In this blog post, we examine how his real name, class consciousness, and the sense of guilt he felt during his time as a police officer in Burma simultaneously revealed both George Orwell’s political and critical insights and the limitations of his fiction through ‘The Elephant Hunt’ and ‘Burmese Days’.

Name, Background, and Early Disposition

George Orwell, widely known to us as the author of ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘1984’, was born Eric Arthur Blair. He rarely used his birth name, preferring the pen name George Orwell—a choice that appears to have stemmed from his discomfort with his family background and the snobbery of middle-class society.
Although Orwell is commonly known as a novelist, his wit and sharp intellect are more clearly evident in his political commentary and essays. His straightforward and unambiguous writing style served as a strength in political commentary but also appeared to have limitations when it came to the dramatic plot twists and complex psychological portrayals required in fiction.
In a sense, when viewed in light of the declaration that “a novelist tells the truth about a corrupt world through corrupt methods,” it is true that Orwell’s diverse body of work—political commentary, essays, and novels—leaves a slight sense of disappointment. Nevertheless, he preserved his integrity through clear-headed thinking—unwilling to be easily swept up by specific ideologies or collective slogans—and the solitude he had grown accustomed to since childhood.

A Critical Eye and Talent for Essays

Orwell demonstrated an ability to subvert and critique the patriotic narratives of other writers. For example, in response to Lawrence’s “England, My England,” he wrote the essay “England, Your England,” in which he sharply criticized the realities of post-industrial Britain—in stark contrast to the nostalgia Lawrence expressed.
Commentator Tom Hopkinson pointed out that Orwell’s talent had both strengths and weaknesses. Specifically, Orwell’s common sense and clear thinking sometimes ran the risk of turning into stubbornness; he also tended to dismiss the logic of those with differing opinions and, rather than using logical persuasion, would sometimes corner his opponents with sweeping cynicism.

Childhood, School Life, and Issues of Identity

From the moment he was born in 1903, Orwell grew up in difficult circumstances. His father was a low-ranking customs official in India who earned a meager salary, and the family likely lived in poverty. This class background left Orwell with a sense of defeat and anguish stemming from the gap between the rich and the poor.
He was aware that his parents had made great sacrifices to send him to a prestigious elementary school on the south coast, and his experience there left him feeling deeply intimidated. Orwell did not like his father, who was authoritarian; indeed, he saw his father very little until he was eight years old.
Orwell felt such a strong sense of class alienation that he wrote, “Perhaps the cruelest thing you can do to a child is to send him to a school attended by children who are wealthier than he is.” When he entered Eton College, he recalled, “I didn’t study there, and I didn’t learn much. I don’t think Eton played a major role in shaping my life.”
Around the time he graduated from Eton in 1922, he decided to go to Burma to serve as a police officer instead of attending Cambridge. This choice led to an experience that would have a decisive influence on his life and ideas.

The Burma Experience and Guilt—Elephants and Imperialism

His experience as a police officer in Burma became an important source of material for Orwell’s works. The novel ‘Burmese Days’ (also translated in Korea as ‘Four Seasons of a Colony’), written based on his experiences during this period, is regarded as one of his most accomplished works, despite some structural shortcomings.
‘Burmese Days’ chronicles the frustrations and humiliations endured by a sensitive young man in a colony and marks the beginning of his painful reflection on the evils of imperialism. However, up to that point, Orwell had shown no more than sympathy for the workers’ poverty, and his understanding of the colonial situation remained somewhat superficial.
The most significant change, however, was the strong sense of guilt Orwell came to feel in Burma. This sense of guilt is starkly evident in his memoir ‘A Hunting Party’. He writes, “The moment I saw that elephant, I realized quite clearly that I must not shoot it,” but succumbs to the pressure of mob mentality and ultimately fires his gun. After the elephant fell, he fired several more shots at the same spot; this scene symbolically illustrates his inner conflict and the coercive nature of the imperialist system.
Upon returning from Burma, Orwell confessed that he felt he needed to atone for the “five years he had spent as a cog in a system that oppressed others.” He then left for Paris to experience extreme poverty firsthand.

Experiences of Poverty in Paris and London and Literary Explorations of Poverty

While living in extreme poverty in Paris, Orwell resolved, “I will taste the life of a down-and-out, having fallen to the very bottom of society and been completely cast out of it,” and that experience is vividly documented in his novel ‘Down and Out in Paris and London’.
“Having enough money to buy a loaf of bread a day is not poverty. It is merely the fringing that adorns poverty,” a statement that delicately captures the nuances of poverty. Describing his experience of going completely without food for two days in Paris, he wrote, “Hunger robs a man of his backbone and his soul… The effect of starvation, as I remember it, is utter helplessness.”
After returning to England, he worked as a private school teacher for a meager salary and, drawing on that experience, published ‘A Clergyman’s Daughter’, followed by ‘Keep the Aspidistra Flying’. ‘Keep the Aspidistra Flying’ is a particularly somber work that focuses intently on how a lack of money distorts human nature.
In this way, Orwell’s writing intertwines personal loneliness, class anxiety, reflections on imperialism, and experiences of poverty, revealing both political insight and a relentless exploration of human nature. While his straightforward style and sharp criticism sometimes reveal their limitations, they target reality with equal clarity and persuasiveness.

Pre-War British Contradictions and Orwell’s Beginnings

Pre-World War II Britain possessed a level of material wealth rarely seen in history, yet at the same time, the poverty endured by workers was excruciatingly severe. As Atkins noted, it was a “disgrace to civilization,” though it was also a phenomenon that occurred to some extent naturally in imperialist nations with colonies.
As evident in the novel’s protagonist, Gordon, for Orwell, “dignity” was a matter directly proportional to “income.” Faced with this reality, Orwell was inevitably compelled to reexamine the class system and the resulting inequalities, setting the narrowing of the gap between the ruling and the ruled classes as his clear objective.

Poverty Up Close: From Sympathy to Solidarity

Orwell did not stop at mere pity; he consistently made efforts to reach out to the poor and live among them. While descriptions of the poor’s dire lives occupy a significant portion of his writing, what is even more important is that he captured the warm and cheerful moments that shone through that misery.
He focused on the honesty, human connection, and generosity that flowed among people despite their poverty and helplessness. These qualities were ultimately the key factors that prevented him from ever turning his back on the working class.
As Orwell himself put it, true connection cannot be achieved simply by “patting poor workers on the back and saying, ‘I’m just like you.’” He felt that to truly engage with them, he had to adopt a completely different attitude, suppressing not only his personal snobbery but also the hobbies and prejudices characteristic of the middle class, and thereby transform his very being.

The Limitations of His Middle-Class Background and His Obsession with “Dignity”

However, Orwell could never truly become a member of the working class. Although he supported radical socialist theories, lived among workers, and vividly captured their suffering in his writing, he was of middle-class origin, his hobbies were rather conservative, and his personality was not unassuming enough to blend in with the masses.
Orwell’s fundamental motivation for his political struggle was not poverty itself, but the desire to preserve human “dignity.” He believed that the class system and poverty eroded human dignity, which is why he sought to condemn and dismantle those systems.
For this reason, Orwell often clashed with some of the communists and socialists of his time. Because they displayed a willingness to easily sacrifice human dignity for the sake of their goals, Orwell inevitably held values fundamentally different from theirs. Ultimately, he could not bring himself to admire Lenin or Stalin—or even Professor Ruskin.

Criticism and Orwell’s Socialism — The Experience of the Spanish Civil War

Some critics have argued that Orwell’s approach to the working class was a failure. The argument is that he did not deeply understand ordinary British workers or their goals, and therefore failed to properly grasp the roles of the Labour Party and the trade unions. This criticism lacks persuasiveness in that it reflects an excessive expectation of the trade unions and the Labour Party.
Nevertheless, the description of him as “a priest of pure faith fighting against corruption and hypocrisy” accurately captures Orwell’s sincerity. Orwell was a socialist for a time and identified himself as such when writing ‘The Road to Wigan Pier’. However, after fighting in the Spanish Civil War and witnessing firsthand the internal divisions, ruthlessness, and betrayal within communist factions, he ultimately broke with them.
He recalled the Spanish War as a “nightmarish memory,” yet at the same time, that experience actually strengthened his belief in human dignity. ‘Homage to Catalonia’, written based on that experience, did not gain widespread popularity because it was considered too objective and factual, but it was, in fact, a first-rate work of reportage.
Orwell wrote that after experiencing the events between 1935 and 1937, he became clear about the stance he would take. His subsequent works, whether directly or indirectly, oppose totalitarianism and advocate for democratic socialism as he understood it.

The Engaged Intellectual, War, and ‘Animal Farm’

Orwell possessed a writer’s ethos that one must be honest and truthful in any situation and, if there is falsehood, expose it without mercy. As Tom Hopkinson pointed out, Orwell had an attitude focused on the “present” and the extraordinary courage to put it into practice. For him, if an issue was worth pinning the hope of human freedom on, it was only natural to take immediate action.
When World War II broke out, Orwell tried to enlist in the military again, but when that didn’t work out, he volunteered for the Civil Defense Corps and became an officer. Although he was indifferent to material success or honor, he carried out his duties with diligence; he even suffered health problems due to overwork during the war and endured the pain of losing his wife after the war.
After the war, Orwell wrote ‘Animal Farm’, a fable satirizing dictators. He called this work “the only book I have ever poured my heart and soul into,” and it is indeed a work in which plot, style, and wit are harmoniously blended.
‘Animal Farm’ is a novel that allegorically depicts the process of totalitarianism taking hold at Manor Farm. While the characters in the story often bring to mind the realities of the Soviet Union at the time, Orwell did not intend to target the Soviet Union alone. This work serves as a warning about the universal phenomena that occur when power becomes corrupt, and it is also a record of the agonizing conscience of an intellectual who witnesses the corruption of power.
It vividly depicts the corruption of the privileged class that arises when power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual, as well as the resulting gradual dumbing down and passivity of the masses. Ultimately, Orwell sharply illustrates that the victims of a totalitarian state include not only the general public but also the dictator who seized power.

The Narrative and Plot Development of ‘Animal Farm’

‘Animal Farm’ begins with the awakening of Major, the boar. He reminds them that the owners of the farm are not humans but the animals who work the land themselves, and urges them to revolt. Exhausted by hunger, the animals spontaneously rise up against their human masters and seize control of the farm; with the pigs leading and the animals cooperating, the farm soon enters a new era. Crop yields increase, work becomes more efficient through voluntary labor that capitalizes on each animal’s unique abilities, and leisure time is created.
However, the illusion of a classless society where everyone is an owner does not last long. The conflict between the idealist Snowball and the cunning realist Napoleon ultimately ends in Napoleon’s victory. Snowball is driven out by the nine dogs Napoleon had secretly raised, and although the animals remember Snowball’s courage, a political shift takes place. At that moment, Squealer, the propagandist, persuades them: “Courage alone is not enough. Loyalty and obedience are more important than that. I am certain that the day will come when you realize that Snowball’s role in that battle was greatly exaggerated. Discipline, comrades! Iron discipline!”
As Napoleon’s dictatorship begins, propaganda and a reign of terror combine, making Snowball the scapegoat for all the farm’s misfortunes. The farm’s failures are all blamed on him, and animals whose loyalty is questioned are branded “Snowball’s henchmen” and executed. The original text describes the executions that took place at the time as follows: “…… Three hens who had plotted a rebellion over the egg issue were brought before Napoleon and testified that Snowball had appeared to them in a dream and incited them not to obey Napoleon’s orders. They, too, were brutally put to death. Next, a goose stepped forward and confessed that she had hidden six kernels of corn during last year’s harvest and eaten them secretly at night. Then a sheep came forward and confessed to urinating in the well used for drinking water—she said this had been instigated by Snowball—and … they were all brutally put to death.”
Now, gatherings where the animals could discuss matters freely were a thing of the past, and Napoleon assumed the title of Leader. The Seven Commandments, established immediately after the uprising, were subtly altered, and one day the animals realized that their lives had, in fact, not changed significantly from before the uprising. Yet, due to fear and ignorance, they were unable to resist. The pigs gradually begin to emulate the lifestyle of the former human, Jones: drinking alcohol, playing poker with humans, and sleeping in beds. Thus, the animals return to a state of slavery, and as those who remember the revolution die off one by one, new animals take their places.
Eventually, the pigs become indistinguishable from the humans, and Animal Farm becomes no different from “Manner Farm,” which Jones once ruled. This allegorical ending poignantly illustrates the corruption of revolution and power, as well as the gap between ideals and reality.

Orwell’s Life and Critique of Totalitarianism

‘Animal Farm’ brought Orwell worldly fame and financial success, and he continued to work as a journalist in London. In 1947, despite poor health, he traveled to the Isle of Jura in Scotland to write ‘1984’; although his health deteriorated and he was hospitalized, he completed the work in 1949.
Orwell’s greatest enemy was totalitarianism. Stalin in the Soviet Union appeared to have seized control of Eastern Europe and built a new form of imperialism, and Orwell sharply targeted this reality. While ‘1984’ is a political dystopian novel, it also embodies Orwell’s political stance—one that rejects empty ideologies and abstract political discourse, and does not shy away from plain facts and emotions. Rather than explaining issues through cold logic alone, he valued action grounded in justice and compassion; thus, he coldly depicted the horrors of the annihilation of humanity set in the very near future.
Orwell remained a staunch democratic socialist until the end of his life, and his belief in democratic socialism was unwavering. In ‘1984’, the rulers pursue power for power’s sake—that is, power itself—and derive pleasure from the act of exercising that power. Even instigating endless wars to torment and kill millions of innocent people is a means of exercising power.
The closer totalitarianism approaches its ideal state, the more the individual’s unique humanity and spirit lose their foothold. Dictators believe they can do anything to human lives and manipulate even history and language at will. Under such a regime, people lose their spirit of self-sacrifice and their ability to assert themselves, reduced to mere immediate emotional reactions and physical comfort. This state can amount to nothing more than extreme resignation and animalistic desires.
Irving Howe succinctly points this out: “In future generations, ‘1984’ may become nothing more than a work of historical interest.” If the world of ‘1984’ becomes a reality, only those in power will read it, and they will read its prescience and refer to it repeatedly. If the world of ‘1984’ does not become a reality, people will read this book simply as a sign of personal anxiety and nightmares. But we know better. That nightmare is our own.”