The Necklace by Maupassant

Setting:

 The story is set in late 19th-century France, primarily in Paris. The socio-economic backdrop
of the story plays a significant role in shaping the characters' lives and decisions.

Characters:

 Mathilde Loisel: The protagonist, who is dissatisfied with her middle-class life and
longs for wealth and luxury.

 Monsieur Loisel: Mathilde's husband, a clerk in the Ministry of Education. He is

content with his modest lifestyle but loves his wife deeply.

 Madame Forestier: A wealthy friend of Mathilde's, whose jewelry Mathilde borrows

for a fancy event.

Plot

 Introduction: The story begins with the introduction of the protagonist, Mathilde Loisel, a
young woman married to a clerk in the Ministry of Education named Monsieur Loisel. Despite
her husband's modest income, Mathilde harbors deep-seated dissatisfaction with her middle-
class life and yearns for luxury and opulence.
 The Invitation: Monsieur Loisel comes home one evening with an invitation to a prestigious
ball hosted by the Ministry. Mathilde, thrilled at the prospect of attending such a grand
event, is immediately distressed by the realization that she lacks appropriate attire for such
an occasion.
 Borrowing the Necklace: Mathilde's husband suggests that she borrow jewelry from her
wealthy friend, Madame Forestier. Reluctantly, Mathilde agrees and borrows a stunning
diamond necklace from Madame Forestier.
 The Ball: At the ball, Mathilde is transformed into a vision of beauty and elegance, attracting
admiration and envy from the other guests. She revels in the attention and the illusion of
wealth and status that the borrowed necklace provides.
 The Loss: After the ball, as Mathilde and her husband return home, she realizes with horror
that she has lost the necklace. Despite their frantic search, the necklace remains
unrecovered.
 The Descent into Poverty: Fearful of the consequences of revealing the loss to Madame
Forestier, the Loisels decide to replace the necklace secretly. They borrow a vast sum of
money, exhausting their resources and plunging themselves into debt.
 Years of Hardship: The Loisels spend the next ten years working tirelessly to repay their
debts, sacrificing their comfort and happiness to rectify Mathilde's mistake. They move to a
smaller apartment, live frugally, and endure hardship.
 The Revelation: Eventually, Mathilde encounters Madame Forestier, who fails to recognize
her former friend due to the toll that poverty has taken on Mathilde's appearance. When
Mathilde confesses to losing the necklace and reveals the sacrifices, she and her husband
 made to replace it, Madame Forestier nonchalantly informs her that the original necklace
was merely a cheap imitation, worth only a fraction of what the Loisels had paid to replace it.
 The Irony and Resolution: The story concludes with a bitter irony, as Mathilde realizes the
folly of her obsession with wealth and status. Despite her years of suffering, she ultimately
learns that the necklace, the symbol of her downfall, was of little value. The revelation
underscores the theme of appearance versus reality and the deceptive nature of societal
values.
 Reflection: "The Necklace" serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of pride, vanity, and
the pursuit of material wealth. It leaves readers contemplating the consequences of living
beyond one's means and the true meaning of happiness and contentment.

Themes:

 The theme of appearance versus reality: Mathilde's desire for material wealth and
social status leads her to borrow an expensive necklace to maintain appearances,
ultimately resulting in her downfall.

 The consequences of pride and vanity: Mathilde's refusal to accept her modest
circumstances and her desire to impress others lead to her downfall.

 The deceptive nature of wealth: The necklace, a symbol of wealth and status,
ultimately proves to be fake, highlighting the superficiality of societal values.

Irony:

 The irony of Mathilde's desire for wealth and luxury leading to her descent into
poverty.

 The revelation that the necklace, which Mathilde sacrificed so much to replace, was
merely an imitation, accentuating the futility of her pursuit of materialism.

Conclusion:

 The story concludes with a twist, as Mathilde encounters Madame Forestier years
later and learns that the original necklace was merely an imitation, worth only a
fraction of what she and her husband had sacrificed to replace it.

 This revelation serves as a bitter reminder of the consequences of Mathilde's vanity

and pride, highlighting the theme of the deceptive nature of appearances and
societal values.

"The Necklace" is a poignant tale that explores the themes of ambition, pride, and the consequences
of living beyond one's means, leaving a lasting impression on readers with its powerful narrative and
thought-provoking conclusion.
‘The Necklace’: analysis

In ‘The Necklace’, Guy de Maupassant explores the relationship between appearance and reality. The
necklace, of course, is the most explicit example of this: it looks like a genuine diamond necklace but
is an imitation or fake. And this final twist in the tale leads us to think more carefully about the other
details of the story.

But ‘The Necklace’ is more specifically about the dangers of not being happy with what one has, and
always wanting more. The nineteenth century saw a rise in the prevalence of consumerism, with
many middle-class people seeking to improve their lot and keep up with their friends and neighbors
in terms of their possessions, clothes, and social status.

Although Maupassant’s story is hardly searing social satire, the fate of the female protagonist does
act as a cautionary tale about the dangers of chasing consumerist gratification in order to impress
and be admired by others. The Loisels have a perfectly comfortable lower-middle-class life, and
Mathilde has one servant to help around the house.

But this isn’t enough. She dreams of having more. Her food is not enough for her and she wants to
dine on finer dishes. One would think she was living a life of poverty from how dissatisfied she is.

This constant desire for more is her undoing, of course – and her husband’s. Her insistence that she
have some jewels to wear to the ball is what leads her to find out what real poverty is like, when she
and her husband have to downsize from a modest flat to a small garret, and Mathilde has to learn
how to work as a servant in her own house. She also loses the natural beauty she had as she has to
work so hard at scrubbing the floors.

The critic Rachel Mesch, in her book Having It All in the Belle Epoque, has pointed out that ‘The
Necklace’, among other stories, is a kind of Cinderella story gone awry: whereas Cinderella begins by
scrubbing floors and ends up going to the ball in all her finery, Mathilde goes to the ball and, as a
result of losing her necklace (not her glass slipper), is reduced to a life of scrubbing floors.

Because she longed for more than she had, she ended up with less than she had to begin with. But
the delicious ironic twist at the end of the story shows that her reduction to a life of poverty was all
for nothing: just like the admiration she was foolishly and vainly chasing, the necklace she was
working to replace was, after all, a sham.

Modern consumerism, then, is a con, with anyone able to afford a cheap imitation necklace able to
pass themselves off as a member of the upper classes. Maupassant seems to be suggesting that the
‘finer things’ in life which tempt us are often, at their core, hollow and worthless.

At the same time, however, even when she is reduced to a life of grinding poverty, Mathilde still
remembers that one night at the ball when she was admired. It is almost as if she thinks it was worth
it, despite what happened next. She wonders what would have happened if she’d never lost the
necklace.

Of course, at this stage of the narrative she hasn’t learned that the diamonds she was wearing that
night were fakes; perhaps that revelation would make her revise her opinion. And yet, knowing they
were imitation diamonds raises further ‘what if’ questions.
If they cost five hundred francs at the most, as Madame Forestier reveals at the end, Loisel’s husband
could have easily bought her a cheap necklace and nobody – except for the Loisels themselves –
would have been any the wiser. After all, Mathilde was admired at the ball even though she was, it
turns out, wearing fake diamonds.

“Araby” by James Joyce

Setting:

 The story is set in Dublin, Ireland, in the late 19th or early 20th century.

 The narrator's house is situated on North Richmond Street, a quiet and dark
residential area.

Characters:

 The narrator: A young boy who experiences his first infatuation.

 Mangan's sister: The object of the narrator's affection, who lives next door.

 Mrs. Mercer: A woman who lodges with the narrator's family and frequently occupies
their living room.

 Uncle: The uncle of the narrator who promises to take him to Araby, a bazaar.

Plot:

Introduction:

 The story begins with the narrator, a young boy living with his aunt and uncle in
Dublin. He harbors an intense infatuation for Mangan's sister, who lives nearby.

 The boy's fascination with the girl is depicted through his longing stares and
imaginative projections of her as a romantic figure.

Motivation:

 The narrator's infatuation with Mangan's sister becomes a driving force in his life. He
daydreams about her constantly and yearns for an opportunity to express his
feelings.

Promise of the Bazaar:

 The narrator learns about the Araby bazaar, a grand event held in Dublin, and
becomes fixated on the idea of buying a gift for Mangan's sister there.
  He imagines the bazaar as a mystical place filled with exotic wonders, viewing it as a
symbol of the romantic adventures he longs to experience.

Anticipation and Disappointment:

 The narrator eagerly awaits the day of the bazaar, his excitement growing with each
passing moment. He envisions the bazaar as a magical realm where his dreams will
come true.

 However, his anticipation turns to frustration when his uncle, who had promised to
accompany him to the bazaar, arrives home late and intoxicated.

 Despite the delay, the narrator clings to the hope of reaching the bazaar before it
closes, clinging to his belief that it will fulfill his romantic aspirations.

Realization and Disillusionment:

 When the narrator finally arrives at the bazaar, he is met with disappointment and
disillusionment. The once enchanting atmosphere is now dim and lifeless, and many
of the stalls are already closing.

 He realizes the stark contrast between his romantic fantasies and the harsh reality of
the bazaar. The exotic goods he had imagined are replaced with mundane items, and
the bazaar's allure fades away.

 The narrator's final purchase—a simple, meaningless trinket—serves as a painful

reminder of his unrequited love and shattered dreams.

Epiphany:

 As the narrator leaves the bazaar, he experiences a moment of profound realization.

He recognizes the futility of his romantic idealizations and the emptiness of his
pursuits.

 The disillusionment he feels marks a significant moment of growth and self-

awareness, as he begins to understand the complexities of love and desire.

Conclusion:

 The story ends with the narrator returning home, his heart heavy with
disappointment and resignation. He acknowledges the harsh realities of life and the
impossibility of recapturing his lost innocence.

 Despite the pain of his disillusionment, the narrator's experience at Araby serves as a
rite of passage, marking his transition from childhood to adulthood.
Themes:

 Coming of age: The story explores the narrator's journey from innocence to
experience as he navigates his first romantic feelings and encounters disappointment
and disillusionment.

 Romantic idealism versus reality: The narrator's romantic notions about Mangan's
sister and the Araby bazaar clash with the harsh realities of life, leading to a loss of
innocence.

 Paralysis and frustration: The story reflects the larger theme of paralysis that
pervades Dubliners, as the characters are trapped in their mundane lives and unable
to break free from societal constraints.

2. Symbolism:

 The bazaar: Araby represents the narrator's idealized vision of love and exoticism, but
ultimately serves as a symbol of disillusionment and unattainable dreams.

 Darkness and light: The dimly lit streets of Dublin contrast with the bright lights of
the bazaar, symbolizing the narrator's journey from ignorance to awareness.

 The chalice: The narrator's purchase of a trivial item at the bazaar, a cheap gift for
Mangan's sister, symbolizes the emptiness of his romantic aspirations.

3. Narrative Style:

 The story is written in the first-person perspective, allowing readers insight into the
narrator's thoughts and emotions.

 Joyce employs vivid imagery and sensory details to evoke the atmosphere of Dublin
and the narrator's inner turmoil.

4. Conclusion:

 The story ends with the narrator's realization of the disparity between his romantic
ideals and the harsh realities of life, marking his disillusionment and loss of
innocence.

"Araby" is a poignant and evocative tale that captures the universal experience of adolescence and
the pain of unfulfilled desires, resonating with readers through its vivid portrayal of Dublin life and
the complexities of human emotion.

Analysis

In “Araby,” the allure of new love and distant places mingles with the familiarity of everyday drudgery,
with frustrating consequences. Mangan’s sister embodies this mingling since she is part of the
familiar surroundings of the narrator’s street as well as the exotic promise of the bazaar. She is a
“brown figure” who both reflects the brown façades of the buildings that line the street and evokes
the skin color of romanticized images of Arabia that flood the narrator’s head. Like the bazaar that
offers experiences that differ from everyday Dublin, Mangan’s sister intoxicates the narrator with new
feelings of joy and elation. His love for her, however, must compete with the dullness of schoolwork,
his uncle’s lateness, and the Dublin trains. Though he promises Mangan’s sister that he will go to
Araby and purchase a gift for her, these mundane realities undermine his plans and ultimately thwart
his desires. The narrator arrives at the bazaar only to encounter flowered teacups and English
accents, not the freedom of the enchanting East. As the bazaar closes down, he realizes that
Mangan’s sister will fail his expectations as well, and that his desire for her is actually only a vain wish
for change.

The narrator’s change of heart concludes the story on a moment of epiphany, but not a positive one.
Instead of reaffirming his love or realizing that he does not need gifts to express his feelings for
Mangan’s sister, the narrator simply gives up. He seems to interpret his arrival at the bazaar as it
fades into darkness as a sign that his relationship with Mangan’s sister will also remain just a wishful
idea and that his infatuation was as misguided as his fantasies about the bazaar. What might have
been a story of happy, youthful love becomes a tragic story of defeat. Much like the disturbing,
unfulfilling adventure in “An Encounter,” the narrator’s failure at the bazaar suggests that fulfillment
and contentedness remain foreign to Dubliners, even in the most unusual events of the city like an
annual bazaar.

The tedious events that delay the narrator’s trip indicate that no room exists for love in the daily lives
of Dubliners, and the absence of love renders the characters in the story almost anonymous. Though
the narrator might imagine himself to be carrying thoughts of Mangan’s sister through his day as a
priest would carry a Eucharistic chalice to an altar, the minutes tick away through school, dinner, and
his uncle’s boring poetic recitation. Time does not adhere to the narrator’s visions of his relationship.
The story presents this frustration as universal: the narrator is nameless, the girl is always “Mangan’s
sister” as though she is any girl next door, and the story closes with the narrator imagining himself as
a creature. In “Araby,” Joyce suggests that all people experience frustrated desire for love and new
experiences.

“The Rocking Horse Winner” D.H. Lawrence

1. Setting:

 The story is set in England, likely during the early 20th century.

 The family home, described as a "big, handsome house," symbolizes wealth and
social status but is plagued by financial struggles.

2. Characters:
  Paul: The young protagonist, who is sensitive to the financial strains within his family
and becomes determined to alleviate them.

 Hester: Paul's mother, who is discontented with her family's financial situation and
perpetually yearns for more money.

 Bassett: The family's gardener, who shares a close bond with Paul and introduces him
to horse racing and betting.

 Uncle Oscar: Hester's brother, who represents the wealthy and successful side of the
family.

3. Plot:

 Introduction: The story opens with a description of a well-to-do family residing in a

grand house, but despite their wealth, there is an atmosphere of discontent and
financial strain. The central character, Paul, is introduced as a young boy who is
sensitive to the tensions within his family, particularly his mother's dissatisfaction
with their financial status.
 Paul's Sensitivity: Paul is portrayed as a perceptive and intuitive child who is deeply
affected by his mother's constant complaints about their financial situation. He
becomes determined to find a way to alleviate his family's financial struggles and to
win his mother's affection, which he believes is tied to their wealth.
 Discovering the Rocking Horse: Paul's connection with the rocking horse in the
nursery is established early in the story. He becomes entranced by the horse's
movements and discovers that he can ride it to enter a trance-like state where he can
predict the winners of horse races.
 Paul's ability to predict race winners becomes a secret obsession as he spends hours
rocking back and forth, seeking out the names of winning horses.
 The Pursuit of Luck: With the help of the family gardener, Bassett, Paul begins placing
bets on the horse races using his predictions. Despite his young age, Paul becomes
deeply involved in the world of gambling, driven by his desire to bring wealth to his
family. Paul's success in predicting race winners leads to a steady stream of winnings,
which he presents to his mother as a gift, hoping to satisfy her desire for more
money.
 Consequences of the Obsession: Despite his apparent success, Paul's obsession with
winning and his relentless pursuit of luck take a toll on his health and well-being. He
becomes increasingly withdrawn and feverish, consumed by his quest to satisfy his
mother's desires. The tension within the family escalates as Paul's mother becomes
increasingly dependent on the money he provides, while his father remains oblivious
to the source of their newfound wealth.
 Tragic Conclusion: The story reaches its climax when Paul becomes determined to
win enough money to finally make his mother happy. In a desperate attempt to
secure a large sum, he places a high-stakes bet on a race, risking everything he
has.The race results in a tragic outcome, as Paul's horse wins but he collapses in a fit
of exhaustion and dies shortly afterward. The story ends with Paul's mother
 discovering the truth about her son's death and realizing the devastating
consequences of her greed and materialism.

4. Themes:

 The destructive nature of materialism: The story critiques the insatiable desire for
wealth and the detrimental effects of prioritizing material possessions over human
connections and emotional well-being.

 The elusive nature of luck: Lawrence explores the concept of luck as a fleeting and
unpredictable force, highlighting its inability to provide lasting happiness or
fulfillment.

 The sacrificial love of a child: Paul's selfless devotion to his mother underscores the
theme of sacrificial love, as he sacrifices his own well-being in his quest to satisfy her
desires.

5. Symbolism:

 The rocking horse: Symbolizes Paul's desperate attempt to find luck and validation in
a world consumed by materialism and greed. It serves as a conduit for his intuitive
powers and becomes a metaphor for his relentless pursuit of wealth.

 The whispering house: Represents the suffocating atmosphere of greed and

discontent within the family home, where material possessions are valued above all
else.

6. Narrative Style:

 Lawrence employs a third-person omniscient narrative perspective, allowing readers

insight into the thoughts and motivations of multiple characters.

 He uses vivid imagery and symbolism to evoke the oppressive atmosphere of the
family home and the inner turmoil of the characters.

7. Conclusion:

 The story concludes with Paul's tragic death, resulting from his frenzied pursuit of
luck and his inability to satisfy his mother's insatiable desires.

 Despite his efforts to bring financial prosperity to his family, Paul ultimately becomes
a victim of the very forces he sought to conquer, highlighting the destructive
consequences of greed and materialism.

"The Rocking-Horse Winner" is a haunting and thought-provoking tale that delves into the
complexities of human nature and the destructive power of unchecked desires, leaving readers to
contemplate the true cost of wealth and happiness.
Analysis of the rocking horse

Children are greatly affected by the unresolved issues of their parents.

The story puts forth the idea that parents who are plagued with unresolved issues are destined to
pass those issues down to their children. Paul’s mother has three healthy children and a fine house,
but the shame of not being wealthy prevents her from enjoying the relative comfort of her life. Her
worries over money and social class fill the house and every moment of the children’s lives with the
refrain “There must be more money!” The children may have first overheard their parents speaking
this sentiment aloud, but over time the voice metaphorically interrupts any opportunity the children
have for joy. When the house fills up with gifts, the children hear the voice louder than ever, signaling
that even though the gifts are the parents’ way of covering up their money problems, they make
these problems worse.

Paul internalizes this need for wealth, which is why he turns to gambling on horses as a way to
procure money for the family. Despite the boy’s many successes picking winning horses, his desire for
more money is never satiated, mirroring his mother’s own pathological relationship to wealth. His
mother’s brother Oscar is also a gambler, which signifies how this pathology has been passed down
to young Paul. Whatever the mystery of Paul’s rocking-horse, it’s clear that the boy is doomed to
suffer the way his mother has suffered. In the end, Paul dies for the sake of accumulating wealth, the
very goal that eluded his mother and made her heart “into a stone.”

Greed makes people unhappy and inhumane.

Through the examples of Paul, Paul’s mother, and Uncle Oscar, the story illustrates the idea that greed
for money makes people unhappy and ultimately inhumane. Every time Paul’s mother reaches one
financial goal, more distant, unattainable goals appear. Even when she earns money at a job, she
can’t be happy, comparing herself to the boss who earns more. Instead of being happy for what she
has, Paul’s mother is unhappy about what she doesn't have, blaming her unhappiness on luck and
God, thereby deflecting blame from herself. As a result, she is totally distracted from the needs of her
family, and especially Paul’s worsening mental and physical health. Hence, greed has drained the love
from Paul’s mother’s familial relationships and made her not only unhappy, but also inhumane. Uncle
Oscar is warmer and kinder to Paul, enthusiastically helping young Paul place bets, but this only
encourages Paul’s destructive and inappropriate behavior. Blinded by greed, Uncle Oscar uses Paul to
make more money for himself, rather than noticing and putting a stop to Paul’s decline. Bringing the
inhumanity of the adult characters to a horrifying climax, Oscar even seems to rationalize Paul’s death
as necessary for the family’s financial success.

Luck is a matter of perspective.

At first glance, Paul’s mother’s lamentations over her bad luck ring true, and Paul’s uncanny ability to
pick winners seems like an incredible stroke of luck. However, on closer examination, luck in the story
is a matter of perspective. Paul’s mother identifies “luck” as the thing that dooms her to a life of
want, but from an outside perspective, she appears to want for nothing. She has a handsome
husband whom she married for love, a nice home, and beautiful children. She even began life with
beauty and privilege, which an outside observer might call exceptionally lucky. The problem isn’t that
Paul’s mother has bad luck but rather that she has good luck and refuses to see it.
Paul appears to possess a tremendous gift: an ability to predict the result of horse-races, a sport that
typifies the notion of luck. Uncle Oscar reinforces the assumption that Paul is lucky by encouraging
his horse-race betting and by financially profiting from Paul’s winning picks. But as the story
progresses, and Paul’s obsession worsens and his health declines, it becomes clear that Paul is not
such a lucky boy after all. Paul thinks he has found luck, and Uncle Oscar thinks Paul is lucky, but in
the end, Paul is still a boy with an absent father and a mother who does not love him, and he is
surrounded by adults who encourage his unhealthy behavior. The absurdity of the characters’ skewed
perspective of luck is on ghastly display in the final scene when Paul feverishly and excitedly tells his
mother with his dying breath that he is lucky after all. Paul perceives his winning as luck, even in the
face of his fatal illness, because the adults in his life have taught him that good luck is equal to
wealth. His mother’s emotional detachment during Paul’s death, when she learns that his efforts have
brought her a large sum of money, suggests that her perspective on luck remains intact despite the
tragic loss of her child.

“Shooting an Elephant” George Orwell

1. Setting:

 The essay is set in British-controlled Burma (now Myanmar) during the early 20th
century, when Burma was a colony of the British Empire.

 Orwell, who worked as a police officer in Burma, provides vivid descriptions of the
colonial environment, including the oppressive heat, the presence of the native
Burmese population, and the tension between the colonizers and the colonized.

2. Narrative Perspective:

 The essay is written in the first-person perspective, with Orwell serving as both the
narrator and the central character.

 Orwell recounts his personal experience of a moral dilemma he faced while serving
as a police officer in Burma, offering insights into his thoughts and emotions at the
time.

3. Plot:

George Orwell works as the sub-divisional police officer of a town in the British colony of
Burma. Because he is a military occupier, he is hated by much of the village. Though the
Burmese never stage a full revolt, they express their disgust by taunting Orwell at every
opportunity. This situation provokes two conflicting responses in Orwell: on the one hand, his
role makes him despise the British Empire’s systematic mistreatment of its subjects. On the
other hand, however, he resents the locals because of how they torment him. Orwell is
caught between considering the British Raj an “unbreakable tyranny” and believing that
killing a troublesome villager would be “the greatest joy in the world.”

One day, an incident takes place that shows Orwell “the real nature of imperialism.” A
domesticated elephant has escaped from its chains and gone berserk, threatening villagers
and property. The only person capable of controlling the elephant—its “mahout”—went
looking for the elephant in the wrong direction, and is now twelve hours away. Orwell goes to
the neighborhood where the elephant was last spotted. The neighborhood’s inhabitants give
such conflicting reports that Orwell nearly concludes that the whole story was a hoax.
Suddenly, he hears an uproar nearby and rounds a corner to find a “coolie”—a laborer—lying
dead in the mud, crushed and skinned alive by the rogue elephant. Orwell orders a
subordinate to bring him a gun strong enough to shoot an elephant.

Orwell’s subordinate returns with the gun, and locals reveal that the elephant is in a nearby
field. Orwell walks to the field, and a large group from the neighborhood follows him. The
townspeople have seen the gun and are excited to see the elephant shot. Orwell feels
uncomfortable—he had not planned to shoot the elephant.

The group comes upon the elephant in the field, eating grass unperturbed. Seeing the
peaceful creature makes Orwell realize that he should not shoot it—besides, shooting a full-
grown elephant is like destroying expensive infrastructure. After coming to this conclusion,
Orwell looks at the assembled crowd—now numbering in the thousands—and realizes that
they expect him to shoot the elephant, as if part of a theatrical performance. The true cost of
white westerners’ conquest of the orient, Orwell realizes, is the white men’s freedom. The
colonizers are “puppets,” bound to fulfill their subjects’ expectations. Orwell has to shoot the
elephant, or else he will be laughed at by the villagers—an outcome he finds intolerable.

The best course of action, Orwell decides, would be to approach the elephant and see how it
responds, but to do this would be dangerous and might set Orwell up to be humiliated in
front of the villagers. In order to avoid this unacceptable embarrassment, Orwell must kill the
beast. He aims the gun where he thinks the elephant’s brain is. Orwell fires, and the crowd
erupts in excitement. The elephant sinks to its knees and begins to drool. Orwell fires again,
and the elephant’s appearance worsens, but it does not collapse. After a third shot, the
elephant trumpets and falls, rattling the ground where it lands.

The downed elephant continues to breathe. Orwell fires more, but the bullets have no effect.
The elephant is obviously in agony. Orwell is distraught to see the elephant “powerless to
move and yet powerless to die,” and he uses a smaller rifle to fire more bullets into its throat.
When this does nothing, Orwell leaves the scene, unable to watch the beast suffer. He later
hears that it took the elephant half an hour to die. Villagers strip the meat off of its bones
shortly thereafter.

Orwell’s choice to kill the elephant was controversial. The elephant’s owner was angry, but, as
an Indian, had no legal recourse. Older British agreed with Orwell’s choice, but younger
 colonists thought it was inappropriate to kill an elephant just because it killed a coolie, since
they think elephants are more valuable than coolies. Orwell notes that he is lucky the
elephant killed a man, because it gave his own actions legal justification. Finally, Orwell
wonders if any of his comrades understood that he killed the elephant “solely to avoid
looking a fool.”

4. Themes:

 The essay explores themes of imperialism, power dynamics, and moral ambiguity, as
Orwell reflects on the complexities of colonial rule and the dehumanizing effects it
has on both the colonizers and the colonized.

 Orwell highlights the destructive nature of imperialism and the moral compromises it
demands of those who uphold it, depicting the damaging impact of oppressive
systems of power on individual conscience and integrity.

 The essay also examines the psychological toll of conformity and the pressure to
conform to societal expectations, as Orwell grapples with the internal conflict
between his personal beliefs and his professional obligations.

5. Symbolism:

 The elephant serves as a powerful symbol of the oppressive forces of imperialism and
the violence inherent in colonial rule.

 Orwell's decision to shoot the elephant reflects the larger themes of power,
authority, and the moral complexities of navigating oppressive systems of control.

6. Conclusion:

 The essay concludes with Orwell reflecting on the profound sense of guilt and
disillusionment he experiences in the aftermath of the shooting, as he confronts the
harsh realities of colonialism and the moral compromises it demands.

 Through his personal experience, Orwell offers a searing critique of imperialism and
the corrosive effects of unchecked power on individual conscience and humanity.

Analysis of Shooting an Elephant George Orwell

‘Shooting an Elephant’ is obviously about more than Orwell’s killing of the elephant: the whole
incident was, he tells us, ‘A tiny incident in itself, but it gave me a better glimpse than I had had before
of the real nature of imperialism – the real motives for which despotic governments act.’

The surprise is that despotic governments don’t merely impose their iron boot upon people without
caring what their poor subjects think of them, but rather that despots do care about how they are
judged and viewed by their subjects.
Among other things, then, ‘Shooting an Elephant’ is about how those in power act when they are
aware that they have an audience. It is about how so much of our behaviour is shaped, not by what
we want to do, nor even by what we think is the right thing to do, but by what others will think of us.

Orwell confesses that he had spent his whole life trying to avoid being laughed at, and this is one of
his key motivations when dealing with the elephant: not to invite ridicule or laughter from the
Burmese people watching him.

To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail
feebly away, having done nothing – no, that was impossible. The crowd would laugh at me. And my
whole life, every white man’s life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at.

Note how ‘my whole life’ immediately widens to ‘every white man’s life in the East’: this is not just
Orwell’s psychology but the psychology of every imperial agent. Orwell goes on to imagine what grisly
death he would face if he shot the elephant and missed, and he was trampled like the hapless coolie
the elephant had killed: ‘And if that happened it was quite probable that some of them would laugh.
That would never do.’

The stiff upper lip of this final phrase is British imperialism personified. Being trampled to death by
the elephant might be something that Orwell could live with (as it were); but being laughed at? And,
worse still, laughed at by the ‘natives’? Unthinkable …

And from this point, Orwell extrapolates his own experience to consider the colonial experience at
large: the white European may think he is in charge of his colonial subjects, but ironically – even
paradoxically – the coloniser loses his own freedom when he takes it upon himself to subjugate and
rule another people:

I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he
destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib. For it is
the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the ‘natives,’ and so in every
crisis he has got to do what the ‘natives’ expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it.

So, at the heart of ‘Shooting an Elephant’ are two intriguing paradoxes: imperial rulers and despots
actually care deeply about how their colonised subjects view them (even if they don’t
care about those subjects), and the one who colonises loses his own freedom when he takes away
the freedom of his colonial subjects, because he is forced to play the role of the ‘sahib’ or gentleman,
setting an example for the ‘natives’, and, indeed, ‘trying to impress’ them. He is the alien
in their land, which helps to explain this second paradox, but the first is more elusive.

However, even this paradox is perhaps explicable. As Orwell says, aware of the absurdity of the scene:
‘Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd – seemingly
the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will
of those yellow faces behind.’

The Burmese natives are the ones with the real power in this scene, both because they are the
natives and because they outnumber the lone policeman, by several thousand to one. He may have a
gun, but they have the numbers. He is performing for a crowd, and the most powerful elephant gun
in the world wouldn’t be enough to give him power over the situation.
There is a certain inevitability conveyed by Orwell’s clever repetitions (‘I did not in the least want to
shoot him … They had seen the rifle and were all shouting excitedly that I was going to shoot the
elephant … I had no intention of shooting the elephant … I did not in the least want to shoot him …
But I did not want to shoot the elephant’), which show how the idea of shooting the elephant
gradually becomes apparent to the young Orwell.

These repetitions also convey how powerless he feels over what is happening, even though he
acknowledges it to be unjust (when the elephant no longer poses a threat to anyone) as well as
financially wasteful (Orwell also draws attention to the pragmatic fact that the elephant while alive is
worth around a hundred pounds, whereas his tusks would only fetch around five pounds).

But he does it anyway, in an act that is purely for show, and which goes against his own will and
instinct.

“The Werewolf” Angela Carter

1. Setting:

 The story is set in a rural French village during a time when superstition and fear of
the supernatural are prevalent.

 The village is depicted as isolated and surrounded by dense forests, enhancing the
atmosphere of mystery and danger.

2. Characters:

 The protagonist is an unnamed young girl, depicted as innocent and naive, who is on
her way to visit her grandmother.

 Grandmother, referred to as "Granny," is portrayed as a wise and experienced figure

who is aware of the dangers lurking in the forest.

 The werewolf, a mysterious and alluring figure who preys on unsuspecting victims in
the forest.

3. Plot:

 Introduction: The story opens with a young girl, whose name is not mentioned,
traveling alone through a dense forest in rural France. She is on her way to visit her
grandmother, known affectionately as Granny.
 Encounter with the Werewolf: As the girl continues her journey, she encounters a
mysterious man in the forest. Despite feeling a sense of unease, she is drawn to his
captivating presence and begins to engage in conversation with him.
  The man reveals himself to be a werewolf and attempts to seduce the girl with his
charm and allure. Despite her initial fear, she finds herself unable to resist his
advances.
 Journey to Granny's House: The werewolf persuades the girl to accompany him
deeper into the forest, promising to lead her to her grandmother's house. As they
travel together, the girl becomes increasingly entranced by the werewolf's presence
and begins to lose herself in the thrill of the moment.
 Arrival at Granny's House: As they approach Granny's house, the girl's sense of
unease intensifies, and she begins to suspect that there is more to the werewolf's
intentions than meets the eye. However, she is unable to resist his influence and
continues to follow him to Granny's door.
 Confrontation with Granny: Upon arriving at Granny's house, the girl is greeted by
her grandmother, who is initially delighted to see her. However, Granny quickly
realizes the true nature of the girl's companion and attempts to protect her
granddaughter from the werewolf's influence. A tense confrontation ensues between
Granny, the girl, and the werewolf, resulting in a violent struggle for control ove r the
girl's fate.
 Revelation: In a shocking twist, it is revealed that the young girl herself is the
werewolf, and Granny is her intended victim. The story ends with the girl embracing
her true nature and embracing her power as a creature of the night.

4. Themes:

 Transformation and duality: The story explores themes of transformation and duality,
as the protagonist grapples with her own inner desires and the external forces that
seek to control her.

 Sexuality and desire: Carter uses the werewolf as a symbol of male sexuality and
desire, highlighting the dangers of succumbing to temptation and losing oneself in
the pursuit of pleasure.

 Power dynamics: The story examines power dynamics between men and women, as
well as the tensions between innocence and experience, highlighting the ways in
which society seeks to control and regulate female sexuality.

5. Narrative Style:

 Carter's prose is rich and evocative, with vivid descriptions that create a sense of
foreboding and suspense.

 She employs elements of magical realism to blur the boundaries between the natural
and supernatural worlds, enhancing the story's sense of mystery and intrigue.

6. Conclusion:

 "The Werewolf" concludes with a shocking twist that subverts traditional fairy tale
conventions, challenging readers' expectations and leaving them to contemplate the
deeper meanings of the story.
  Carter's exploration of female sexuality and agency in "The Werewolf" reflects her
broader feminist themes and her reimagining of classic fairy tales through a modern,
subversive lens.

‘The Werewolf’: analysis

In The Bloody Chamber, Carter’s collection of stories inspired by classic fairy tales and folktales, ‘The
Werewolf’ precedes another tale of lycanthropy or werewolves: ‘The Company of Wolves’. However,
whereas the latter story uses the trope of the werewolf, and the Little Red Riding Hood tale, to
explore male-female relationships and sexual power dynamics, ‘The Werewolf’ does not contain
these elements.

Nevertheless, the little girl in ‘The Werewolf’ shows herself as steely and resourceful as the heroines
in Carter’s other stories in the collection.

As the final word of the story has it, she ends up prospering: a verb which aligns her with a decidedly
male world of trade and the mercantile, the world of money, which was – in the medieval or early
modern peasant society described in the story – usually reserved for men. (Indeed, one of the ironies
of the end of this story which taps into the hysteria surrounding witches is that the granddaughter
ends up in exactly the kind of position which might arouse suspicion or envy from the wrong
neighbors: a woman, independent and presumably unmarried, with money to her name.)

The little girl shows courage and pluck at two crucial moments in the story, and these two moments
are designed to dovetail with each other, one mirroring or complementing the other one. First, when
she is attacked by the wolf (which lunges at her throat in a grim echo of the vampiric Erl-King’s neck-
biting in another Bloody Chamber story), she turns to face it and succeeds in wounding it. The knife
she uses, symbolically, is her father’s: this little girl can handle a man’s knife and defend herself with
it.

Second, when she realizes her grandmother has some connection to the wolf’s ‘hand’, and suspects
she is a witch with the ability to change her form into that of a wolf, she pins down the woman to
examine her. The narrator tells us that she is ‘strong’ and thus able to do this easily; she also has her
father’s hunting knife, as we are reminded, so she can use this to threaten her grandmother into
keeping still.

And yet we would do well to observe that, unlike in ‘The Company of Wolves’ where the girl tames
the male werewolf by herself, this little girl relies on the forest community, with their moblike
suspicion of witches, to oust the woman from the woods. Indeed, the girl utters a loud cry – which is
much more what we expect a little girl to do in such a situation – which brings the neighbors to the
house.

In other words, what Carter presents us with in ‘The Werewolf’ is two women who both present
themselves to the outer community as fairly conventional types of womanhood (grandmother, little
girl), but who turn out to be, in effect, wolves in sheep’s clothing. The grandmother is quite literally a
werewolf, while the granddaughter, clad symbolically in ‘sheepskin’ as she makes her way through the
cold landscape, harbors a steely courage and determination to prosper which are more aligned with
ideas of masculinity in the world Carter depicts.
“The Doll’s House” Katherine Mansfield
1. Setting:

 The story is set in New Zealand during the early 20th century, in a small rural
community.

 The Burnell family's home serves as the primary setting, while various scenes take
place at school and in the village.

2. Characters:

 The Burnell sisters: Isabel, Lottie, and Kezia, who receive a beautiful doll's house as a
gift from their wealthy aunt.

 The Kelvey sisters: Lil and Else, from a poor family in the village, who are ostracized
by their classmates due to their lower social status.

 Aunt Beryl: The girls' wealthy aunt who gives them the doll's house.

 Mrs. Hay: The girls' schoolteacher, who unknowingly perpetuates the class divisions
among her students.

3. Plot:

A doll’s house arrives at the Burnell home as a gift. The dollhouse smells so strongly of paint
that Aunt Beryl thinks it could make someone sick. Isabel, Lottie, and Kezia, the Burnell’s
three daughters, do not mind the smell, however, and couldn’t be more delighted by the
house. Kezia, the youngest sister, notices a small lamp, which she thinks it the best part of it.

The next morning, the Burnells are excited to boast to the other girls at school. Isabel, the
oldest, forbids her sisters from saying anything before she’s had a chance to describe the
doll’s house to the others. She also reminds Lottie and Kezia that she is allowed to choose
which two girls will visit first to see the house.

At playtime, all the little girls gather around to hear Isabel’s talk about the house except
for Lil and Else Kelvey—the daughters of the village washerwoman and the poorest girls at
school. Everyone in the village gossips about the Kelveys, saying that their father is in prison,
and many children, the Burnells included, aren’t allowed to talk to them. As such, the Kelveys
can only eavesdrop as Isabel proudly describes the doll’s house. Kezia reminds her sister to
mention the lamp, though no one else seems to care about it. Isabel chooses Emmie
Cole and Lena Logan as the first two girls to come see the house.

Kezia asks her mother if she can invite the Kelveys to see the doll’s house, but Mrs. Burnell
refuses and tells Kezia she knows why. More days pass, and by now everyone has seen the
house except the Kelveys. At school the other girls cruelly taunt the sisters, who react only
with silence. Later that afternoon, Kezia is at home swinging on the big white gates of her
family’s courtyard. When she spots the Kelveys walking down the road, she decides to swing
 the gates open and invite them inside. Lil shakes her head and reminds Kezia that they aren’t
supposed to talk to one another. Kezia assures Lil that it doesn’t matter. Lil still doesn’t want
to go, but Else, standing behind her, tugs on her dress and looks at her pleadingly.

Kezia leads the Kelveys inside. While she is showing the Kelveys the doll’s house, Aunt Beryl
spots them and shouts furiously at Kezia. She shoos the Kelveys away and slams the doll’s
house shut.

It is revealed that earlier that afternoon Aunt Beryl had received a letter from Willie Brent. In
the note, Willie had threatened to come knock on the door if Aunt Beryl didn’t meet him that
night in Pullman’s Bush. Aunt Beryl is terrified by the idea of Willie coming to the door. After
yelling at the girls, however, she feels better, and hums as she walks back into the house.

The Kelveys, meanwhile, run off and sit by the side of the road. Else inches closer to her sister
and smiles. She speaks for the first time in the story, saying, “I seen the lamp.”

4. Themes:

 Class consciousness and social hierarchy: Mansfield explores the rigid class divisions
and social prejudices that exist within the community, highlighting the ways in which
wealth and social status determine one's place in society.

 Empathy and compassion: The story contrasts the kindness and empathy shown by
Kezia towards the Kelvey sisters with the cruelty and indifference of her classmates,
prompting readers to consider the importance of empathy and understanding in
breaking down barriers and bridging social divides.

 Appearance versus reality: The doll's house serves as a symbol of material wealth and
social status, masking the underlying tensions and inequalities that exist within the
community.

5. Symbolism:

 The doll's house: Symbolizes the wealth and privilege of the Burnell family, as well as
the class divisions and social hierarchies that exist within the community.

 The Kelvey sisters: Symbolize the marginalized and excluded members of society,
whose poverty and lower social status render them invisible to their wealthier peers.

6. Narrative Style:

 Mansfield employs a third-person omniscient narrative perspective, allowing readers

insight into the thoughts and feelings of multiple characters.

 She uses vivid imagery and descriptive language to evoke the sights, sounds, and
emotions of the rural New Zealand setting, immersing readers in the world of the
story.
"The Doll's House" is a poignant and thought-provoking exploration of class, privilege, and empathy,
offering a powerful commentary on the social dynamics and inequalities that shape the lives of its
characters.

The Doll’s House | Analysis

Katherine Mansfield, born and raised in New Zealand, was one of the most famous writers of her
time. She often wrote in third-person and portrayed elements of her personal experiences. The
theme of her work usually matched the situation she was undergoing in her own life. The Doll’s
House is written in third-person using an omniscient narrator, and it translates the nuances of very
deep elements in an insightful yet simple way. The main themes are class prejudice, social hierarchy
and ostracization, and innocence. Because the main characters are young schoolgirls, these topics
are put forth in a rather straightforward manner- after all, young children have far less direct
awareness or conscience, and their way of thinking is often precise. However, we also see the cruelty
of this forthrightness in the way the children do not hesitate to bully and mock their classmates of a
lower social sphere. This shows the normalization of treatment based on hierarchy, as well as
the influence of society on children’s mindsets. Similes, metaphors and imagery are employed
throughout this piece.

Mansfield also uses object symbolism to portray key aspects of the story. Starting from the very
beginning, when the Burnell girls are gifted a dollhouse, Mansfield establishes the concept of social
class. The dollhouse is a direct representation of the Burnell’s own house– it is large, the girls are
thrilled by it, and it seems furnished to the detail. However, its description is not entirely
flattering- “a dark, oily, spinach green, picked out with bright yellow” and “the smell of paint coming
from that doll’s house was quite enough to make anyone seriously ill.” Further, it is important to note
“When dear old Mrs. Hay went back to town after staying with the Burnells, she sent the children a
doll’s house.” This implies that the Burnells themselves do not live in the central part of town, but in
the outskirts. Hence, the dollhouse symbolizes that though the Burnells may not be extremely rich on
a large scale, they are well-to-do and of a higher social class within their area of residence.

The fact that when the sisters went to school and Isabel talked about the dollhouse is also a portrayal
of the automatic respect and flattery given to those with more money or at a higher rank :

“The girls of her class nearly fought to put their arms round her, to walk away with her, to beam
flatteringly, to be her special friend.”

This emphasizes the superficiality of these advances- none of the girls wanted to spend time with
Isabel because they liked her as a person. They did not want to be her ‘special friend’ because they
enjoyed her company. It was simply out of eagerness to see the magnificent dollhouse. At this time,
the Kelvey sisters being left out represents the lower rung of the social hierarchy. The fact that it is
the other children’s parents who forbid them from mingling with Else and Lil showcases how society
and adults can impact a child’s behavior. For example, “For the fact was, the school the Burnell
children went to was not at all the kind of place their parents would have chosen if there had been
any choice.”– this automatically instills in the Burnell children a superiority complex.
Else never spoke and stuck close to her sister Lil- “Where Lil went, our Else followed.”- which shows
the demure nature. It also emphasizes a level of acceptance from both of them- they never tried to
fight back or defend themselves as they knew nothing would come of it, but simply ignored the
mocking and jeers and moved on. They seem to have realized that things will not change, and they
are stuck in the social class they were born into. The fact that these girls have understood this and
cope with it at such a young age makes the reader realize how normalized it is, which is quite
unfortunate. The description of Lil and Else sitting outside the circle of schoolgirls and constantly
having to listen in is a direct depiction of being socially ostracized– closed off, on the outside looking
in.

Kezia, the youngest Burnell sister, is the only one of the family- of the whole school, maybe-
who questions the social ostracization of the Kelveys. She wants to invite the sisters home to show
them the dollhouse, as well- her youth and innocence put everyone on a level playing field. While
the rest of her family sees things from the perspective of social status and financial importance, she
simply sees everyone as people. She views the world in a more wholesome manner. When she sees
the Kelvey sisters near her house, she is swinging on the white gate of her house. This white gate is
what separates the Burnells from the outside world, trapping them in their bubble of greater wealth
and societal class. As a material divide between the Burnells and the rest of the area, the
gate represents the separation of the social spheres. Kezia swings on it back and forth, teetering on
the edge of this imposed border, which symbolizes her different outlook. Unlike her family, she does
not understand why the Kelveys are kept at a distance.

This lamp is symbolic of innocence and hope. It does not stand out extraordinarily, which is why
none of the older sisters or adults find it interesting. Yet its gentle, modest appearance is what draws
Kezia to it- this highlights a younger child’s perspective. The lamp is a form of hope for Kezia and the
Kelvey sisters- for after being chased away by Aunt Beryl, Else smiles for the first time and says, “I
seen the little lamp.” It is an unspoken bond between Else and Kezia- that they are able to see beyond
the discrimination of the adults in the society. They notice and appreciate the same things- a small
detail like a lamp, rather than the grandeur of the rest of the dollhouse. Their youth stops them from
fully comprehending the reason for this class divide, but their innocent and open-minded attitude
forms a ray of hope that even when they are older, they will be able to see everyone as human rather
than by social status.