"Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell

After reading Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell, I could sense the narrator's struggle of helping and despising the Indian natives at the same time. Orwell hated his government as well as the irritating Indians that make his job more difficult than it already was. On the other hand, Orwell was surprisingly for the people and against the natives' oppressors. In essence, this situation was more of a love-hate scenario in that each side, whether it was his British empire or the Indians, was complicated. However, I felt as if Orwell was being a bit hypocritical on the topic of hating his British empire. Orwell shot and slaughtered an elephant because he felt that it was necessary for the animal to be killed to impress the Indians. To Orwell, this act of killing was a way for him to express his dominance as a white man with a rifle to the natives, much like a tyrant expressing his control over the people. If Orwell disliked his government for oppressing the Indians by conveying their authority over them, wouldn't this situation be hypocritical because Orwell did not approve of tyranny but also communicated his influence as if he was a tyrant? One cannot hate something or someone but can have the ability to have that something or be that someone.

Throughout Shooting an Elephant, several elements of narrative would include the details on the description and word choice. Even though there was no dialogue in the reading, Orwell was extremely descriptive throughout the reading, such as when he illustrated the image of the dead man's body that was stomped on by the elephant or the scene where he slaughtered the elephant. In addition to his attention to details, Orwell used a specific yet unique word choice in different parts of the reading. Besides using two Latin terms "saecula saeculorum" and "in terrorem", Orwell used uncommon words like "must" or "mahout". Perhaps the use of these words would force the readers to pay close attention to the details and plot of the story. Personally, these words, without having any prior knowledge on their definitions, made me read more thoroughly than other readings.

Other than the details on the description and the word choice, there was a use of figurative language throughout the reading. Some examples of figurative language were: "The friction of the great beast's foot had stripped the skin from his back as neatly as one skins a rabbit", "If the elephant charged and I missed him, I should have about as much chance as a toad under a steam-roller", and "...for as his hind legs collapsed beneath him he seemed to tower upward like a huge rock toppling, his trunk reaching skywards like a tree."

In order for Orwell to have authority and respect from the Indians, he shot the elephant. The last sentence from the last paragraph stated, "I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool." Orwell wanted to impress others, especially the natives since he had more love for them than his British empire. The purpose of impressing the natives was to achieve respect from them, since they tend to enrage his hatred over everything.

Orwell's feelings about imperialism was that he truly hated oppression. Imperialism is the policy or concept of a country enforcing their power and influence to other countries. Even though Orwell hated the idea of oppression, he did express his authority by killing the elephant. Towards the middle and end of the reading, it stated Orwell's act and reason for killing the elephant. Without thought of what he did, Orwell became what he hated, a tyrant.

Descriptive Event - St. Thomas

As I laid on my sandy towel, I tried to contemplate on what I should do for the next several hours. A combination of the salty sea air with the smell of cheap suntan lotion suffocated my nose. All these individuals sun tanning in this basket of heat reminded me of chicken and pork being roasted. Grilled to perfection, as some would call it. These scorched individuals either continued baking in the sweltering sun or laid motionless under their umbrellas. I can hear them laugh and chatter about life, money, the weather, etc. Aside from their mindless conversations, I can also hear the tide splashing in and out on the delicate sand. The tide was creeping up on me like a stray cat stalking its next meal in some back alley. As soon as the ice-cold tide touched the tip of my toes, I shifted backwards, as I would assume that this would be a common reaction from anyone coming into contact with frigid water.

None the less, my mind started to thrift away again like algae floating within the ocean. However, this particular beach did not have that. The water was clear-through and cold to the touch, as if one was about to swim in a frozen lake. I could feel the soft sand crumble through my fingers as I try to pick up a handful of it. The more I try to grab hold of it, the more it tends to disappear through the cracks on my hand. This sand was technically my mind in that my train of focus tended to weaken as I tried to think of what I should do next. One possibly was that I could swim for the fourth time, but the taste of the sea water was too much to bear since it had the flavor of gym socks and vinegar. (Do not ask me why I know that). On the other hand, I could just suntan and be as unproductive as these other chickens being cooked next to me. Either way, I was going to relax and bath in the moment. Welcome to St. Thomas.

View on "The Clinic" by Jeff Gremmels

Narratives are created to amuse others, generate a specific idea or meaning behind the story, or to even enlighten those with events that may or may not have happened. All narratives have one common yet specific trait in that they are basically the definition of storytelling, whether the story is interesting and funny or dull and depressing. Looking back at Back to the Lake by Thomas Cooley, a good narrative requires a thorough chronological order of the events, the plot of the narrative is recognizable and clear for the audience, and the readers are able to identify the who/what/when/where/how/why of the story. In addition, explicit details to the events and/or characters is helpful for the readers in understanding the story overall.

After reading The Clinic by Jeff Gremmels, I understand what the boy in the narrative was going through when he went to the hospital with his mother. When I was younger, I received multiple injuries, such as tearing my left ligament, fracturing my right elbow, breaking my nose, dislocating my right shoulder, and even undergoing several concussions. Much like the character of the boy that had to go to the hospital, my mother acted the exact way the mother in the narrative did.

As a writer, I liked how Gremmels used dialogue and details to enhance the experience of the story. Unlike some writers that would not use dialogue, Gremmels used dialogue to express the opinions and actions of the characters in the narrative. Adding onto the dialogue, details to the events helped in describing what was going on and how these events affected the characters and future occurrences. On the other hand, the one aspect of this narrative I somewhat disliked was that the narrative was too short of a story. I mean I understand that it is better to have less, in terms of writing, because it focuses on the overall message/purpose of the narrative. But I just wanted to acknowledge the ending of the medical student's case on this boy and his self-destructive behavior.

The Clinic is about the medical student's story. Throughout the entire narrative, the medical student was speaking from his perspective of the case on the boy and his mother. The medical student was expressing his view on this case to the audience by describing what was going happen, who was involved, why the boy was injuring himself, etc. This narrative in not from the boy's viewpoint because the boy was only mentioned by the doctor as a case and not necessarily as a character like the medical student or the mother.

Gremmels' purpose in writing this particular narrative is to explain how this one case taught him more about life than his experiences in lectures or labs. In the end of the narrative, Gremmels stated, "Years of lectures, labs, and research could not match the education I received in five days with this single boy" (The Clinic, Jeff Gremmels). Based on the text, Gremmels experience as a medical student has changed in that he faced cases that are more of a psychological matter rather than physical problems. Also, a key note was mentioned to the right-hand side of it, stating that it was the narrator's main point in informing the narrative. Gremmels chose this genre of a medical detective story because he wanted the narrative to have the character solve the issue of the case for the readers than having the readers attempt to understand the meaning behind it. It was most likely easier for Gremmels to explain the purpose of the narrative through the use of the medical student's views.