A rare picture of George Orwell, 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

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.

"Ozymandias" by Percy Byshe 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 story is the irony: the shocking contract between what we expect a powerful man like Ramses II to leave as a legacy and the endless emptiness that is actually there - 5000 years have almost destroyed everything.  We now laugh at his scorn and his boast to be God (king of kings).  Shelley also points out how relevant this lesson is for modern potentates.

You must be able to pick out Ramses’ boasts and how time has destroyed each one of them.

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

"A Mild Attack of Locusts" by Doris Lessing

British colonialism in Africa

Doris Lessing's story is set in British colonial Africa and deals with the conflicts colonials had to face there.  The main characters are white farmers (the black characters don't even get a name) in a mostly black and hostile continent, and they feel strangely out of place. 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.  However, while it is 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."

Harshness of the African setting

Africa is not easy land to farm. Constant plagues, periodic droughts, veld fires, army worms, floods, frosts etc, take their toll. Then there is the shortage of technology and skilled labour which, together with the heat, make it a constant battle to survive. In fact, the war against nature seems to be a central theme in the whole African experience, but it is softened by the rare natural beauty of Africa - just look at the colours Margaret describes at the end of the story, the remoteness and peacefulness that they recognise.  Richard and Old Stephen might have lived there for a long time and battled successfully against all kinds of troubles, but still expect more trouble since they end the story with, "It  could have been worse, it could be much worse."

Literary tradition of locusts

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 Israelite slaves (the Moses story).  The locusts are also compared to two other plagues (hail, darkness, and flood). 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 independence movements.  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 ate locusts during his days in the wilderness.  The prophecy seems to suggest a natural law that slaves will escape their masters.

Women’s expression and role in a patriarchal (male dominated) society

Margaret has a problem in this story: she is the only woman in a male controlled (patriarchal) family and has only been on the farm three years while her father-in law has farmed there for forty.   She seems confined to the kitchen and the house during the whole episode and seems to come to accept her different life on the farm.  However, she has the power of choosing how to tell the story and is able to evaluate all the characters and the setting – farmer and servant, black and white.  

Please don't forget that while the story is set in southern Africa, it contains references to the whole of Africa and, by implication, to injustice everywhere.

Questions or problems regarding this web site should be directed to disenglish@hotmail.com.
There is no copyright on any material here if used for academic purposes.  In all other cases please contact me.
Last modified: Wednesday March 19, 2003.