Talk:Shooting an Elephant

Burmese v Burmans

Orwell uses 'Burmans' in the essay, but in fact the people involved were probably from the Mon_(ethnic_group). William Avery 20:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Symbolism

I'm not quite sure of what has been written of the symbolism of the essay. I remember analyzing this essay in a Literature class, and if I recall correctly, the basic message was that the British, in becoming the rulers of the Burmese, inadvertenly made themselves the subjects of the Burmese, as they were now required to meet certain expectations that they may not want to fulfill.

This is illustrated in the entire image Orwell casts when he talks about approaching the elephant.

"But at that moment I glanced round at the crowd that had followed me. It was an immense crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute. It blocked the road for a long distance on either side. I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot. They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick. They did not like me, but with the magical rifle in my hands I was momentarily worth watching."

If one thinks of the scene, there stands Orwell, with a rifle, standing in front of a massive crowd of Burmans, all watching him with apparent awe. Clearly one would envision Orwell to be the ruler, but it is NOT so. He has no desire to shoot the elephant, yet the mob pushes him to do it. He's fulfilling the expectations created by those subjected to imperial rule: "He [the white man] wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it."

Anyone else interested in this essay, please articulate your thoughts or, if inspired, implement some of the above into the article. If I find the courage/motivation/time to do so, I will, but anyone else can feel free to do so.

--Sephiriz 02:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the essay was against imperialism, but the wikipedia article depicts it as if he felt himself as just a puppet of the British, and they were the blame, while he describes himself as also being a puppet of the native crowd--it was both the pressure of the rulers and their subjects which brought him to the act. The natives not only had the expectation that he would shoot but would encourage it to take advantage of it. The portrayal is of imperialism as corruptive on all sides. Brianshapiro

'The Narrator' instead of 'Orwell'

We learned in School that we should never mix up the Author and the Narrator, even when a text is written in the 1st person. As this has happened here i am going to fix it. I hope no one minds...

The above is valid advice when you're reading fiction, but not so for autobiography. So the question is: should this piece be treated as fiction? I would say no. Orwell is clearly presenting this as a literal description of something that happened to him. --24.60.168.159 22:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Negative. There is much doubt that it is an autobiographical account. I think wikipedia just might have some sources. Too lazy to do the legwork for you, as im researching a report but if you google " shooting an elephant wiki" you will probably find it. -- praetorian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.85.238.58 (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unclear. Naively applying what "we learned in school" can be a bit silly, but in this case I think it works. What would really be helpful would be something in the article itself to clarify the status of this essay -- as autobiographical , semi-autobiographical or wholly fictional. In the second two cases, "the narrator" would be appropriate, I think. Solemnavalanche 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, strike that last comment. The last paragraph explains the situation well; I just didn't read it till after I wrote the above. Since its status as fiction/biography is unclear, I think playing it safe is best -- leave it as "the narrator." Solemnavalanche 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Elephant butchered alive? No.

I just read this story, and it doesn't say the elephant was butchered alive. It says:

I heard later that it took him half an hour to die. Burmans were bringing dahs and baskets even before I left, and I was told they had stripped his body almost to the bones by the afternoon.

Since the action of the story begins "early one morning," the animal may or may not have been "butchered alive." However, the text gives no clear indication that it was, and given the extreme nature of the claim, I'm removing it. Solemnavalanche 04:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange sentence

The phrase "acting just not to be looking a fool to save face" is incomprehensible, but is clearly trying to express something about the narrator's feelings, so I don't want to just remove it. Can someone who knows the story better than me try to fix that? Rissa (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessing as a Literature

I added this article to WP:LIT rather than WP:NOVEL for it being an essay instead of a novel. I feel it is well written, however it is totally lacking in references. It would be nice if the article can be expanded on what was Orwell's style of writing at this stage and how was it received. Who was its target? Where was it published? Such questions could be answered to establish a rounded article on the essay. Jappalang (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Revise the synopsis

That isn't a synopsis, it's a plot summary. A synopsis must only contain what the story is about, not the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedcrane (talk • contribs) 07:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Next on the agenda

I've made a few changes to this article that I hope are for the best, but now I don't know what else needs to be done. The summary has now become a plot as a result of the above message and I removed the quote from it in favour of an actual plot. I also screwed around with the lead a bit. Any pointers as to what needs doing now?--Skittles the hog (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've now turned "Symbolism" into "Themes" and added a new section. I'm reasonably new to Wikipedia, so if anyone knows what else needs doing to further improve this article, it would be great if they could make it known. Thanks--Skittles the hog (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Shooting an Elephant/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Initial assessment == I added this article to WP:LIT rather than WP:NOVEL for it being an essay instead of a novel. I feel it is well written, however it is totally lacking in references. It would be nice if the article can be expanded on what was Orwell's style of writing at this stage and how was it received. Who was its target? Where was it published? Such questions could be answered to establish a rounded article on the essay. Jappalang (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shooting an Elephant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120519021847/http://www.rogalinski.com.pl/jezyki-obce/english/orwell-still-matters/ to http://www.rogalinski.com.pl/jezyki-obce/english/orwell-still-matters//

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Author's name

The author is referred to throughout only by his pen name Orwell, except in the "Film adaptation" section, where he is only referred to as Eric Blair. Is this sensible, or should the same name be used throughout? Iapetus (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox question

I changed the infobox in this article from {{Infobox short story}} to {{Infobox essay}} to match the body of the article and the categories. Gonnym changed it back, with the edit summary "completely doesn't matter what the infobox is called". In this case, the "short story" infobox places the words "short story" at the top of the infobox, so it does matter. I believe that the "essay" infobox is more accurate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

added |type=, so how easy that is, without requiring creating a fork of another template? Gonnym (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this choice, for obvious reasons. I find it especially ironic that this is happening in an article about an essay by the author of "Politics and the English Language". Per Orwell: "the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts". – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)