George Orwell was the nom de plume of Eric Arthur Blair. Blair was the son of an English government official working in India. He grew up in England but joined the Indian Imperial Police. His stint with the police is, more than likely, the fount of inspiration for this work. The attitude of the narrator, which is more than likely fashioned after the author's own feelings and beliefs, evolves from ignorant indifference to horrid understanding, and finally to distant relief.
             The tone of the first portion of the text is one of disregard for humanity of the condemned. The jailers and magistrates do not acknowledge the fact that the man they must kill, as well as the others condemned to die, are people. They (the convicts) were animals in their (the warders') keep until they could be disposed of. "In some of them (cells earlier described as "small animal cages") brown, silent men were squatting at the inner bars, with their blankets draped round them. " The narrator seems to be unaware of the plight of these human beings as is expressed in the following simile describing the way in which the man condemned to die was handled. "It was like men handling a fish which is still alive and may jump back into the water." This is also another allusion to the non-human interpretation of the condemned in the eyes of the narrator. Finally, the prisoner is assigned the character of a "task." The superintendent of the jail went so far as to say, "The man ought to have been dead by this time. Aren't you ready yet?" This attitude of ignorant indifference sets the stage for the realization required to reach the next attitude in the development of the narrator's character.
             The second state of understanding for the narrator is reached at the critical turning point in the story. Here, the narrator is removed from his state of ignorance and is horrified with what he has now co
             ...