Orwell

toc

**George Orwell**
- Orwell was available to make money. - The contidion of living place is rather dirty and filthy. - He experienced extreme starvation - sometimes, had no money to serve for himself. - Boris as a friend || - The job he got was delayed, but he was not looking for a job as he did in Paris. - He was rather a tramp than a worker. - Compared to Paris, London was much cleaner than Paris. - He had no income but there were always some place to sleep in- shelters such as a spike. - The author did not need to worry about what they eat - charity provied them some food like bread. - Paddy + Bozo are his friends || - He met friends who are in the similar situations so that they could share what they experienced and lived in; Bozo and Boris had the similar characteristics. They both are optimistic and, in a way, romantic. They tried to encourage Orwell with hope. - No matter which city he goes, there are always clear class distinction between the lower classes and the higher classes. - In both places, he focused and highlighted the importance of the appearance. ||
 * Differences and Similarities between Paris and London - Grace Yang (H clock)**
 * || Paris || London ||
 * differences || - The author looked for a job.
 * similarities |||| - Orwell experienced the extreme poverty in the both cities.

The plot of Down and Out in Paris and London (Michael Siu - H block) 1. Orwell introduces the hotel he lives in and the collection of residents it has 2. He begins to run out of money, and, to make matters worse, is robbed by an Italian; he first tastes poverty 3. He loses his job finally and, in efforts to find a job, looks for Boris to see if Boris can offer him a job 4. He finds Boris jobless in the address Boris gave Orwell 5. They both look for jobs together, but have not had much lucky because of Boris’s lame leg 6. Boris tries to ask his old lovers for money but is promptly turned down or ignored 7. They try for a job in the “secret” Russian communist party in Paris 8. Boris teaches Orwell the importance of appearance; not coincidentally, they are hired by the patron of the upcoming Auberge de Jehan 9. As they waited for Auberge de Jehan to open, Boris finds job for them both in the Hotel X 10. Orwell describes his impression of and experience in the Hotel X and the hierarchy of the hotel workers 11. Orwell the works at the Auberge de Jehan after 6 weeks of work in Hotel X and finds out Auberge de Jehan isn’t quite finished yet 12. Auberge de Jehan finally opens after a few days’ worth of free labor from Orwell and his new colleagues 13. Orwell’s patience begins to degenerate due to lack of sleep and such from his current job; he finally lets the steam out at the cook 14. He finally grows weary of his life in Paris, so he asks his friend, B., in London to find him a job 15. When he gets a reply from B., he leaves Auberge du Jehan as a plongeur and comes back as a customer before he leaves Paris for good 16. Orwell boards on a ship to London and describing how great London 17. Orwell finds that his employer has gone on a vacation and will not be back for another month, so Orwell finds himself jobless again 18. He spends too much the first few nights in London that he is again penniless 19. He pawns his coat and changes into rags; he then gets information from a tramp about the spikes (the tramp also calls him mate) 20. After his stay at the Romton spike, he goes have tea in an Evangelical church and expresses his feelings towards charity. This is when he meets Paddy 21. He describes Paddy and the archetypal tramp 22. He continues to travel from spike to spike and meets Bozo one day, who impresses Orwell with how intelligent Bozo is 23. He talks about his views on slangs and swear words 24. He goes to King’s Cross Station for “free tea” and contrasts it with the clergyman who gives them meal ticket without asking or waiting for a praise 25. Orwell talks about the William and Fred, the stereotypical tramp 26. Orwell wraps up the entire book with some opinions on the status quo of tramps and their sleeping condition //**Michael, it's really interesting that most of your Paris plot points are about the narrator and don't include any of his anecdotes - how, then, do these fit into the narrative of the story?**//

Similarities between Paris and London: - There are plenty of poor people in both cities - The lower class are treated very poorly by others - Parisian and Londoner judge others by their appearances - Orwell uses colloquialism in both Differences between Paris and London - There seem to be more tramps in London than Paris - The poor people in Paris are not as idle, they actively seek for jobs instead of walking from one spike to another - London actually have places for penniless people to sleep; people in Paris just sleep on the streets when they run out of money - There is a sharper class distinction in Paris than in London - Paris values art and romance more than London - London is cleaner and more orderly - The tramps in London are in worse conditions because they don’t have a job and are forced to travel from one spike to another - More “charitable” organizations in London than in Paris
 * Similarities and differences between London and Paris (Michael Siu - H Block)**

Glossary (Alum Woo, A block)

 * Putain** whore, hooker, tramp, oh darn! **5**
 * Vache** (annoyance) hell! damn, what a jerk. **5**
 * Bistro** café, pub, small bar. **6**
 * Patronne** female employer, boss, patroness. **6**
 * Apéritifs** laxative medicine. **10**
 * Raffiné** refined; subtle. **11**
 * Vicieux** corrupt, vicious. **11**
 * Bordels** brothel. **12**
 * Forcément** evidently, inevitably. **13**
 * Monsieur** sir, Mister. **18**
 * Merde** shit. **19**
 * Liberté** liberty; freedom. **21**
 * Egalité** equality; evenness. **21**
 * Fraternité** brotherhood, fraternity. **21**
 * Numéro** number. **21**
 * Voila** there, there is. **21**
 * Mon ami** my soul. **24**
 * Mais** but; why. **24**
 * Plongeurs** dishwasher. **25**
 * Garcon** boy, bachelor, single man. **25**
 * Attaquez** attack, on set. **29**
 * Malheureusement** unhappily; miserably. **33**
 * Bien** good then. **34**
 * Evidemment** evidently, obviously. **49**
 * Au revoir** bye. **49**
 * Certainement** certainly. **52**
 * Entendu** agreed. **52**
 * Maquereau** pimp. **58**
 * Engueulades** trading insults. **64**
 * Mon vieux** my old firend, pal. **74**

**GLOSSARY (Joan Chaung Block:A)**
**Mon ami**: (noun) My Friend
 * Merde**: (interjection) Crap; Damn it!
 * Aloons-y**: (Interjection) Let’s go!
 * Mot d’ordre:** (noun) Watchword
 * Nom de dieu**: (interjection) Jesus Christ!
 * Chef du personnel**: (noun) Personnel manager
 * Quelle**: (adjective) What; (pronoun) Which
 * Bidon**: (noun) Can, water bottle, tin, churn, drum
 * Croissant**: (adjective) growing; rising
 * Sirop:** (noun) syrup
 * Mondieu**: (interjection) My God!
 * Enceinte**: (adjective) Pregnant
 * Tiens**: (interjection) Hello
 * Diamants**: (noun) Diamonds
 * En or**: (adjective) Golden
 * Mon vieux**: (noun) Man
 * Monsieur**: (noun) Sir
 * Pardon**: (noun) Pardon
 * Mais**: (adverb) Probably
 * Pain**: (noun) Bread
 * Carte**: (noun) Menu
 * Bistro**: (noun) Café; bar
 * Guerre**: (noun) war; battle; conflict
 * Ruse**: (noun) cunning; craftiness
 * Certainement**: (adverb) definitely; certainly
 * Casserole**: (noun) pan
 * Normand**: (adjective) Norman
 * Pas**: (noun) step
 * Anglais**: (noun) British
 * Mackerel**: (noun) mackerel; pimp

by Henry Chan (E block)
 * Theme of Poverty in Down and Out in Paris and London**

4 areas are explored by Orwell

1. Once you are poor, it is hard to climb up in the social status 2. You are never alone 3. Why do we need an underclass 4. Stereotypes and challenges of poverty

Orwell explored the idea that once a person is poor, it is very hard for that person to climb back up. This is due to a lot of the poor situations a poor person have. For example, Orwell seems to be telling us that you need money to make more money. In this case, a poor person, who does not have the money initially, will never make more money for him to get out of poverty. This is very true as we can see how plongeurs really only have 30 Francs left each month to save and even if they save for a while year, those 30 francs will not do much. Also, if you do not have the money, you are not able to buy decent clothing that will make your appearance good enough for you to be hired. This is essential to getting a job to even survive poverty. To make it even harder, there are stereotypes of poor people and tramps that can be easily seen. These stereotypes push a person low in the fixed social class system forever. It would be hard to suddenly get these stereotypes off from a poor person unless the poor person gets enough money. Also, poverty seems to have a lot to do with a person's nationality. It seems to be hard to find a French person to be poor when the narrator is in Paris. Most of the poor people are from other nations in Europe. Immigrants, of course, are pushed to under class as they are paid much less for the work they do.

Orwell also seems to be telling us that poor people are never alone. When Orwell, or the narrator, is poor, he also seems to be able to rely on someone else just as poor as he is. When he is in Paris, when he is in desperate times, he went to find his friend Boris, who seems to be in an even worse situation than he himself is in. There are also other people he met in the hotel who are poor and heard of stories of other poor people. It feels like as if the poor made a community of poor people. It is even more obvious in London where the narrator is with a group of people trying to get food from charity and spikes. They share food with one another. They even seem to think alike with one another and try to entertain one another. It does feel as if they are friends with each other and they support each other in times of trouble.

In a chapter, Orwell describes how a plongeur is actually not needed relating it to a fact that a luxury hotel is not needed either. Orwell claims that eating at a restaurant is a unnecessary luxury because it is as easy as cooking and eating at home. If everyone eats at home, then there is no need to go out and eat and thus, plongeurs are not needed. Also, he claims that an underclass is needed just because the rich are scared that the mob will turn against them. Therefore, they create these jobs such that they are pressed so low they are not able to think about revolting.

Stereotypes and challenges of poverty can be seen throughout the book. Boris make himself look decent even when there are holes in his suit and socks and even shoes. He would tied his tie so that the holes did not show, stuff the soles of his shoes with newspaper and ink the skin of his ankles where it showed through this socks. This shows how important appearance is even for the poor people. Otherwise, it is very obvious that they are poor. This has become a stereotype of the poor, their appearance. It is quite easy to spot out holes in their clothes and socks or a torned pair of shoes. Also in London, when he dresses poorly, the ladies think he is disgusting and try to stay away. This shows the stereotype of a poor person based on their appearance. Other stereotypes would be people thinking that poor people are lazy and they only sit around a beg for money. This was proved wrong in the book. A plongeur seemed to work a thousand times as hard as those rich people who just sits there and eat in the restaurant. A plongeur sleeps 6 hours a day and have no time to even wash themselves. Also, many people believe that poor people are drunks or drug addicts. In fact, they only drink for fun and to spend the extra 30 Francs they have on the only thing they are free to do. As for drugs, they are too poor to even buy drugs, how can they be a drug addict? Orwell clearly wanted to show us how stereotypes of poor people are really unrealistic.

**Comparison and Similarity between London and Paris (Katie Yao Block A and Henry Chan Block E)**
Paris London
 * Do not need to live on the street.
 * Ex. In the beginning the narrator lives in Hotel des Trois Moineaux; sometimes he would live with Boris.
 * Have a job
 * There are always jobs in Paris since there are always new restaurants opening. The narrator and Boris have been looking for different jobs throughout. They have tried for Porters, waiters and finally settled for Plongeur for Hotel X and Auberge de Jehan Cottard.
 * More freedom, laws are less strict
 * More expenses spent on places to live
 * A lot of the money earned are spent on rents. Narrator says that 200 Francs are spent on rent each month when they earn 700 francs a month
 * Men would swear in front of women, and women would swear in public too
 * "A Parisian workman may prefer to suppress an oath in front of a woman, but he is not at all scrupulous about it, and the women themselves swear freely." p.178
 * Dirty
 * The hotel where the Narrator lives is a dirty place. The narrator describe the place to have a lot of bugs and that there are no one cleaning the hotel. The Kitchen of the restaurants are dirty. This is inevitable because there is basically no time to clean the place. Eventually, the kitchen get dirtier and dirtier.
 * "The rooms[of Hotel des Trois Moineaux] were small and inveterately dirty.......Near the ceiling long lines of bugs marched all day like columns of soldiers, and at night came down ravenously hungry" p. 6
 * Hotel X: "It was amusing to look round the filthy little scullery and think that only a double door was between us and the dining-room. There ssat the customers in all their splendour-spotless table-clothes, bowls of flowers, mirrors and fult cornices and painted cherubim; and here, just a few feet away, we in our disgusting filth. For it really was disgusting filth." p. 67-68
 * Auberge de Jehan Cottard: "The first thing we saw in the morning were two large rats sitting on the kitchen table, eating from a ham that stood there." p.105 "the conditions behind the kitchen door were wuitable for a pigsty." 106
 * Has a firend: Boris
 * Spikes provided for the beggars
 * Laws are strict
 * Strict laws state that there are no beggars allowed. There are also other strict laws such as something as simple as sitting on the pavement is not allowed. Policeman on petrol will detain those who violate these laws. "THe reason why they have to pretend to sell matches and so forth instad of begging outright is that this is demanded by about the absurd English laws about begging. As the law now stands, if you approach a stranger and ask him for twopence, he can call a policeman and get you seven days for begging" p.172
 * Have friends too: Paddy and Bozo
 * If penniless, there are always charity places that will offer place to live and food to eat
 * There are always free places to live, however badly, for those who have absolutely no money. They can go to spikes where they are basically given a place to live for free. Also, if you want food, you can go to local church communities where they give you food in the simple exchange for prayers.
 * Free to pursue your own interest and use your interest as a profession
 * A penniless person can still pursue their hobby in London. For example, Bozo who likes painting can continue his painting career as a pavement painter in London and "beg" money that way.
 * Is heaven if you have money
 * "I was so pleased to be getting home, after being hard up for months in a foreign city, that England seemed to me a sort of Paradise." "England is a very good country when you are not poor" p.126. In the first quote, Orwell says that England is "a sort of Paradise" by which he means that only if you have money, it will be like a Paradise.
 * Men don't normally cuss in front of women. People in London are generally more polite. (Chapter 32, second last paragraph)
 * "One other thing is noticeable about swearing in London, and that is that the men do not usually swear in front of women.....Londoners are more polite, or more squeamish, in this matter." p.178
 * much cleaner
 * The narrator says that "everything was so much cleaner and quieter and drearier" and that "the crowds were better dressed and the faces comelier and milder and more alike, without the fierce individuality and malice of the French." Also, there are less drunkeness, less dirt and less quarrelling.This shows that London definitely a more disciplined place and cleaner as a result of.
 * Do not need to live on the street
 * Again, there are always spikes

Obvious Similarities
 * Both Paris and London are seemly grandios and great, but "behind the scene" it is not as great as people think. This book revealed the ugly side of both London and Paris of their poverty.
 * In both places, there seem to be always friends who are equally poor
 * In both places, it is very clear that every poor person will have no way to climb back up in the social status

=Down and Out in Paris and London - Democratic Socialism= Orwell believed in democratic socialism, a moderate version of socialism which combined the social ideals of communism with the free speech ideals of democracy. Basically, he believed wealth should be distributed among men equally and the g overnment should regulate society, for example by providing free health care and education for all. However, he did not like the practical application of communism which stripped away personal freedom and replaced democracy with tyranny. During Michael and Ka-Wai's lesson we found the following examples from the book which support Orwell's political views by showing the conflict between man and society (as it exists now).

=Man vs Society in Down and Out in Paris and London (Ka-Wai) = Man versus society is a conflict in which a character is oppressed by or victimized by society. Whenever a character feels this discomfort in an effort to avoid receiving punishment by society, we can be sure that such an instance is a man versus society conflict. Man versus society is a conflict that Orwell believes to be a major theme depicting normal life for the characters under poverty. He demonstrates this conflict by pitting Orwell and his friends against society through the following examples: employers, governments, and religion. Both French and British governments’ policies are extremely unfavorable for those under poverty. In London, beggars are not allowed to stay for more than one night at a spike. In order to avoid getting in trouble, beggars must walk long and far every day to get to a different spike. Employers in the novel are unreasonable towards the characters. In Paris, workers are expected to work long hours every day in filthy conditions, as well as a below-average standard of living. Hungry beggars who seek for food are also victimized by proponents of religion. In London, the beggars are forced to pray against their own will, but have no choice lest the food be taken from them. 

=Minor character: Paddy, by Koumei=

=Economics: The Poverty Cycle and the Life of a Plongeur = Poverty in economics is an important issue. One of the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. This is because poverty, a central issue in the world and the central theme of Orwell’s //Down and Out in Paris and London,// is a barrier that must be overcome in order for countries and economies to develop, or in other words, improve themselves and increase their people’s standards of living. Economic theory suggests that poverty often causes countries to fall into cycles in which the economy cannot develop; these cycles are called poverty cycles or poverty traps. Poverty cycles suggest that poverty, which generally means that one has no or low income, leads to other negative consequences. For instance, it leads to low education and health levels in the poor people, which then makes them unskilled workers, meaning that they cannot be productive. After all this, these people in poverty again make no or low income, which then again starts the cycle. Therefore, poor people in the countries cannot improve their standards of living, and thus economic development for the country does not occur. In relation to the novel, Orwell also makes some similar points within the story. One of the most significant ones is the discussion on the life and nature of a plongeur. In chapter 22, where Orwell explicitly gives us his insight to the life and necessity of a plongeur in society, he indicates that plongeurs are “slaves of the modern world”. He also says that “he is paid just enough to keep him alive”, thus corresponding to one phase of the poverty cycle (low income). Furthermore, Orwell also says that plonguers’ lives rarely improve, but rather most people spend the majority of their lives scrubbing dishes; this coincides with the concept of the poverty cycle that development does not occur unless the cycle is broken, which is very difficult in this case. “[t]hey have simply been trapped by a routine which makes thought impossible.” From this quote, we can relate the words “trap”, “routine”, and “impossible” to the poverty cycle. In essence, the life of a plongeur is like the many traps of the economic poverty cycle; if a plongeur does not overcome the challenges, with the odds that he probably won’t, they will be forever trapped in the cycle of a horrible life. Thus it can be seen that Orwell’s points has some truth to it, even in the field of economics.

=Anecdotes in //Down and Out in Paris and London//= An anecdote in literature is defined as a brief story or tale told by a character in a piece of literature. The story or tale, as told by the character, usually reveals or contains some interesting information about them. The use of anecdotes is widespread and common in literature. One of the most famous examples of a piece that uses anecdotes as a literary device is Chaucer’s //The Canterbury Tales//, studied by us earlier in the school year. In Orwell’s //Down and Out in Paris and London//, several of the minor characters tell us anecdotes. These anecdotes complement Orwell’s narration of his own experiences. Here are some examples: · In chapter three, Charlie tells an anecdote. The story recounts his experience with a young female prostitute, and throughout the story he discusses his emotions, such as love and happiness. · In chapter fifteen, the Italian waiter, Valenti, shares with Orwell a story about himself. It was about how once he had gone five days without food, so he was in despair. Valenti decided to pray to Sainte Eloise, and right after he prayed a girl that lived in his hotel, Maria, came to the rescue. She found in Valenti’s room an oil //bidon// that Valenti could return for a three francs fifty deposit, so Valenti used that money to buy food, and a candle to burn for the saint. · In chapter eighteen, Charlie tells us another story. The story was about how he had once used his girl at the time, Yvonne, to obtain food. He made Yvonne pretend to be pregnant by stuffing a pillow under her clothes, and then go collect the free food passed out by the maternity hospital. · In chapter nineteen, Jules, the waiter at the Auberge de Jehan Cottard, tells Orwell a story on how he steals to show his independence. At a restaurant where the patron treated Jules poorly, Jules decided to seek revenge by stealing the restaurant’s milk and breaking its plates. The purpose of using anecdotes in the novel is variable. Even though most directly the anecdotes reveal biographical information of the person who told the story, they also contain some morals. For instance, one could conclude from Valenti’s story that the moral is to be open to new things; by trying something he never did before (e.g. praying to a saint), Valenti was saved from starvation (even though it was only coincidence). Furthermore, I personally think Orwell adds these anecdotes to add a certain comical edge within the story, as most of these anecdotes are meant to be funny. Furthermore, it makes the overall novel seem more realistic, because these anecdotes can be seen as the characters directly telling a story to a reader. In essence, the use of anecdotes in this novel makes the narrative more interesting, while presenting hidden points of views and messages.
 * Definition**
 * Examples**
 * Effect**

 **The Effect of the Great Depression on Europe and its Impact on the Book (Matthew Kweon)**   The Great Depression was a devastating worldwide economic crisis that originated in the United States on October 29, 1929, known as the Black Tuesday. A sudden crash in the stock market had triggered the Great Depression, which eventually spread around the world, affecting all countries regardless of the rich or poor. Food prices roughly fell 60 percent, construction was stopped in countries under development, and industries based on farming, mining and logging suffered the most. After the collapse of the world economy, countries slowly began to recover and eventually ended at different times in different areas, in the 1930s to the early 1940s. The industrialization-based European economy was a huge victim of the Great Depression. Among these European countries, France and the Great Britain had struggled to recover from the damage of World War I, which allowed them to stay in a relatively more stable economy during the depression. This resulted in a more self-sufficient economy in both countries; while unemployment sharply rose in the United States, there were hardly any in these countries. This was due to the lack of human resources; however, they gained confidence from such relatively more stable economic conditions compared to other Europeans nations, which led them to a faster recovery from the depression after years. The impact of the Great Depression on __Down and Out in Paris and London__ helps the readers understand the theme of “poverty” or “the rich versus poor.” The readers realize that Orwell uses simple but clear descriptions to deliver Orwell’s realizations while he had lived in Paris and London. During the 1930s, Europe was hit by the depression and the countries were undergoing recovery. The struggle for survival of the poor, the inferior conditions of the environment and the huge contrast between the rich and the poor are all events which had occurred during the depression. These aspects are reflected in Orwell’s novel in a way that the readers may understand the society of the 1930s. Thus, the novel portrays the depression by means of factual descriptions and allows the readers to feel the impact of the depression on the era.

Shooting an Elephant
For your first assignment, please either answer an essential question, add to someone else's answer and build on it meaningfully, or add two points to the checklist of Orwell's writing style. If you take the second option please include for each point the technique, one or two examples, and the intended effect on the reader. Make sure you include your name and block.

=Essential Questions=
 * How does Orwell use literary tools such as symbolism, figurative language, diction and first person perspective to convey his main point, and what is that point?

First Person Perspective - Orwell uses a first person perspective within his essay, //Shooting An Elephant//, to convey a more emotional side to his story. By using this first person perspective, the reader is able to take personal thoughts and feelings and connect them with Orwell's experiences in Burma. For example, when Orwell notices the dead body smashed by the elephant, thoughts of insecurity and fear engulf his mind. He sends someone to fetch his elephant rifle to protect himself and the reader is able to see his frightened mindset without it directly being stated.

If the story were written in a third person point of view, I believe much of the emotional details would have to be sacrificed. Instead of conveying to the reader Orwell's reactions to certain situations, the reader would simply have to be told the character's emotional encounters. However doing so, the author would also have to note certain qualities of what they were thinking at the time by using adjectives and adverbs to describe his movements, such as if he were to "steadily" or "hastily" do something. These adjectives and adverbs would then imply what was going on Orwell's mind but aren’t as effective as a first person perspective. In theory, I believe first person perspectives give readers a more emotional perspective to what an author may be experiencing, but in part must sacrifice a few external conflicts. Conversely, third person perspectives do not give readers as powerful representations of internal conflicts but will provide a stronger basis around a story’s external conflicts. (Roger Xu Block H)

Add: Adding to what Roger said about third-person point of view, had this essay been done in third-person, the reader would be limited to what the police officer would say; we only know the exterior of the character, and not the different levels of the interior. We would only hear a portion of Orwell's opinion, and we would not really know what Orwell's inner conflicts really were. If the essay were told in 3rd person perspective: Gabriel Sanchez, Block E
 * We would be unable to understand why the police officer killed the elephant when his race differs from the Burmese's race
 * We would not understand deeper details on the corruption of the British Empire.
 * The essay possibly wouldn't have raised a controversial issue on racism, since Orwell describes the Burmese people through his eyes.
 * Like Roger said, the essay in 3rd person perspective would depict more external conflicts. We would probably be more focused on the external conflicts as readers than the internal opinions of the police officer.
 * Orwell would probably have a different writing style.

Orwell uses diction and symbolism to illustrate that the British Empire is old and weak. He also shows that imperialism is negative. He describes the British government in Burma as "despotic" and he hates the concept of imperialism. Further, he mentions he "got onto a pony", "took.. an old .44 Winchester" and "too small to kill an elephant" to symbolize the weakness of the British Empire. Words like "old" and "too small" show that the Empire's power over its colonies is dwindling. As Orwell describes the elephant's rampage, he uses words such as "destroy", "killed", "raided" and "devour". In this case, the elephant symbolizes the British Empire when it was rapidly expanding. Through the description of the rampage, Orwell describes imperialism as monstrous.

Henry Chan Orwell uses the elephant to symbolize both to British Empire and the Burmese in order to convey his main point. The main point here with the symbols is the demonstrate the internal conflicts he has between the Empire and the Burmese. Orwell symbolizes the Empire by making the elephant hard to kill. It takes a decent number of shots to take it down. And once it is down, it took the elephant a while before he dies. Also, the elephant messes around with the locals and destroy many things. This symbolizes the imperial conquest of the Empire. The Burmese is symbolized here because Orwell shoots the elephant as an officer of the Empire. Also, the Burmese is a sacrifice made so that the British can gain power just like how the elephant is sacrificed so that Orwell can keep his power. The combination of the two symbols conflict with each other just like many of Orwell's situation. He supports the Empire officially but hates the empire. He supports the Burmese but hate the Burmese for their actions which make his job hard to do. The point he wants to get through is his paradoxical situation between the Empire and the Burmese and he is stuck in between.

The first person perspective brings down the essay to a more personal level, which allows the readers to see the internal conflicts more clearly. As the young police officer Eric Blair, Orwell explains the story from his point of view and reveals his personal thoughts and emotions. Simultaneously, as the essayist George Orwell, he conveys the message of the negative aspects of imperialism. If the essay were to be written in a third person perspective, there would be less tension created, and the internal conflicts that the narrator faces would be inevitably sacrificed for merely an objective portrayal of Burma under British control. Through both the eyes of Eric Blair and those of George Orwell, the essay conveys Orwell’s main point—the cruelty and danger of imperialism and his hatred towards it. (Matthew Kweon, Block H)

Since I'm one of the last people to write I feel that everything I would have said about the point of view in "shooting an elephant" has already been said, but in my opinion I believe that Orwell's use of the first person perspective gets the reader to become emotionally involved and have sympathy for the narrator. You feel what he feels. The narrator's attitude towards the empire is shown through his feeling which would not have been mentioned if this was written in the third person. Megan Ortwein Block E

Orwell's message in the essay "Shooting an Elephant" is that imperialism is bad because it hurts both the colonized and original country. Orwell is able to portray this message through symbolism. He uses himself and the people in the village to represent the two countries. The elephant is used to show both imperialism and Britain's control over the Burmese. Through the symbols and what happens to them Orwell shows us his personal view on the subject of imperialism. (sajed)
 * What is Orwell's argument or message, and what persuasive tools does he use to make it?

In the short story, "Shooting An Elephant", Orwell conveys his message through the use of several persuasive tools. He wants us to see a person or people who want the power. Orwell uses several quotes to emphasizes his meaning through his short story. Imperialism: the policy of extending the rule of authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies ( dictionary.com), have conveyed through elephant. The elephant symbolizes freedom and innocents of imperialism. In the story, Orwell keeps on hesitate to shoot an elephant, "I knew that with perfect certainty that I ought to not to shoot him, I decided that would watch him for a little while to make sure that he did not turn savage again, and then go home". Another quote, "Suddenly, I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all". The word choice here, "after all" cleary shows that he doesn't have any choices to make with his own willingness. Orwell is also one of victims of imperialism, even though he is on the England side. (Derek Wang)

Through this essay, Orwell sends a message of how numerous people living in third world countries such as Burma were sacrificed during the Imperialist era. During this period, European countries expanded their influence into other continents so that they can gain more resources and improve their overall status in the world. In this race to obtain more power, European countries such as Britain disregarded the negative impacts their occupation would bring to the people in dominated countries. For instance, not only did many people in third world countries die fighting the Imperialist nations, the Imperialist nations also often hindered the third world people from living their own unique, cultural way of life. This message is effectively shown as a symbol in Orwell's essay. In __Shooting an Elephant__, Orwell mentions that he only killed the elephant because he wanted to "avoid looking like a fool" and maintain his dominant European status in front of the Burmese. As a consequence of Orwell's desire to maintain his power, an elephant, whose only fault was that it escaped from his owner, is painfully killed. Likewise, numerous powerless people were sacrificed as Imperialist nations expanded their influence to maintain their powerful status over the world. Thus, one possible symbol the elephant may represent is the Burmese who were sacrificed during British occupation. (Hong Kyun Kim Period E)


 * Is Orwell’s essay a racist portrayal of the Burmese?

Stephanie Y In our last class, we had a brief debate on whether or not Orwell’s essay is a racist portrayal of the Burmese. I stand by my case, that ‘Shooting An Elephant’ is not a racist story. I agree that there are racial contexts and slurs in the storyline, but it is merely to state the situation. When reading the essay now, the story emphasizes a historical event. Orwell himself is not a racist man. In fact, he feels sympathetic towards the “Coolies” and would much rather side with them, than his own Imperialistic countrymen. In ‘Shooting An Elephant’, Orwell presents the British and the Coolies equally. He is often portrayed, being torn apart between who to please and who to trust. According to the Oxford Dictionary, racism is the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Sure other characters in the essay believe that “Coolies” are inferior, but Orwell doesn’t. I don’t think his intentions were to create another racist novel, or to create tension, but to recount his experience with the people in Burma whether they’re white or native. This essay does not try to convince anyone of anything, or promote racism. It only states someone’s own account of the situation and the facts of the British and Burmese. Thus, it is not a racist portray of the Burmese. It’s all historical. ADD: I completely agree with this, Steph. It is much like //Huck Finn//, the book uses the N word too many times to count, but when it comes down to it, it's not a racist story but one that seemingly bonds the races together. In //Shooting An Elephant,// Orwell uses these derogatory terms but he means no harm what-so-ever. (MIKE CHAN) Joan: Agree with Steph and Mike. Shooting an elephant is not a racist story even Orwell used lots of racist words. Those words are just what they used during the time and he is just using those words to emphasize the situation and the historical event. Katie Yao: I was in the same group as Steph and Iａｍ　ｏｎ　ｔｈｅ　same sides with her. //"Shooting An Elephant"// is not a racist portrayal of the Brumese. Orwell just simply precisely portrayed what was going on at the time. And I　remember we also had a debate on Orwell's description of imagining harming a burmese. The other group argued that it is a racist description against the Brumese, but i thought Orwell was not being racist, he reacted to the Burmese's behavior instead of his race therefore he does not express any oppinion about the race instead his emotion towards the persons's actions.

Tania Hueting:In class yesterday I had the privilege to debate this exact question with Mrs.Kemsley. I was put in the group in which I argued that Orwell's essay was not a racist essay. However, I did not agree with this statement. I believe strongly that Orwell's essay is a racist potrayal of the Burmese. Orwell I believe is a racist man by using some harsh words to put down the Burmese like "yellow faces" and "coolies". In a way he is judging the Burmese by the color of their faces. He in a way describes them as rude human beings by saying that they want him to kill a elephant for entertainment and more so for the elephants meat. In a way throughout the whole essay he doesn't really say many nice things about the Burmese people. //I'm glad I persuaded you, Tania, but I don't necessarily believe everything I said! I don't think this issue is black and white (unfortunate choice of phrase?!). Although Orwell uses language that today seems racist, and at times expresses anger towards the Burmese as a group rather than individuals, he also seems to be suggesting that these problems are caused by British Imperialism rather than the Buremese people - that if Burma were not a colony he would not have to act as he does and neither would the Burmese people. In this way the essay is anti-imperialist, not racist at all. What do you think? Ms K.//

During the English 12 class in E period, our class had a debate on whether “Shooting An Elephant” is a racist portrayal or not. So far most people have said that this story is not racist. I disagree with them. Orwell is in Southern Burma where he is assigned as a police officer for the Burma people. Orwell does say that he does not like the idea about the Imperialism, however at the same time some of the word choices that he choose makes him sound as if he does not like the Burma people as well. It is not hard to understand Orwell’s feeling as for his everyday live he is mocked and being laughed by the native people. The only reason is because he is “white” and this brings another point that these Burma people are also racist as well. He describes these native people as “yellow sneering face” or “coolies”, such offensive words that describes their look in a negative way. I understand Orwell’s situation since he is getting laughed by these dirty local people. I mean who wouldn’t be angry after they’ve been looked down or been laughed at? The choice of words that Orwell uses to describe these people shares a deep meaning inside them of how he looks at them. Therefore I believe this story is a racist portrayal. __Koumei Tsunoda__

On Tuesday, I took part in a debate about racism in Orwells essay. The essay was called "Shooting An Elephant". During the class I was forced to be on the side which disagreed on the essay being racist. When thinking about how to defend Orwell, I came to the conclusion that his writing resembled a racist. He refers to the Burmese as "yellow" faces. Through his writing it can be seen that he speaks down upon the Burmese people. He also refers to them as "coolies"."Coolies" is has been known a racial slur used against "yellow" people. He doesn't like how the Burmese people treated him, therefore racial comments can be seen throughout the essay. Through the words that he uses to describe the Burmese people, it can be seen that he is clearly racist throughout the essay. Stephen Gandolfo

During the debate I was on the side that had to argue the essay was racist. Before the debate I did not believe the essay to be racist but after some analysis I came to the realization that it can in fact be seen as racist. While he may not mean to be derogatory by using racist terms such as "Coolies" it does not change the fact that it is still racist. It may have been acceptable at the time much like using the "n" word was acceptable during slavery but that doesn't mean it isn't racist. It still makes the distinction that there is a difference between the British and the natives. He also refers to them as "evil spirited little beasts." These things all show that the essay can in fact be seen as being racist. (Patrick Winpenny)

Francisco Cardoso Orwell's essay, although it sounds racist, does not exactly means he himself is a racist. As he said, he is a police officer under the command of the British Empire, and as such got to witness "the dirty work of empire" which caused him to be "all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British". As such he is laying on us that he is against what the British are doing to the Burmese. Other sentences he uses may be reflected on his annoyance to how the Burmese people are treating him, like he said that the monks stay still on the road making fun of passing Europeans and because of that he wants to shove a stick of bamboo into a Buddist monk's gut only because they have treated him badly enough for him to reach this point.

Even though I didn’t get the chance to debate in class about this issue but from my point of view, I don’t think that Orwell purposely created his essay as a racist portrayal of the Burmese. Even though there were many terms within the essay such as “yellow faces” and “Coolies” that seems to be discriminating the Burmese but I believe that he used these words simply to make his essay more historical relevant and plausible. I also think his use of those terms lead the readers to be more aware towards the issue of racism and further emphasize the oppression of Burmese under British control. Furthermore, in his essay he stated that “I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British.” This shows that Orwell does not discriminate the Burmese but feels certain sympathy towards them. (Diane Lin H Block)

Alum Woo Orwell’s main point is that the British Empire caused hostility, and hatred between Burmese and British which result him to become furious at the empire. In order to convey his point, he uses symbolism, figurative language, diction and first person perspective.

In //Shooting an Elephant//, Orwell as a colonial police officer symbolizes oppression and empire. He carries guns when no other Burmese do which shows authority and his job as an imperial police officer literally represents the empire. The elephant symbolizes the empire. The elephant makes a mess in the town, killing a person and a cow, destroying the markets which relates to conquering and invasion of the empire in Burma. Later, empire’s own agent symbolically destroys the empire by killing the elephant because of his hatred towards the empire and ideas that imperialism is not necessary. Orwell also uses figurative languages to express his anger and resentment such as “I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down forever upon the will of prostrate peoples;…I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest’s guts”. This line clearly shows that he is angry to both the Burmese who treat him badly and empire that causes the Buddhists’ resentment towards him. He expresses a bit of mixed feelings that are created by being an imperial police officer.

Orwell used first person perspective in writing the story to make the story more realistic and help the audiences to know that he himself opposes to the British Empire. The recount of his own life helps the readers to see and understand his main point.

Orwell uses the elephant in his short story to symbolize the empire, but in some ways he also uses the elephant to symbolize the Burmese people. I think that the elephant symbolizes the contradictory internal feelings of the officer. The officer feels weird about his job because he hates everything about working for the empire and does not agree at all with the things they are doing to the Burmese people. He is on the side of the Burmese against the empire, but he also hates the Burmese people due to the way they treat him as an officer. The elephant symbolizes the empire when it is wreaking havoc at the bazaar and all the other damage it causes, along with killing a local man, but it symbolizes the Burmese people when it is not doing any damage and is minding its own business. By killing the elephant, the officer is doing what he thinks the Burmese people want him to do, not what he should do because he is an officer. So in a way he is shooting at the empire as well as the Burmese because the elephant symbolizes both. This shows his feelings for and against both the empire and the Burmese people. - Mike McLean block H

Add: Indeed Orwell did wrote in the first person perspective to make the story realistic and at the same time showing his feeling toward the British Empire. But don't forget that he doesn't only describe about the Imperialism. By using first person perspective Orwell is able to freely express his feeling toward the Burma people. Such words as "yellow sneering face" and "coolies" (as I mentioned before) is a free spoken words that he choose to describe how he feels about these natives. But I didn't think that the elephant could be symbolized as the empire. That really caught my attention when I read this. (Koumei Tsunoda)

Add: The story was written in first person perspective because this is the only way which we can heard the thoughts inside Orwell’s mind. If the story was not written in first person perspective then we could not see the internal conflict of the character. The main point of the story is the internal conflict of Being an imperil guard and hated the British Raj at the same time, so it is important to wrote the story in first person perspective. (Jerry Hsu Block H)

If the essay wasn't written in first person, it may have been harder for us to understand what was going on in the story. The first person perspective technique helps us focus on the story as stated that the story is more realistic. We can easily understand his thoughts in this essay which helps us to better comprehend the story and what's going on. Furthermore it helps us to easily find symbols, point out some examples of figurative language, and some special diction used in the story to state the idea of each paragraph. (Alex Zhang Block H)

- Alum Woo Block A In his essay, he uses some of the Burmese and Latin words to make himself view with non-British perspective and to express that he favors more on the Burmese sides. It seems like he is more towards the empire if he uses English vocabularies. Some words like “dahs” meaning knives, “in terrorem” and “in saecula saeculorum” make the essay more diverse point of views than just an English point of view. Orwell’s essay is not a racist portrayal of the Burmese. At the end of the essay, the imperial police officer representing the British Empire, kills the elephant which symbolizes the empire to show how the corruption of the empire brought its own destruction symbolically.

To the person above me, I believe that Orwell symbolically shooting down the Empire is not proof that he is not racist against the Burmese. In fact, disliking the Empire which he serves, and hating the Burmese people are two independent emotions. One does not imply the other. To judge whether Orwell is racist or not, we should look at the words and attitude he expresses towards the Burmese. Yes, he does use words such as "yellow faces" and "coolie." Instead of openly discriminating the Burmese, these words may simply add to the flavor of the essay. Also, Orwell does seem to describe his youthful ignorance for stereotyping the Burmese, and thinking that all he could see in them were "yellow faces." **-- Ka-Wai To**

Symbolism Essential Question As a colonial police officer Orwell was both a visible and accessible symbol to many Burmese. Orwell symbolized authority and power, as well as oppression. Much like a noble king, given authority and power is a good thing, to have a ruler whom cares about the subjects and people below them. However Orwell also represents an oppressive tyrant, one who rules with no mercy and no passion for the people. Orwell represents both these contradictory rulers, passive, yet aggressive; merciful, yet cold. This is the type of authority Orwell represents. (MIKE CHAN)

=Orwell's Writing Style=
 * Orwell often uses colloquial diction, for example "no one had the guts to raise a riot" and "I chucked up my job", to create a chatty, somewhat informal tone that draws his readers in to agree with his point of view - he's talking to you as a friend, an equal, not patronizingly or argumentatively. (Ms K's example)
 * Orwell includes very specific details, for example classifying his gun as "an old .44 Winchester", describing how a lady would not only get harassed but rather have "spit betal juice over her dress", and distinguishing coolies as "a black Dravidian coolie" and a "Coringhee coolie". By doing so, Orwell intends to add a realistic feature to his writing, making his readers feel as though this had actually happened (in the case of Shooting an Elephant it had), with the result being the story more plausible and effective. (Michael Chai)
 * Orwell uses phrases of foreign languages, such as "Raj", "in saecula saeculorum", "in terrorem". His intended effect in this case was to create a barrier between him (the European) and the natives through the use of language alien to the natives, reinforcing the idea that he is different from them. (Michael Chai)
 * Orwell uses the phrase such as "white man with his gun, standing in front of a unarmed native crowd- seemingly the leading actor of the piece", " I was only an absurd puppet pushed to. He uses the words like "actor of the piece" and "puppet" tells the readers his actions are now controlled by the Burmese like how the British empire controlled Burma. ( Raj Powar, BlockA) //These metaphors are essential to understanding Orwell's point that the Empire's authority is all a show, a performance, there is no real basis for their authority - Ms K.//
 * Orwell uses his job experience to describe about the British empire. He says " In a job like that you see the dirty work of the Empire at close quarters". He gives the British empire a synonym " unbreakable tyranny". Orwell tries to show the readers what the British Empire is made up of. ( Raj Powar) //He communicates his ideas against tyranny and for 'democratic socialism.'//
 * Orwell often uses metaphors, similes, and figures of speech to get ideas across. He also tends to use small words that make it easier to convey his internal and external conflicts more clearly. In the reading, Shooting an Elephant Orwell does both of things to better write about the struggles he had about being a Burmese officer. Using lines such as, "his trunk reaching skyward like a tree" puts vivid images in readers head that help the flow of the essay go along much better. Orwell finds a way to incorporate simpler words into his writings, but still sound colorful and interesting. (Dillon Warren)