Internal Conflict In Shooting An Elephant By George Orwell

760 Words4 Pages
In the essay, "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell, the narrative includes almost no dialogue. Orwell 's voice as narrator is the only one readers hear. Orwell appears to have needed to empathize the inner conflict experienced by the narrator, who does not really want to shoot the elephant but feels compelled to do so to "avoid looking a fool." Ultimately, the requests and rationale of the government constrain individuals to act against their own ethical compasses. The absence of a dialogue is to emphasize the internal conflict experienced by the narrator. By shooting the elephant, the narrator becomes what the Burmese individuals expect him to be—a killer. The audience is able to view the incident through his eyes, seeing that he…show more content…
Despite, the numerous reservations do not shoot the elephant, for example, how it is worth more alive as opposed to dead, or how he is a "poor shot," he at last falls into the desires of the Burma individuals. Without wanting to and moral conviction he chooses to slaughter the elephant. Again, he states, “When I pulled the trigger I did not hear the bang or feel the kick…I fired again into the same spot…I fired a third time. That was the shot that did it for him." Three wars, three shots. The elephant is a symbol of Burma and it struggles to remain alive. The narrator is assumed to control by a feeling of guilt he mentions seeing the elephant laying there “powerless to move and yet powerless to die." As some Britains got to be far fetched of their entitlement to control others, both sides started to feel disdain and hatred toward the British Empire. Orwell made himself trust that he was correct and it was legitimate to slaughter the elephant, by making thoughts to legitimize what he had
Open Document