4 ms·

That is a strange interpretation as Orwell makes it clear the he represents the British Empire, and the elephant represents the subjugated people. His vivid de

That is a strange interpretation as Orwell makes it clear the he represents the British Empire, and the elephant represents the subjugated people. His vivid description of his own situation certainly matches how most history books (of the time) describe the British colonial situation, always being thrown from one situation to the next, inevitably guided by circumstance and unable to change course.

bell-cot 5y ago
It was an English "literature" class (or at least that bit was) - so suggesting & discussing various possible interpretations of the story was part of the objectives. Consider instead Orwell as the tiny, educated, supposedly wise ruling elite. (Of the British Empire, in this case. But the point is more general.) He knows the "right" thing to do here...but under the perceived weight of at-the-moment public expectation, and with a convenient excuse at hand, he instead does the stupid, destructive thing instead. Incompetently.
trgn 5y ago
Agreed. It is quite clear what the story is about, and projecting excessive meaning on the elephant (or even a completely wrong interpretation) is typical of literature classes being designed more to entertain the intellectual kick adolescents (and their professors) have for philosophizing. Rather than actually reading the words, this way of reading always devolves into projecting once own thoughts and wills and wants on an author's work. Apart from what may have been the trigger to write the piece (disillusionment in empire building, his personal humiliations, being confronted with once own cowardice, ...) Orwell really recounts a real life event, the factual existence of the enraged elephant and it getting shot preceding any literary device. Even in this short text, Orwell is explicitly clear, dedicating many paragraphs to it, about his thoughts on colonization, and his personal role in it, and the current state of the British empire. The meaning of the peice is quite clear, it is in Orwells written thoughts, his actual words, and not coming from any metaphors. The older I get, the more I believe that over-intellectualizing works of literature does an enormous disservice to an author. It robs their work of its inherit dignity and minimizes the writer's intents. Criticism instead then is a primarily self-centered exercise, putting the reader central, rather than the work itself. Instead, I think, we should teach our youth to start with the words, teach them to be generous and empathetic, learn to take the words first at face value. What is being said, when was it said. Only then, when obvious meaning escapes, try and peel back.

bell-cot 5y ago

It was an English "literature" class (or at least that bit was) - so suggesting & discussing various possible interpretations of the story was part of the objectives. Consider instead Orwell as the tiny, educated, supposedly wise ruling elite. (Of the British Empire, in this case. But the point is more general.) He knows the "right" thing to do here...but under the perceived weight of at-the-moment public expectation, and with a convenient excuse at hand, he instead does the stupid, destructive thing instead. Incompetently.

trgn 5y ago

Agreed. It is quite clear what the story is about, and projecting excessive meaning on the elephant (or even a completely wrong interpretation) is typical of literature classes being designed more to entertain the intellectual kick adolescents (and their professors) have for philosophizing. Rather than actually reading the words, this way of reading always devolves into projecting once own thoughts and wills and wants on an author's work. Apart from what may have been the trigger to write the piece (disillusionment in empire building, his personal humiliations, being confronted with once own cowardice, ...) Orwell really recounts a real life event, the factual existence of the enraged elephant and it getting shot preceding any literary device. Even in this short text, Orwell is explicitly clear, dedicating many paragraphs to it, about his thoughts on colonization, and his personal role in it, and the current state of the British empire. The meaning of the peice is quite clear, it is in Orwells written thoughts, his actual words, and not coming from any metaphors. The older I get, the more I believe that over-intellectualizing works of literature does an enormous disservice to an author. It robs their work of its inherit dignity and minimizes the writer's intents. Criticism instead then is a primarily self-centered exercise, putting the reader central, rather than the work itself. Instead, I think, we should teach our youth to start with the words, teach them to be generous and empathetic, learn to take the words first at face value. What is being said, when was it said. Only then, when obvious meaning escapes, try and peel back.