copy" and "to make fun of". So the hand of the sculptor mocked the boastful heart of Ozymandias. How? The sculptor knows that his statue will be destroyed but that the pedestal and face will last longest. So he puts the ridiculous claim on the pedestal and shows us the type of tyrant the man was on his face.

The tone is also interesting. He is being reflective, obviously. But he is perhaps optimistic since we realise that he is suggesting that the violence and destruction of all dictators/tyrants/despots must evenutally come to an end. The tone might be sad and depressed since we realise that we must all die and none of our achievements will last.

Picture courtesy of http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/egypt/thebes/ramesseum/ramesseum.html

George Orwell Background

Picture courtesy of the New York Times

George Orwell seemed too honest for his time. When the rest of his generation were turning communist, Orwell wrote Animal Farm; when the British Empire were clinging to India, Orwell wrote "Shooting an Elephant"; during the "roaring twenties" of excess wealth and luxurious lifestyles, Orwell penned Down and Out in Paris and London; when the world was discovering technology and the modern state, Orwell saw through it all and produced the chilling 1984. Educated at Eton, he went back to Burma, rather than on to Oxford, where he wrote "Shooting an Elephant."

Shooting an Elephant

We can see this story as a narrative Essay: he uses a narrative (story) to support and opinion/argument. The story is how he shot an elephant. The opinion is that rulers or people in control are dictators/despots/tyrants because the people expect them to be or the circumstances force to to act this way. How? He realises that he should not shoot the calm and noble elephant, doesn't want to shoot it and doesn't even know how to shoot it, but he does simply because he doesn't want to look a fool in front of the Burmese because they expect him to shoot it - they have watched him bring his gun and now they want to see him use it for some afternoon fun. He shoots it and the animals dies in a horrifyingly painful way with the Burmese cutting it up before it is dead.

You should also realise that an elephant is an important cultural symbol on the Indian Subcontinent. It used to be the livelihood of many of the people, doing the hard labour in clearing forests and hauling goods. The elephant was also used to carry the Rajahs on important occasions, like weddings, state visits and hunting parties. Even today, he elephant symbolises devotion, patience and truth among the people of the Far East. The important god Ganesh, son of Shiva, is also pictured as an elephant and, with a mouse, he signifies the unity of the small with the big.

In this short story, Orwell uses a seemingly insignificant event to illustrate the conflict between his powerless and empty position among the Burmese and his official status as a "sahib" and colonial police officer. However, at a deeper level, Orwell also develops this theme to show how dictators sometimes make cruel decisions because it is a role expected of them, not because they are personally like that. He faces an unenviable moral dilemma where he is caught between his fear of looking weak in front of the colonised Burmese and his responsibility as a police officer to uphold justice. Orwell's internal conflict seems to rise as his external conflict with the Burmese lessens. Basically, he has to sacrifice his ideals to hang onto some respectability. What an awful position to be in, yet Orwell thinks it is quite common.

The story is autobiographical. It is perhaps only because Orwell is so brutally honest and exceptionally clear in analysing his motives and describing the situation that the story is worth reading today.

Sequence of Events

Paragraph 1: Orwell and the imperialists aren’t liked by the Burmese.

2. Orwell and other imperialists also hate imperialism, but they are forced to be imperialists by the expectations of the locals.

3. For example: An elephant goes on a rampage in a small town.

4. The elephant kills a man, so Orwell sends for his rifle.

5. The Burmese follow Orwell to find the elephant.

6. Orwell decides it is not necessary to shoot the elephant.

7. The Burmese expect him to shoot it.

8. Orwell decides to shoot it, but against his will.

9. He takes aim.

10. He shoots it and it collapses.

11. The Burmese rush to inspect it, he shoots it repeatedly, but it is still alive.

12. He leaves as the Burmese cut it up.

13. Opinions about the shooting:

Elephant Owner: Furious, but powerless to do anything.

Older Europeans: He made the correct decision legally, since it had killed a human.

Younger Europeans: cynics - make fun of the issue.

Orwell: Realises his deception.

In case you were curious as to how Ganesha (also called Ganapathi) is depicted.

"A Mild Attack of Locusts" by Doris Lessing

Characters:

Margaret, Richard (her husband) and Stephen (her father-in-law)

This story accurately reflects life in Africa, the imagery and the concerns of the African experience.

One of the major concerns on life in Southern Africa (and elsewhere) is conflict. The most obvious conflict is between man in the form of farmers and nature in the form of rain, drought, and locusts.

Related to this is the conflict between the beauty of the African setting and its problems. European colours tend to be white or grey in winter and blue or green in summer. Arabian colours are shades of yellow. African colours run the spectrum from pinks, blue, and greens to red, gold and ox-blood. At the same time the characters are in direct contact with a powerful nature. But there are always problems of survival - it is a harsh continent. it is almost as if nature wants to maintain a balance by making it beautiful, yet deadly.

A personal conflict for Margaret is that she feels isolated as a wife from her husband. She doesn't understand when they discuss farming issues, she doesn't understand how they cope with the problems, she tries to join the men when they battle against the locusts but has to run back into the house. Also, when Richard returns from the fight, he only asks her for a drink and spends the rest of the evening talking to his father. Related to this is Margaret's problems as a city girl trying to adapt to the farm way of life. She has to abandon her city fashion and lifestyle for the more sensible and conservative farm life. All this creates a moral dilemma in Margaret about whether she should remain on the farm with Richard or not.

At the same time, this story is not just about reflecting and capturing the African experience on paper, at a deeper symbolic level it is also a sense of protest at colonialism.

The locusts are perhaps symbolic. The isn’t the first story of locusts in Africa. Up north in Egypt, locusts were one of the plagues visited on Pharoah Ramses II in order to persuade him to free his slaves in the Moses (Musa) epic. The locusts are also compared to other plagues (hail, darkness, and turning water into blood). The plagues passed and the slaves were still in Egypt; this plague passes and the Africans still work for their white farmers. The parallels in the stories are tempting to explore. The locusts moved from the north to the south like the African governments gained independence in the north then the south. The white farmers have to work together with the government to fight the swarms of black and rust coloured locusts that settle on everything and destroy their farms.

There is also an strong suggestion of a prophecy when Richard and Stephen talk about eating locusts, almost like John the Baptist (Yehya) ate locusts during his days in the wilderness. The prophecy seems to suggest a natural law that slaves will escape their masters.

At the time this story was published, many of the former colonies were being given or were taking their Independence by force and the former colonists seemed somewhat overwhelmed by the force of history like they seem overwhelmed by the forces of nature here. However, while it might be a battle of groups, Margaret doesn't see the battle as personal since Richard carefully frees the locust from his pocket "as if he would not harm a hair of his head."

"Hawk Roosting" by Ted Hughes

In the poem, the hawk describes how he sees his position and role in the world: he is the merciless predator in control of his own little piece of creation. The poem seems to work on two levels: on the literal level, this is simply a hawk telling us how he lives by killing; on the figurative or symbolic level, this is about the nature of dictators/despot/tyrants who are cruel to their people and resist change. You know from Macbeth and the Great Chain of Being that Hawks are symbols of rulers; and in this poem the overuse of personification clearly suggests that this hawk is intended to be a human or a group of humans. Remember, many powerful and dictatorial nations have used hawks/eagles as their symbols (the Romans and Nazis are two).

Short summary:

In the first stanza, Hughes shows how that even while it is roosting, the hawk is totally dedicated (in eating and sleeping) to perfect killing. There is nothing modest in this hawk's claims.

In the second stanza, he argues how he seems to be in control of all nature (trees, sky, and earth). Some powerful countries seem to control all natural resources.

In the third stanza, he uses hyperbole to claim that he is the end-point of evolution (he calls it creation) and so he can claim control of creation (or other races), like man.

In the fourth stanza, he tells us that he ignores arguments (sophistry) about whether his actions are right or wrong, and simply kills where he wants, it is his habit.

In the fifth stanza, he states that his killing is merciless and unhampered, in addition, he doesn't even feel the need to support his actions with reasons. Certainly, the actions of some people we know and nations in particular seem merciless - thank heavens there are war crimes tribunals (trials and courts).

In the final stanza, his over-inflated ego has gone so far as to claim that even the sun (the giver of life) supports him in how he destroys life, and therefore he has prevented any changes and will carry on doing so. The tone is rather bleak here, because he suggests that there is little hope for the oppressed people and communities worldwide. By contrast, the Ozymandias poem seems to suggest that these despots pass away and become buried in the sands of time.