Why do you think Orwell's voice as narrative is the only one readers hear? Is the absence of a dialogue a strength or weakness in "Shooting an...

Orwell seems to have wanted to emphasize the internal conflict experienced by the narrator, who does not really want to shoot the elephant but feels compelled to do so to "avoid looking a fool." He wants to emphasize, at least in part, the ways in which the demands and logic of the empire forced people to act against their own moral compasses. By shooting the elephant, the narrator becomes what the Burmese people expect (and...

Orwell seems to have wanted to emphasize the internal conflict experienced by the narrator, who does not really want to shoot the elephant but feels compelled to do so to "avoid looking a fool." He wants to emphasize, at least in part, the ways in which the demands and logic of the empire forced people to act against their own moral compasses. By shooting the elephant, the narrator becomes what the Burmese people expect (and indeed demand) him to be—a violent killer. We realize, only because we view the incident through his eyes, that he does not ultimately want to act in this way, though he also freely acknowledges that he hates the Burmese people. At the same time, the narrator's perspective and lack of dialogue with the Burmese people causes us to see the colonial peoples as essentially faceless and one-dimensional. They are an angry, baying mob whom the narrator views with contempt and more than a little fear. It could be argued that the narrator's point of view fails to interrogate the complexities of empire by depriving the Burmese people of any individuality.