"An autobiography is only to be trusted when it reveals something disgraceful." This is an interesting sentiment for this particular story, as there is no conclusive evidence this story actually took place in Orwell's life, despite the unflattering image it paints and the parallels in Orwell's life.

The story follows the narrator, speculatively Orwell, a police office implementing British imperialism rule of law in Burma. The opening presents the sentiments of all parties in the story; the bitterness of the Burmans at the European occupation, and the resentment and guilt of the narrator to be enforcing imperialism, and the simultaneous rage the narrator feels towards the Burmans for the day to day derision and baiting he experienced. He simultaneously expresses sympathy for the local plight, but only thinks about giving up his job as policeman in a distant 'someday'.

It is the only time in his life, he says, that he is important enough to be hated. This isn't entirely true, both as he will become much more prevalent later in life, and that in this particular instance, he is neither important, nor hated, it is only what he represents.

He lists the cruelty inflicted on the Burmans, and the guilt he feels, though he immediately follows it up by claiming the dying British regime to be a great deal better than the ones to follow. Bizarrely, he says he is oppressed by his own guilt. He claims that he has had to carry that bitterness for the empire in silence, as did any other Englishmen in the East.

Rage is the word he uses to describe his feelings towards the locals, a word that seems so much more emotional than the hatred he says he feels for the empire. The language he uses to describe the locals is in general is vicious and much more potent than any he uses to describe the oppressive system he is enforcing. Perhaps this is a result of the different scales of interaction, where his day to day interactions appeal more to his emotion.

The story describes an incident that he claims is enlightening to the nature of imperialism and the underlying motives.

He is informed of a tame elephant gone into must that had escaped and evaded its handler. The elephant had caused some property damage in a very poor region, though the closer he got to the site, the hazier the details became.

When he arrives, the elephant has killed a man, ground him into the earth. Headed to the fields where the elephant has been found, the narrator is followed by a huge crowd that have seen his hunting rifle and are eager to see him shoot the elephant. The crowd has only become interested in him and the elephant when shooting it became an option, despite the damage it had caused.

He has no intention of shooting the elephant at the onset. As he approaches and realizes that the elephant has come out of must and is once more docile and there is no need to shoot it. Further, he knows that he shouldn't shoot the elephant, as they are expensive. Ultimately, he doesn't want to shoot it.

When he arrives and sees the size of the crowd at his back, he suddenly realizes that he has to shoot it. He feels the people's will at his back, and him as a puppet despite appearing to be leading them, which he parallels with the futility of Britain's presence in Burma. He claims in turning tyrant, it is the freedom of the oppressor that is destroyed. He feels that he must act out the Burmans' expectations of him, and shoot the elephant. If he turns away, the crowd will laugh, and this is apparently, the one thing he cannot bear.

The shooting itself is drawn out; he mistakenly assumes the location to shoot an elephant in order to kill it quickly. With the first shot, he doesn't hear the sound of the gun, but rather the sound of the crowd's elation. The elephant sagged to his knees with a sense of great age. The elephant attempted to regain its feet with the second shot, but with the third brought him down with a trumpet and a crash that seemed to shake the ground. Even then he isn't dead, and more shots bring blood and agony, but not death. The elephant death is slow and tortuous; powerless to move and powerless to die.

The death itself may be a further metaphor in the stages presented; senility, decline, a crash, and a long, agonizing, drawn out death.

He leaves, and hears that it took another half hour for the elephant to die, after which the people stripped the elephant of flesh to the bones.

His priority seems to be how he is perceived through out the encounter; he seems dedicated to presenting himself as feeling great guilt and shame. Among the other English policemen, the older men said he had made the right choice, and the younger that the man killed by the elephant was worth less than the price of the elephants death. He is glad, he says, that the man was killed, as it made his killing of the elephant justified, despite the entire event being a result of his unwillingness to look a fool. ( )

I read this story aloud to my class of sixth graders -many of whom were of course huge chatterboxes. They were still and respectful the entire time. When I finished, you could hear a pin drop and many - including me - had tears in their eyes. I don't think we read aloud enough to kids - especially at this age. There is still so much value in it. ( )

This is a collection of essays by George Orwell. Very well written and very interesting. ( )

Some essays are quite good: Shooting an Elephant, Bookshop Memories, A Hanging, How the Poor Die, Such, Books vs. Cigarettes, Such Were the Joys, and maybe a few others. Some not so good. Did not care for the Dickens essay but then, I don't care for Dickens. He is assuredly a good writer. His prose is of a different time so it tends to take extra concentration to just grasp his meaning. The title essay was worth the price of the book alone....5,000 kyat (less than $4 US, new) in Yangon, Myanmar. ( )

For å forstå 1984 og Animal Farm er denne boken et must. Den et også nødvendig fort å forstå at vår tid ikke et så mye annerledes enn alle tider.

Meget vel anvendt tid. ( )