Shooting an Elephant and other essays

[kev67]

I have been reading Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays. I have really enjoyed them. I think they contain some of Orwell's best writing. I have just finished Thus, Thus Were the Joys, which was a very long essay, more like a mini memoir about his days at prep school. I think it is probably the best thing he wrote, certainly something to think about next time you watch Downton Abbey or some other period drama about posh people. One of the reviews on the book cover, by Christopher Hitchens, says Orwell is still vividly contemporary. I thought so myself. Sometimes when you read a book written long ago, or by a very old person, it feels like going back in time, but I did not get that feeling. This despite some of the situations he describes sounding straight out of Dickens, for example, The Spike, about sleeping at a homeless shelter, or How the Poor Die about a hospital in Paris that Orwell was ill at in the late 1920s. How the Poor Die was interesting, bearing in mind the recent controversy about the standard of care at some NHS hospitals recently. I was reading it while travelling to visit my father in a nursing home. I am glad to say the care he receives is orders of magnitude better than that. Other essays, for example Looking Back on the Spanish Civil War, are interesting because you can see how his thinking is developing towards him writing Animal Farm and particularly 1984.

[jayat]

At this moment I'm reading "Heart of Darkness". I do it to dose my lecture over Shakespeare. Last writing work I’ve read of him: Twelfth Night. Brilliant but I must admit (ashamed) I got tired of so much light and greatness. On the other hand, Conrad’s writing is elegant and riveting. He draws your attention even when the subject is so disgusting, revolting sometimes. It’s quite graphic on my opinion. By using a relevant symbology on people and the same earth, for instance, Conrad achieved to raise the story to the cult category I would dare to say. All that brings me to confirm the fact you’ve got great writers in the Anglophone countries. I expect to end this Conrad’s book by the end of this month. I’m using a translation to the present-days English but I try to read from the original (in both authors).

[kev67]

At this moment I'm reading "Heart of Darkness". I do it to dose my lecture over Shakespeare. Last writing work I’ve read of him: Twelfth Night. Brilliant but I must admit (ashamed) I got tired of so much light and greatness. On the other hand, Conrad’s writing is elegant and riveting. He draws your attention even when the subject is so disgusting, revolting sometimes. It’s quite graphic on my opinion. By using a relevant symbology on people and the same earth, for instance, Conrad achieved to raise the story to the cult category I would dare to say. All that brings me to confirm the fact you’ve got great writers in the Anglophone countries. I expect to end this Conrad’s book by the end of this month. I’m using a translation to the present-days English but I try to read from the original (in both authors).

Wouldn't it have been better to post this in the Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness sub-forum if you wanted to discuss it?

[jayat]

Maybe yes, thank you

[qimissung]

I love the essay Shooting an Elephant. It is my most favorite essay ever, ever, ever. Well, except for Virginia Woolf's Death of a Moth. Orwell is without a doubt the most brilliant and astute writer on the planet. Can you think of another writer who would reveal that about himself?

[kev67]

I will have to read that essay again. I did not think Orwell could be blamed too much for his actions. He was in a difficult position and he had to make some decisions. These days the police may well insist a dog be put down if it bites someone. That elephant had killed someone. I thought the person who should really have been in trouble was the elephant's owner. He had lost control of it; he had gone to look for it in the wrong place, and in the meantime the elephant had killed someone.

[qimissung]

I don't blame Orwell at all, although I am referring specifically to what he says near the end of the essay

“I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.”

He had not set out to shoot the elephant, even after he knew it had killed a man:

"I had halted on the road. As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him. It is a serious matter to shoot a working elephant – it is comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery – and obviously one ought not to do it if it can possibly be avoided. And at that distance, peacefully eating, the elephant looked no more dangerous than a cow. I thought then and I think now that his attack of "must" was already passing off; in which case he would merely wander harmlessly about until the mahout came back and caught him. Moreover, I did not in the least want to shoot him. I decided that I would watch him for a little while to make sure that he did not turn savage again, and then go home."

As you point out it was a different time and place and what we would decide to do now is not necessarily how it would be viewed a century ago.


The essay itself is not about the elephant, per se, but about Orwell, and his place in the universe, i.e. as a citizen of the British Empire, so that even though he despised what the empire stood for, at that moment with a gun in his hand and the natives watching his every move, he represented the empire and it's values, reprehensible as he found them.

Even though the two seem hardly comparable, what he went through really reminds me of what it's like to be a teacher and face a particularly difficult and hostile class. You feel that you must assert your power, even though you know that the kids see through you and know you for the putz that you are, and even though on whole you sympathize with them and the ridiculousness of the adult world that prefers them to remain powerless and unquestioning.

Not to mention any comparisons with the United States at this moment in time.

[kev67]

I do not know much about elephants. It may be that an elephant is different to a dangerous dog in that an elephant's behaviour is more predictable. Possibly all elephants are dangerous during their 'must', whatever that is, but harmless otherwise. Perhaps everyone accepts a level of risk because of their usefulness. I wondered whether Orwell would have resisted the pressure to shoot the animal if it had not killed anyone. I wonder whether the villagers would have created such pressure if the elephant had not killed someone and caused so much damage. Possibly, it was just the spectacle of the elephant being killed that the villagers demanded. However, maybe they thought the elephant should be punished the killing the Dravidian and that they should be compensated, by eating it, for the damage it had done to their property.

Your analogy with teaching is a gloomy one, although come to think of it, the relationship between the pupils and teachers at the secondary school I went to was like that. A lot of the pupils spent much of their time undermining the teachers. I resented their authority myself, although I was not as misbehaved.

[kev67]

I suppose a big point is that Orwell would have behaved differently if the crowd of villagers had not been there. He shot it because he wanted to please the villagers and gain a little respect from them. He did not want to lose face in front of them, and felt he ought to behave in the way that was expected of him. If there had been an enquiry, Orwell could not have used these reasons to defend his decision, yet those were the ones that felt overwhelming to him. I suppose he felt his moral courage had failed him.

[qimissung]

I suppose a big point is that Orwell would have behaved differently if the crowd of villagers had not been there. He shot it because he wanted to please the villagers and gain a little respect from them. He did not want to lose face in front of them, and felt he ought to behave in the way that was expected of him. If there had been an enquiry, Orwell could not have used these reasons to defend his decision, yet those were the ones that felt overwhelming to him. I suppose he felt his moral courage had failed him.

I think this is what happened. The thing is they felt differently about elephants, because they worked, and it had not gone mad, only into "must" which happens to male elephants.

Here is a wikipedia link describing "musth."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musth


Here is the final paragraph of the essay:



Afterwards, of course, there were endless discussions about the shooting of the elephant. The owner was furious, but he was only an Indian and could do nothing. Besides, legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed, like a mad dog, if its owner fails to control it. Among the Europeans opinion was divided. The older men said I was right, the younger men said it was a damn shame to shoot an elephant for killing a coolie, because an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie. And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.

Notice he says that "legally" he had done the right thing.

I think as far as the Europeans or rather, the English were concerned, he could have done just about anything as long as none of them died and he acted as though he knew what he was doing.

The natives would have had to accept whatever he did, also, so I think largely he acted as did because they were out in force, he was alone, and yes, I think he felt he had to save "face."

[kev67]

It could be that the presence of the villagers actually forced Orwell into making the correct decision. Orwell did not want to kill the elephant. He planned to stay put and only shoot it if started rampaging through the village again. That may have been taking an unnecessary risk. Probably his superiors would have backed up any judgement he made, presuming it was not totally unreasonable.

I suppose there is a good chance the elephant would have been shot even if its owner had come back to claim it. The authorities may have insisted on it. Then, whoever was in authority may have ticked Orwell off for not shooting it earlier.

The younger men seem to have been less mature or more overtly racist than the older men. Possibly the younger men were indulging in some sick humour.

[kev67]

Here is a wikipedia link describing "musth."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musth

Interesting link. Musth is not directly linked to reproduction like the rut, but seems more a behaviour pattern evolved for shaking up elephant hierarchies. Bull elephants in musth become so violent they may attack their own family members, never mind people. Mahouts controlled their elephants by tying them to strong trees and not feeding them for five to eight days. In western zoos, they are kept completely isolated for one to two months. The elephant must have broken away from its tree.

I wonder why the Wikipedia page says "Shooting an Elephant is a possibly autobiographical account by George Orwell." I assumed it was definitely an autobiographical account. It was not a short story, surely?

[qimissung]

That all sounds very plausible.

According to Wikipedia (again), there is little evidence to show that this incident actually happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_an_Elephant

Apparently his childhood wasn't all that miserable either -also Wikipedia-a childhood friend, Jacintha Buddicom "repudiated Orwell's schoolboy misery described in the essay, stating that "he was a specially happy child".


BTW, if you google his son's name, Richard Horatio Blair and then click on images you can see some interesting photographs of the two of them.

[ralfyman]

Everyman has published a thick anthology of many of his essays.

[kev67]

That all sounds very plausible.

According to Wikipedia (again), there is little evidence to show that this incident actually happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_an_Elephant

The degree to which the story is fiction has been disputed. In his biography of Orwell, George Orwell: A Life, Bernard Crick cast doubt on the idea that Orwell himself actually shot an elephant. No independent account of Orwell's actions has been found and there was no official record of the incident, which was unusual considering the destruction of valuable property.
Peter Davison, the editor of Orwell's Complete Works, includes an interview with George Stuart, a contemporary of Orwell in Burma, who said that Orwell was transferred to Kathar as punishment for shooting an elephant. "An elephant was considered a valuable asset to any timber firm - and Orwell would have been severely reprimanded for such unnecessary slaughter. It was not long after the incident that he was transferred from Moulmein to a quiet post in Upper Burma called Katha." Davison also includes in the complete works a news item from the Rangoon Gazette, March 22, 1926 which describes a Major E. C. Kenny shooting an elephant in similar circumstances. When one biographer questioned his wife, Sonia Brownell, she replied, "Of course he shot a ****ing elephant. He said he did. Why do you always doubt his ****ing word?!"


I hope Orwell did shoot the elephant. It would be outrageous to pass that essay off as fact if it were fiction. It would be libeling the Burmese villagers for a start. Even if incident had occurred to another policeman it would be unethical to attribute what his own feelings would be on someone else. I think it would also undermine all his other works of non-fiction. However, if George Stuart was right in that Orwell was transferred to Kathar as punishment for unnecessarily slaughtering the elephant, it is strange that Orwell does not mention it in the essay.

Apparently his childhood wasn't all that miserable either -also Wikipedia-a childhood friend, Jacintha Buddicom "repudiated Orwell's schoolboy misery described in the essay, stating that "he was a specially happy child".

I doubt Jacintha's memory from thirty years previously would have been any better than Orwell's. She was not there with him at the same prep school, which is where he was unhappy, not at home. Orwell wrote himself he was not unhappy all the time.

BTW, if you google his son's name, Richard Horatio Blair and then click on images you can see some interesting photographs of the two of them.

I have wondered what happened to Orwell's son. He was actually his adopted son. I gather, it was Orwell's wife, Eileen, who wanted children but could not have any due to Orwell's infertility. Then she died while undergoing a hysterectomy. Then Orwell died himself while Richard was still an infant. I don't suppose Richard can remember his parents much. I wonder what he did with all the royalties, or did Orwell sign them away in his will.