Ethos In Shooting An Elephant

In the short story Orwell faces a choice, a lesser of two evils scenario where he must either decide to shoot an Elephant that killed a man because it was provoked or follow his better judgement and not kill a defenceless animal. A Lot of people would argue against his decision of killing the animal because he states the main reason he killed it was because he didn’t want to appear weak or foolish in front of the citizens that already despise him. If the perspective was changed to the eyes of one of the Burmese bystanders then you would have an entirely different conflict to think about. This person is in great fear of the elephant because it might destroy their home or even kill someone who is dear to them next and they are putting their life’s safety in the hands of a person they criticize on a daily basis. They want to see the elephant executed to prevent further havoc and no one would argue with the reasoning behind their mindset.

Orwell, when faced with shooting an elephant which was no longer causing problems, decided that the right thing to do was just let the elephant be. Orwell’s approach was shown through his original intents for the elephant rifle he had sent for upon hearing the true location of the elephant: “I had no intention of shooting the elephant – I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself if necessary” (311). Orwell’s main view toward the elephant at this point is merely defensive. As he turned to face the crowd behind him, Orwell was pushed to reconsider: “And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all… I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward” (311). Imperialism actually places the ruled as rulers and makes those in power as the powerless by the removal of their freedom of choice.

This narrative piece is an effective expository technique that describes the narrator’s thoughts and tone. Orwell uses oxymoron such as “grinning corpse” and paradox phrases such as “the story always sounds clear enough at a distance, but the nearer you get to the scene of events the vaguer it becomes”. Another paradox statement is shown in “I perceived this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys”. Orwell’s decisions were briskly altered as he was deciding on whether to kill the elephant or not. His mind altered from “I ought not to shoot him” to “I had got to do it” and also to “But I did not want to shoot the elephant”.

In the compelling yet nerve-wracking short story, The Monkey's Paw, the White family were responsible for the ultimate consequence they faced. Although fate took its toll when Sergeant Major Morris came in with the Monkey's Paw, the White family had many choices to make, to avoid the heart-breaking consequence. The White family are responsible for the tragic emanation, because of the foolish decisions they made throughout the book. When Sergeant Major Morris, visitor to the White family, entered the White's house he revealed a talisman which he got from his travels in India. Fearing the dangers it would cause, Sergeant Major threw the talisman, the Monkey's Paw, in the fire.

We all know that he shoots the elephant was because thousands of people were watching behind him and expects him to do what is ought to do. He does not shoot the elephant, the British empire would also be at loss to. Even more, he has struggled a lot not to be laughed at by the people of Burmese and in an instant, it would be a historical momentum for him if chose the elephant over his pride. The main purpose of the riffle bringing it with him was just a protection from the elephant that it might cause trouble again. But then again, it was a mistake for him to bring the rifle because people mistook it in a different way.

Another rhetorical technique used by the authors of both of the speeches discussed is emotional appeal. By structuring their speeches in such a way that allows the readers to connect on a personal level, the authors of both of these speeches are able to convey their messages with increased persuasiveness and beauty. In LBJ’s speech, various real world examples as well as personal anecdotes are used to increase the emotional appeal of the writing. One of the places where he uses this is when he states “The Negro citizen may go to register only to be told that the day is wrong, or the hour is late, or the official in charge is absent. And if he persists, and if he manages to present himself to the registrar, he may be disqualified because he

To begin with, the rampage would not have happened if it were not for the thief. “A gem-studded goblet; it gained him nothing,/Though with a thief’s wiles he had outwitted/The sleeping dragon; that drove him into a rage,/As the people of that country would soon discover” (2217-20). Notice the word sleeping; the creature was not endangering anyone before the criminal act. Imagine if it were a human being getting robbed while they were asleep; there is no doubt that they would be in rage. In addition, the serpent was only defending its’ territory that was earlier violated, similar to any normal animal behavior.

Ensuring that the point got across, revolutionary speeches were powerfully persuasive, had great use of figurative language, and had great truth to them. The speeches we have read and heard today are all a product of those amazing, articulate speeches that shaped America. All great speeches share a common goal and that is to persuade their audience. However, the authors of these speeches had to use lots of figurative language to create images a more clearer understanding of the topic.

In the story “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, there are many uses of literary devices. Orwell uses similes as key component throughout the story. Similes help the reader understand the tone and grasp what is actually occurring at a certain moment. For example, when the elephant took somebody`s life in the story, Orwell states,“The friction of the great beast's foot had stripped the skin from his back as neatly as one skins a rabbit” (Orwell 2). This simile gives the reader the impression that the elephant took the skin off the man's body as easy and clean as cutting the skin off of a little rabbit.

For instance, in “Shooting an Elephant,” George Orwell claims that when a white man becomes tyrant, he destroys his own freedom. In order to prove his purpose, Orwell establishes authority through personal details, shifts in verb tense, and a reflective tone; appeals to logic with metaphor and analogy; and creates an emotional connection with the audience through a self-deprecating tone and vivid imagery. In the opening of “Shooting an Elephant,” Orwell appeals to authority through personal details and shifts in verb tense that create a reflective tone. Specifically, the speaker first introduces himself: “I was sub-divisional police officer of the town…” (1). The detail about the speaker’s status in Burma signifies that he has first hand experience with imperialism.