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 li

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.