Orwell's Dilemma: The Elephant Incident

Picture this: you're a British policeman in 1920s Burma, and you've just received a call about a rampaging elephant destroying property in the local bazaar. That's exactly what happened to George Orwell, who found himself reluctantly grabbing his rifle and heading into town.

The elephant wasn't wild - it was a working elephant that had broken free from its chains during the night. By morning, it had already wrecked a bamboo hut, killed a cow, and ransacked fruit stalls before wandering off to graze peacefully in nearby fields.

As Orwell approached with his rifle, practically the entire local population followed behind him, creating an enormous crowd of spectators. They were excited, convinced they were about to witness the shooting of the elephant. This crowd would become the real problem.

Key Insight: Sometimes the biggest pressure doesn't come from the situation itself, but from everyone watching how you handle it.

The Weight of Expectations

Here's where Orwell's story gets really interesting - he realises he absolutely shouldn't shoot the elephant. The animal is now calm, peacefully eating grass, and poses no immediate threat. Killing a working elephant would be like destroying expensive machinery.

But there's a massive problem: two thousand people are watching him, all expecting a show. Orwell describes feeling like a puppet, controlled by the crowd's expectations rather than his own judgement. The metaphor of being "a toad under a steam-roller" perfectly captures his sense of powerlessness.

The colonial context makes this worse - as the white authority figure, he feels he can't afford to look weak or foolish. Walking away without shooting would invite ridicule, something his position simply won't allow.

Key Insight: Peer pressure isn't just a teenage problem - it can force people into actions that go against their better judgement, especially when reputation is at stake.

Jumbo's Story: A Different Perspective

Abraham Bartlett's account of Jumbo the elephant at London Zoo tells a completely different story. Writing in 1898, Bartlett describes receiving a filthy, malnourished 4-foot-tall African elephant and transforming him into a beloved zoo attraction.

Bartlett's approach was all about control and discipline. When Jumbo misbehaved, Bartlett and keeper Matthew Scott would physically punish him until he submitted. This "training" apparently worked - Jumbo became gentle and obedient, carrying children around the zoo for nearly sixteen years.

However, as Jumbo reached maturity at 21 years old and 11 feet tall, he became "troublesome and dangerous" again. He destroyed parts of his enclosure and became aggressive, leading Bartlett to consider more extreme control measures or even shooting him.

Key Insight: The Victorian approach to animal management relied heavily on dominance and control, viewing physical punishment as necessary for safety.

The Business of Animals

Bartlett's story reveals the commercial reality behind Victorian zoos. When Jumbo became difficult to manage, Bartlett didn't hesitate to sell him to the famous American showman P.T. Barnum for £2000 - a massive sum at the time.

The financial aspect was always present - keepers were allowed to keep the money visitors paid for elephant rides, giving them a direct incentive to maintain popular attractions. Scott, Jumbo's primary keeper, apparently made good money from this arrangement.

Bartlett's matter-of-fact tone when discussing the potential need to kill Jumbo shows how differently Victorians viewed animal welfare. He even requested a powerful rifle from the council, treating the elephant's possible death as a practical management decision.

The contrast with Orwell's moral anguish couldn't be clearer - where Orwell saw potential "murder," Bartlett saw business necessity and public safety concerns.

Key Insight: Historical attitudes towards animals were often shaped more by economic value and public safety than by emotional attachment or ethical considerations.

Sample Exam Questions and Approaches

These texts typically appear in GCSE English Language exams, testing your ability to analyse language, compare perspectives, and write persuasively. The questions focus on comprehension, language analysis, comparison, and creative writing.

Question types include multiple choice comprehension, summary writing comparing both sources, detailed language analysis of specific sections, and comparison of writers' attitudes. Each requires different skills and approaches.

The comparison question is particularly important - it asks you to contrast how Orwell and Bartlett view elephants differently. Orwell shows moral conflict and sympathy, while Bartlett demonstrates practical, business-focused attitudes.

For the creative writing task, you'll need to argue a position about animal rights, using the sources as a springboard for discussing modern issues like zoos, meat eating, and pet ownership.

Key Insight: These texts work brilliantly together because they show completely different attitudes towards the same type of animal, separated by historical context and personal values.

Student Response Analysis: Summary Skills

Looking at this student response to the summary question, you can see both strengths and areas for improvement. The student correctly identifies that both elephants show destructive behaviour when confined but become calm when given more freedom.

The response demonstrates good textual evidence - mentioning the elephant in Source A "destroyed somebody's bamboo hut" and Jumbo "destroying the doors and other parts of the house." This shows solid comprehension of both sources.

However, the response could be stronger with better spelling and grammar (notice "mischevious" instead of "mischievous" and inconsistent capitalisation). The analysis could also be more sophisticated in exploring why both elephants behave similarly.

The student successfully identifies the key pattern - both elephants are peaceful in open spaces but destructive when confined - which is exactly what the question is asking for.

Key Insight: Strong GCSE responses need accurate quotations and clear comparisons, but they also need technical accuracy in spelling, punctuation, and grammar to access the highest marks.

Language Analysis: Crowd Description

This language analysis response shows exactly the kind of detailed exploration examiners want to see. The student focuses on Orwell's metaphor "sea of faces" and explains how it creates a sense of overwhelming pressure and intimidation.

The analysis of juxtaposition between the crowd being "happy and excited" about the elephant being shot is particularly strong. This contradictory response highlights the crowd's callousness and adds to Orwell's moral dilemma.

The simile comparison to a conjurer performing tricks is well-explained - it shows how the crowd treats a serious, life-or-death situation as mere entertainment. This dehumanises both Orwell and the elephant.

The response demonstrates sophisticated understanding of how language techniques work together to create meaning and emotional impact. The student doesn't just identify techniques but explains their effects on the reader.

Key Insight: Top-level language analysis goes beyond spotting techniques - it explains how writers use language to create specific effects and influence reader response.

Comparing Writers' Attitudes

This comparison response excellently contrasts Orwell's moral conflict with Bartlett's businesslike approach. The student identifies Orwell as "considerate and sympathetic," particularly noting his view that shooting would be "murder."

The analysis of Bartlett's capitalism is sophisticated - the student recognises how 21 years of care meant nothing once Jumbo became "troublesome." This shows understanding of how economic factors shaped Victorian attitudes to animals.

The contrasting social pressures are well-explored: Orwell faces a crowd wanting violence, while Bartlett faces a society beginning to question animal cruelty. Yet their responses are completely different - Orwell resists, Bartlett dismisses concerns.

The response demonstrates mature understanding of historical context and how personal values influence behaviour. The student recognises that both men face difficult situations but make very different moral choices.

Key Insight: Strong comparison responses don't just identify differences - they explore why writers have different attitudes and how historical context shapes perspective.