Comparing Elephant And Mirror Image

Short Story Comparative Essay Appearances are often deceptive. Being able to see something through physical appearances differs from viewing it based on insight. The themes from the short stories The Elephant, by Slawomir Mrozek, and Mirror Image, by Lena Coakley, provide the basis of an interesting comparison. The authors’ of both stories have created characters that portray the idea that looks can be deceiving. By studying and discussing these characters, it can be argued that what looks to be true in both stories turns out to be false.
In The Elephant groups of children who are visiting the zoo on a class trip, become suspicious when the new elephant isn’t eating or moving. Then, they see a strong wind taking the elephant up into the air
The children are gathered at the zoo studiously taking notes and learning about the animals there, especially the elephant which they seem to like the most. In the story itself, the children “were looking at the elephant with enraptured admiration” (Mrozek, 105). Little do they realize that before their trip is over, their favourite animal will be exposed as a fake because what they see turns out to be different from what they believe. This disparity between appearance and belief is also shown in Mirror Image where the Jarreds’ want to desperately believe that their real daughter is alive. They eventually think they have found her but with mixed emotions reveal that “[the girl] is alive and living somewhere in Toronto and [it is unable to] even allowed to see her.” (Coakley, 15). Locating Alice without being able to see her then is like the time when Mr. Jarred meets up with her but realizes that he cannot see his real daughter in Alice’s eyes. The children in The Elephant are kept from seeing a real elephant so what they see is not what they believe. In Mirror Image, the Jarreds’ are able to see only an appearance of their real daughter in the body of Alice so what they see is only an image of what they know as real or believe to be true. Both cases highlight a significant difference between what is seen and what is