Blog Post #2 Analysis on "A Rose for Emily" and "Shooting the elephant"

The narrative in “A Rose for Emily” portrays numerous dark themes that were characteristic of the Southern whites. Death is an important subject as it reflects the 1930s decomposing of the South by relating it to Emily’s desire to hold on to tradition to the extent of sleeping next to a corpse. There is also a mention of the stationary mentality of the Southerners in their critique of Homer Barron, a Northerner. Moreover, the author studies the concern of change in as far as tradition is concerned. This change is best exemplified by the town of Jefferson gradual improvement through garages, cotton gins, and a new mail service. Emily’s refusal to pay taxes, using the Colonel's expired pardon, is indicative of her refusal to change.

In the short story “Shooting the elephant”, Orwell opines that through imperialism, both conqueror and the victim are affected. Orwell explicitly states his displeasure with colonial Britain and his sympathy with Burma. When a gun in hand, a prey in front of, a cruel colonist will not hesitate to shoot. But the narrator doesn’t have this kind of violent tendency, he respected the animal life and he even more respected people’s lives. Therefore, In the depths of his heart, he wanted to save the people suffering by the colonial rule. The narrator indicates that the perceived ruler is not in full control, rather the will of the people he has conquered control his decisions. In this regard, by implementing the British rule, he loses his freedom while also oppressing the natives; both the conqueror and victim are affected.  

In both narratives, striking similarities and dissimilarities are evident. An apparent similarity is in the way both the Southern whites and the Englishmen treat the issue of the death. To both parties, death is a weighty matter. This is best illustrated by the way Orwell, in Shooting an Elephant, takes many time to kill the rogue animal. In fact, it is his wish that he does not have to shoot the elephant. Nonetheless, the people’s will is too strong for him to withstand. The Englishmen, however, are not able to influence the people of Burma. The people upon whom they have established colonial rule do not hold the life of the elephant with much regard. The Southern whites also hold death as a weighty issue. They have also imposed great influence upon a foreigner, the Negro, who leaves upon the death of his master.

Moreover, when it comes to the issue of class, the Southern whites do not influence Emily to accept a man of lower class.  Emily is required adamantly on marrying a man from a similar social class so that the only way she can get free is killing Homer. Similarly, the Englishmen are unable to influence the Burmese to value animal life equally so that the only thing he can do at that circumstance is killing the elephant. Therefore, both Emily and the narrator in the “Shooting the elephant” are innocent. They are just the victimized products of that era.

Also, the Southern whites are receptive to change. The society is, however, unable to influence Emily to accept change. This is indicated in her refusal to pay taxes. The Englishmen in Burma, on the other hand, are unable to accept change and abandon imperialism; they hence impose their influence upon the Burmese.