Rhetorical Analysis Of Shooting An Elephant By George Orwell
George Orwell is well known, even though he died in 1950. He was British and an ex-cop. George Orwell is a very prominent author. He is known for a few of his books, written for a variety of purposes. However, this specific essay, “Shooting an Elephant”, is written to inform of us. He phrases this essay more as a narrative, which makes it not rhetorically effective. George Orwell uses great imagery and his syntax makes it simple for even high schoolers to read through his works.
Orwell sent this essay into New Writing which is highly anti-fascist and anti-imperialistic, which causes the readers to be against ruling over another country by force. This cause George Orwell’s writing style to differ in some aspects. He speaks of how he hates
Britain and how it takes over Burma. Although, his diction says otherwise. He says “my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible” which leads us to believe he hates the Burmese citizens more than Britain. This audience causes Orwell to have limitations on what he can say, or else it would not have been published.
This essay’s purpose is hard to decipher given the fact that it seems more like a narrative. The purpose that stands out the most is to explain why imperialism is a bad thing. He tells us how if you rule another person, it is you that truly loses your freedom. Orwell says that every white man’s purpose is to not be laughed at and if you take over a country usually the native citizens will do whatever they can to break you down and laugh at you. Orwell talks about the way the judgment of the natives cause him to shoot the elephant; even if all he wanted to do was wait for the mahout to get there.
George Orwell is a great storyteller. It would not be surprising if people learn about him decades from now. Animal Farm and 1984 were marvelous works of art. However, this essay was not his best piece of writing. It did use pathos when he wrote about how he hated the empire that took over Burma, but it didn’t show us a clear purpose. Therefore, it was not an effective piece of rhetoric.
Orwell sent this essay into New Writing which is highly anti-fascist and anti-imperialistic, which causes the readers to be against ruling over another country by force. This cause George Orwell’s writing style to differ in some aspects. He speaks of how he hates
Britain and how it takes over Burma. Although, his diction says otherwise. He says “my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible” which leads us to believe he hates the Burmese citizens more than Britain. This audience causes Orwell to have limitations on what he can say, or else it would not have been published.
This essay’s purpose is hard to decipher given the fact that it seems more like a narrative. The purpose that stands out the most is to explain why imperialism is a bad thing. He tells us how if you rule another person, it is you that truly loses your freedom. Orwell says that every white man’s purpose is to not be laughed at and if you take over a country usually the native citizens will do whatever they can to break you down and laugh at you. Orwell talks about the way the judgment of the natives cause him to shoot the elephant; even if all he wanted to do was wait for the mahout to get there.
George Orwell is a great storyteller. It would not be surprising if people learn about him decades from now. Animal Farm and 1984 were marvelous works of art. However, this essay was not his best piece of writing. It did use pathos when he wrote about how he hated the empire that took over Burma, but it didn’t show us a clear purpose. Therefore, it was not an effective piece of rhetoric.