What do You think about Shooting An Elephant (2003)?
As seen in /my link textAlthough a writer, Orwell was primarily a journalist. As a result, the sheer necessity to extricate himself from the depiction of something he his witnessing first-hand is quite evident along his works. What differentiates him from his other novelist-journalists of his epoch such as Steinbeck or Hemmingway is the ability to drop a considerable amount of humanity into his accounts. The essay “A Hanging” – in which Orwell describes how it was to witness a public execution of a prisoner in India – is a perfect example of this. In it, he not only expresses his contempt for the man who is about to die, but he also acknowledges the wrongness of the situation. In “How the Poor Die”, he recounts his memories of his unpleasant stay at Hôpital X in Paris. Once again, he shows affection towards the unfortunate people who died alone and helpless in the corridors of the establishment.tOther than his empathy, Orwell holds a pragmatic view regarding writing, language and communication. “The prevention of Literature” and “Politics and the English Language” are the most conspicuous examples. In these two essays, he argues about the pretentiousness of certain writers, who use ideas to convey words, and not the other way around. One can say that these points of view might have emerged during his years working as a journalist, yet the arguments he utilizes hold enough poignancy to persuade the reader. In essence, and from his perspective, the “ego” should not count when writing. He reveals he writes only when he has something to tell the audience, and not exclusively as means of self-recreation.Defining someone as “ahead of his time” might be regarded as a cliché or commonplace. But when it comes to portraying George, this needs to be done. This book should be seen as essential. That is, if you the reader wants to explore the mind of a man who lived through most of the pivotal points in the first half of the XX century, although not always fully belonging.
—Daniel Gonçalves
A few months ago I was quite impressed by George Orwell's Down And Out In Paris And London, in which he recounts his experiences on the fringes of society with a healthy measure of social commentary and sparkling wit. I was keen to read some more of Orwell's non-fiction, and this collection of essays seemed to fit the bill quite nicely.The essays span a period from the early thirties to the late forties, shortly before Orwell's premature death in January 1950. They cover a number of topics, some personal and some political, ranging from his experiences as a policeman in Burma, lofty dissections of the works of Charles Dickens and Jonathan Swift, all the way down to simple observations about the coming of spring.I didn't enjoy this book as much as Down And Out, because a lot of the political essays were largely theoretical - I preferred those in which Orwell discusses his own experiences, such as Shooting An Elephant, How The Poor Die, and Such, Such Were The Joys. Unfortunately these were a minority in the book, and it was somtimes hard going reading about politics sixty-five years out of date, or a 60-page analysis on Dickens when I've never read a lick of the man's writing.Nonetheless, Orwell was one of the most gifted writers of the 20th century (and easily its greatest journalist), and even when discussing unfamiliar subjects his prose is easy and enjoyable to read. He is exceptionally articulate, and his similes are quite imaginative:[Dickens'] imagination overwhelms everything, like a kind of weed.When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.At eight years old you were suddenly taken out of this warm nest and thrown into a world of force and fraud and secrecy, like a goldfish into a tank full of pike.He also expresses some thoughts I've had myself while travelling through Asia:With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, in saecula saeculorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet through a Buddhist priest's guts.While I didn't enjoy this as much as Down And Out, I still believe that all of Orwell's non-fiction is worth reading. Orwell was above all an honest writer, a man who could admit his errors and confront what he truly believed and write in plain English what he thought. That's a rare thing. He was not just one of the greatest writers of our age, but also one of the noblest.He also totally shot an elephant in the face. What a man!
—Mitchell
A largely chronological compilation of Orwell’s shorter pieces which incorporate all his best known essays. Even a passing familiarity with Orwell’s work and favoured subject will give you an idea of the subjects here – Britain and its empire, the British class system, poverty, totalitarianism and literature. Orwell’s great strength lay in reportage (arguably his best known fictions are merely reportage in disguise) and this collection demonstrates exactly why.The collection is bookended by the two pieces presented out of order and their placing marks them as the most important pieces. Why I Write begins the book by exploring the question suggested by the title and Politics and the English Language closes by unifying Orwell’s literary and political sides by linking a perceived decline in standards of English with the way politicians debase it. Clearly it’s a subject which still has currency, particularly as I read this during a General Election campaign where all parties are attempting to hammer messages by repetition. In between there’s a clear-eyed yet affectionate piece on Charles Dickens, reminiscences of the mundane horrors of Burma, the Spanish Civil War, poverty and the English public school system, and intelligent pieces covering both highbrow and lowbrow literature. Most wonderful of all is the shaft of rare and pure joy Orwell derives from the common toad – he may be an unsparing critic for the most part but here there’s an all too rare joy. As an extra treat, there’s a fine introduction from Jeremy Paxman which manages to admire without being rose tinted. A fine microcosm of Orwell’s work, and the book to start with if you’ve never read any of his books before.
—Jon Arnold
