George Orwells Animal Farm - Book Report/Review Example

GEORGE ORWELL ANIMAL FARM George Orwell’s Animal Farm is considered one of the most prominent yet controversial stories among author’s works. In “Why I Write” Orwell confesses that Animal Farm is “the first book in which I tried, with full consciousness of what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole” (Orwell, 232). In the Preface to the Ukrainian edi­tion of Animal Farm, he describes how an encounter with a little boy driving a huge cart-horse gave him the inspira­tion of the form of Animal Farm. He writes, “I proceeded to analyse Marx’s theory from the animals’ point of view and use it as the point of departure of the story” (Orwell, CEJL, III, 405-406). Fredric Warburg tells audience that the book took six years to conceive and three months to write (Warburg, 39). This first con­scious endeavor to combine political thought and art requir­ing six years’ preparation is not a waste but a great success. Many critics consider Animal Farm the best of Orwell's works. From the critical perspective, Orwell’s Animal Farm can be considered a fable and a satirical mirror reflecting controversial human reality, which blends together author’ political and artistic perceptions of society. In Orwell’s fable, audience notices that first link between the Animal Farm and human world lies in the two names of the farm, Manor Farm and Animal Farm. When one juxtaposes the two names, one gets Man[/]or Animal Farm, or Man or Animal Farm (Pindker, 18) implying the duality of the fable. The juxtaposition of man and animal also underlines the animal nature of human being. Aside from the two names of the farm, the names given to individual animals are also symbolic. Jeffrey Meyers has argued that Boxer (the horse) “is named after the Chinese revolutionaries who drove out foreign exploiters and were themselves crushed” (Meyers, 74). This parallel between the two is perhaps not very accurate, for the Chinese Boxers, unlike Boxer in Orwell’s work, never successfully drove out the foreigners, and their anti-foreign movement on the contrary invited troops of an international alliance of eight countries to invade China in 1900, an incident causing great disgrace and material loss to China in the history of the last hundred years. From the critical perspective, a name of paramount importance has not been discussed by critics is Napoleon. Orwell apprently names Napoleon the pig after Napoleon Bonaparte, the first dictator who usurped the fruits of the first revolution for democracy, namely the French Revolution, in European history. Like his human predecessor, Napoleon the pig takes advantage of the animal revolution, crowns himself the “king” of Animal Farm,” and restores the Farm back to Manor Farm. In the mean time, he himself has become indistinguishable from the former enemies the animals fought against. I believe also that Orwell names the pig to imply that Napoleon and his regime will be overthrown in the end, as happened to the historical Napoleon Bonaparte, even though the logic of the book itself does not really hint at such a possibility. It is evident that in the recesses of Orwell’s pessimism, there lies a moderate optimistic belief in the possibility of a better future. In addition to the symbolic meanings of the names, the animal characters are seen allegorically. It is now a commonplace that Old Major represents Marx, Lenin or Marx-Lenin combined; Napoleon represents Stalin; Snowball - Trot­sky; Frederich - Hitler; Pillkinton, the Allies or Chur­chill, or England (Lee, 559). But if the allegory has a “point-to-point correspondence with the events of Russian history from 1917-1943,” (Hodgart, 138) a reader may find difficulty in identifying Major with either Marx or Lenin, for Marx certainly has no chance to meet Stalin and Trotsky, and Lenin himself led the Russian Revolution from start to end. Actually some critics are discontent with Animal Farm as a satire on the Russian Revolution because Orwell has not reflected the complete picture of the Revolution. Kingsley Martin finds fault with Animal Farm exactly because it has neglected the complexities of the Russian Revolution. He especially points out that “the new ruling class is really very different indeed from anything that Russia has known before” (Kingsley, 166). He senses that Orwell’s disillusionment goes beyond the Russian Revolution and is a total loss of faith in human beings, but does not believe that this is the ultimate message of the fable, for he reads the contention between Trotsky and Stalin as the core of Or­well’s concern. The problem of the moral of the fable, as he sees it, lies in Orwell’s conviction that “all would have gone well with the revolution if wicked Stalin had not driven the brave and good Trotsky out of Eden” (Frye, 207). Nor­throp Frye shares with Martin a similar misgiving with the ending of Animal Farm, which makes “the end of Communism under Stalin as a replica of its beginning under the Czar.” Frye believes that Orwell himself knows that this ending is nonsense. His “motive for adopting it was presumably that he did not know how otherwise to get his allegory rounded off with a neat epigrammatic finish” (Frye, 207). Unlike Martin, Frye sees the basic theme of Animal Farm as “the bogging down of Utopian aspirations in the quicksand of human nature” (Frye, 207). By adopting this theme, however, Orwell “completely misses the point as a satire on the Russian development of Marx­ism” (Kingsley, 166). No matter whether thess evaluations are negative or positive, these critics have confined Animal Farm to a mere allegory of or satire on the Russian Revolution. There is actually no need to insist on reading Animal Farm in this way. The success or failure of the fable should not be judged by the degree of the verisimilitude the fable bears with the Russian Revolution. In regard to the Trotsky-Stalin interpretation, Orwell had no intention of making Animal Farm an apology for Trotskyism, an aim which some commentators praise and some criticize. He told Julian Symons that Totsky-Snowbal1 and Stalin-Napoleon would make not much difference in the long run. In Animal Farm, he has made it clear that Snowball is equally potentially dangerous as Napoleon. In the first note of corruption when the pigs usurp the milk and apples, Snowball consents to this first act of inequality. Some critics attempt to minimize the contribution of the pigs to the success of the animal revolution. No doubt, the revolution is achieved '”much earlier and more easily than anyone had expected” (Orwell, 18), and is not initiated according to a plan but occurs spontaneously. When Jones and his men repeatedly neglect to feed the animals, the latter out of hunger “with one accord, though nothing of the kind had been planned beforehand,” flung themselves upon the human beings and succeeded in chasing them off the farm. “And so almost before they knew what was happening,” Orwell continues, “the Revolution had been successfully carried through: Jones was expelled, and the Manor Farm was theirs” (Orwell, 19). Robert Lee reads the outbreak of the revolution as a dramatic irony - “the motive hunger justifies the revolution more basically and irrefutably than the soundest of politi­cal theories. The revolution sprung not from theory, but from real, natural need” (Lee, 562). Richard Smyer also points out that the violent revolt against Jones springs from im­pulse and not from ideological formulation (Smyer, 58). But these two critics have done injustice to the pigs; for if the other animals had not been enlightened by the pigs, they would not have reacted in such a unanimous way. At least, driving off the human masters altogether was beyond their imagination. If hunger is the only factor that accounts for the success of the revolution, it is inconceivable that after the pigs take over and leave the animals more hungry than before the animals would not revolt again. Several times the narrator highlights the fact that the ration has been reduced, even to the extent in one place that “starva­tion seemed to stare them in the face” (Orwell, 65). But the animals remain happy and contented because they believe that they are now free and equal. The only incident that comes close to a rebellion is when the hens try to thwart Napoleon’s wish to sell their eggs. Napoleon’s reaction is simple: stop the hens’ rations. Hunger this time no longer works as before as the incentive to rebellion. Instead, it becomes an effective means to quiet a revolt; the hens “capitulated and went back to their nesting boxes” five days after regardless of the fact that “nine hens had died in the meantime” (Orwell, 67). According to the logic of the previously cited critics, however, this recurrence of hun­ger should have provoked an even greater upheaval. Hunger is frequently manipulated in a political way by the pigs. Sunday’s work is voluntary, but those who do not join have their rations reduced by half. Without realizing this en­slaved status, the animals cannot think of rebellion as the solution to the problem. The ability to perceive things does not merely come naturally from our instinct. Orwell does not want audience in the beginning to see the pigs as evil. No one expects that the revolu­tion will be within his life time, but “they saw clearly that it is their duty to prepare for it. The work of teach­ing and organizing the others fell naturally upon the pigs, who were generally recognized as being the cleverest of the animals” (Orwell, 15). Winston predicts that “out of those mighty loins [of the proles] a race of conscious being must one day come’’ but the success of overthrowing the ruling party depends also on someone like him to keep “alive the mind . . . and [pass] on the secret doctrine that two plus two make four” (Orwell, 1984, 176). Thus, instinct is the source of revolutionary force, and intelligence is also indispensable. In other words, the pigs’ contributions should not be neglected or undermined, for they are essen­tial to the revolution. The fact that the pigs are benevolent in the beginning and are corrupted only after they have seized power from human hands, makes Orwell’s eutopia appear potentially dangerous. If the pigs have bad intentions right at the outset, the problem of this revolution is not inherent in eutopia it­self, but in the abuse of eutopia. By portraying the pigs’ transformation as a result of being corrupted by the power seized, Orwell heightens audience’s awareness of the inherent cor­ruptive potential of all nationwide eutopian projects. If the pigs are to be blamed for yielding to the temp­tation of power, the lower animals hold responsibility for their corruption. They are too hasty in placing entire trust on the pigs, and when problems arise, they are not able to discern the genuine cause. Even when they query the explanations given by the pigs, they are easily quieted by appeals to science and written documents, something beyond their comprehension. Above all, even though they are aware that life is difficult after the pigs have taken over the ruling of Animal Farm, they enjoy listening to the figures of improvement that Squealer provides (Orwell, 95-96). Boxer, for example, never thinks, perhaps because thinking is beyond his ability to attain, and resorts to his motto, “I will work harder” as a panacea for all problems. After Snowball is expelled, and the totalitarian policy begins to be felt, he simply adds one more motto, “Napoleon is always right.” He is too simple to be aware that the dogs’ attack on him immediately before the confession and the slaughter of the confessors is Napoleon’s plan to get rid of him. After the event, standing before the dead bodies of the confessed animals, Boxer says, “I do not understand it. I would not have believed that such things could happen on our farm. It must due to some fault in ourselves. The solution, as I see it is to work harder” (Orwell, 74-75). Clover seems to be more discerning in her realization that “this was not what they had aimed at when they set themselves years ago to work for the overthrow of the human race.” But what she could do is to sing “Beast of England” to channel her dissatisfaction. There was no thinking of rebellion or disobedience in her mind: “what­ever happens she will remain faithful, work hard, carry out the orders that were given to her, and accept the leader­ship of Napoleon” (Orwell, 76). In short, the lower animals are not only unable to restrain the pigs by a system of checks and balances, but also ready fully to support whatever decisions the pigs make for them. There is where the problem lies. What is fatal to the animal revolution is in fact predicted by Old Major, the acquiring of human “vices.” The process begins with the pigs’ learning of reading and writing from the spelling books of Jones’s children. As the only animals that can write, they become the privileged group and hold full control, and freedom of manipulation of written documents in Animal Farm. When Napoleon gives orders to develop trade with human beings, some animals remember that there has been a resolution “Never to have any dealings with human beings, never to engage in trade, never to make use of money” (Orwell, 56). Their bewilderment is soon suppressed by Squealer who challenges them, “are you certain that this is not something that you have dreazaed, comrades? Have you any record of such a resolution? Is it written down anywhere?” (Orwell, 57) Then comes the narrator’s voice: “And since it was certain­ly true that nothing of the kind existed in writing, the animals were satisfied that they have been mistaken” (Orwell, 57-8). It is obvious that the animals worship the written text, for it is beyond the ability of many to read, let alone to write. The pigs manipulate the animals by the human “vices” they acquired. written text is really used in Animal Farm to facilitate slavery. The culmination of the corruption of the animal revo­lution, also the climax of the story, takes place at the end when the pigs walk on their hind legs and hold whips in their trotters. It is also when the Seven Commandments, are replaced by one: “All Animals Are Equal But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.” The pigs are officially set above other animals, for now it is mandated “Four legs good, two legs better.” The ideal of equality among the animals, the primary ideal of Old Major is now officially eliminated. John Atkins points out that right in the begin­ning when Snowball condenses the Seven Commandments into the maxim “Four Legs good, two legs bad” the notion of inequality is already assumed. The slogan, Atkins ex­plains, “was equivalent to saying that all animals were not equal because bourgeois human animals were intrinsically inferior to proletarian inhuman animals” (Atkins, 224) In that case, one may argue that the new Commandment has not betrayed the original spirit very much, only reversed the order of in­equality. Moreover, the pigs have placed themselves on the same level as the human animal. Now Mr. Pilkington has reasons for congratulation on the success of Animal Farm, or now Manor Farm; and the pigs and men are no longer dis­tinguishable. Animals and human beings are for the first time on an equal footing, even though only one kind of animal can reach that level. Thus, the revolution has come full circle. If the alteration of the Seven Commandments represents the manipulation of the written language by the ruling class in order to control society, the establishment of the final Commandment is a further control of the semantics of language to fulfil that purpose. In the past, alternations had to be made by adding words to the Commandments. From now on, the ruling class can make whatever changes by giv­ing new meaning to words. “Equal,” by definition, cannot be used in the comparative degree. When the pigs write “Some Animals Are More Equal Than The Others,” the meaning of “equal” is adulterated. Finally it is not amazing to find the expression of “most equal.” With the meanings of words under control, the pigs make reasoning and thinking impossible. Totalitarianism ulti­mately not only determines one’s mode of behavior, but also one’s mode of thinking. Animal Farm, therefore, dramatizes Orwell’s summary of Burnham’s views of political history: that “history consists of a series of swindles, in which the masses are first lured into revolt by the promise of utopia, and then, when they have done their job, en­slaved over again by new masters” (Orwell, 1946). George Orwell, however, does not intend to make the revolution a swindle at the outset. It is a real noble hope for a better life, and no one, including the pigs, actually expects the revolution to take place in his own life. WORKS CITED Atkins, John. George Orwell, New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1954 Frye, Northrop. Rev of Animal Farm, by George Orwell, Canadian Forum (Dec 1946) Hodgart, Matthew. “From Animal Farm to Nineteen Eighty-four,” in Miriam Gross, Ed. The World of George Orwell. (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson) rpt. 1977 Kingsley, Martin. “Soviet Satire,” Rev. of Animal Farm by George Orwell. New Statesman and Nation, vol. XXX, no. 759 (Sept. 1945) Lee, Robert A. “The Uses of Form: A Reading of Animal Farm” Studies in Short Fiction, VI (1969) Orwell, George. “Why I Write,” collected in Alvin B. Kernan ed. Modern Satire (Ney York, Chicago, Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc.), 1962 Orwell, George. The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell. Ed. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus. 4 volumes, New York, Harcourt, 1968 Orwell, George. Animal Farm. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books in association with Martin Secker & Warburg, 1951 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Harmondsworth: Penduin Book in association with Martin Secker & Warburg, rpt. 1977 Orwell, George. Work : Essays : James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution, Available at Accessed, April 15, 2010 Pindker, Sanford. “A Note on Teaching Orwell’s Animal Farm,” CEA Critic, 39, no.2 (Jan 1977) Smyer, Richard. “Animal Farm: The Burden of Consciousness,” English Language Notes, 9 (1971) Warburg, Frederic. All Authors Are Equal, London: Hutchinson, 1973 Read More