Prompt Commentary
“He was an intelligent man and an able servant of his firm, but he was one of those Englishmen—common, unfortunately—who should never be allowed to set foot in the East” (Orwell 855).
(This was an entry from Burmese Days) Much of the dialogue involved blistering criticism on Burmese people. Among those countless insults, the narrator’s input nabbed my attention. Orwell had expressed his political beliefs covertly through dialogue. For example, the quote says most Englishmen—worse a common man, can’t overcome their negativity on the Burmese, and thus shouldn’t be there. Mr. Ellis is this common Englishmen, clearly shown through the disdain in his speech. His personality is repelling, it implies he’s someone I wouldn’t get …show more content…
Much of the dialogue involved blistering criticism on Burmese people. Among those countless insults, the narrator’s input nabbed my attention. Orwell had expressed his political beliefs covertly through dialogue. For example, the quote says most Englishmen—worse a common man, can’t overcome their negativity on the Burmese, and thus shouldn’t be there. Mr. Ellis is this common Englishmen, clearly shown through the disdain in his speech. His personality is repelling, it implies he’s someone I wouldn’t get along with. That personality is perfect for a character who’s views clashes with yours—a racist. A cunning tactic in my opinion; Orwell made the reader associate racism with people who have lousy personalities. Even more admirable was how he did it without a noticeable statement—but with an elusive mention of Ellis’s nature, like the above …show more content…
They arise only when rulers become weak and isolated…when people believe themselves to be a part of a numerous, united righteous group than can act together to create change” (Goldstone 3). Connecting this idea to my culture, I think media has made revolution’s appearance entertaining—it’s simple and theatric. I understood revolution needed a group. When that group has risen they can crush the oppressing power. Yet, Goldstone says rulers must be weakened and isolated before anything can happen. This astonished me. The movies have one plot for any revolution…A corrupt ruler wreaks havoc and devastates the land. The “plebeians” exert themselves to conquer their king, but it’s impossible. Then against all odds they miraculously defeat him. Media completely contradicts the author’s statement. Not to mention the plot is impossible. Kings in theatres have insurmountable power, yet lose to a weak group who happened to be angry enough to
“He was an intelligent man and an able servant of his firm, but he was one of those Englishmen—common, unfortunately—who should never be allowed to set foot in the East” (Orwell 855).
(This was an entry from Burmese Days) Much of the dialogue involved blistering criticism on Burmese people. Among those countless insults, the narrator’s input nabbed my attention. Orwell had expressed his political beliefs covertly through dialogue. For example, the quote says most Englishmen—worse a common man, can’t overcome their negativity on the Burmese, and thus shouldn’t be there. Mr. Ellis is this common Englishmen, clearly shown through the disdain in his speech. His personality is repelling, it implies he’s someone I wouldn’t get …show more content…
Much of the dialogue involved blistering criticism on Burmese people. Among those countless insults, the narrator’s input nabbed my attention. Orwell had expressed his political beliefs covertly through dialogue. For example, the quote says most Englishmen—worse a common man, can’t overcome their negativity on the Burmese, and thus shouldn’t be there. Mr. Ellis is this common Englishmen, clearly shown through the disdain in his speech. His personality is repelling, it implies he’s someone I wouldn’t get along with. That personality is perfect for a character who’s views clashes with yours—a racist. A cunning tactic in my opinion; Orwell made the reader associate racism with people who have lousy personalities. Even more admirable was how he did it without a noticeable statement—but with an elusive mention of Ellis’s nature, like the above …show more content…
They arise only when rulers become weak and isolated…when people believe themselves to be a part of a numerous, united righteous group than can act together to create change” (Goldstone 3). Connecting this idea to my culture, I think media has made revolution’s appearance entertaining—it’s simple and theatric. I understood revolution needed a group. When that group has risen they can crush the oppressing power. Yet, Goldstone says rulers must be weakened and isolated before anything can happen. This astonished me. The movies have one plot for any revolution…A corrupt ruler wreaks havoc and devastates the land. The “plebeians” exert themselves to conquer their king, but it’s impossible. Then against all odds they miraculously defeat him. Media completely contradicts the author’s statement. Not to mention the plot is impossible. Kings in theatres have insurmountable power, yet lose to a weak group who happened to be angry enough to