Animal Farm Summary: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/animalfarm/summary.htmlI never really saw this book as anything more than a book that rebelled against the idea of communism, being a freshmen in highschool, I look back now and realize alot of things I never noticed. But after four more years of education I see some parts behind this book that I couldn't help but wonder about and come up with some formulated conclusion. George Orwell, in his book "Animal Farm", used animals to potray diffrent characters and class groups in the Russia's revolution to become the Soviet Union. Using animals to potray such monumental characters and social classes seems twisted, in my own opinion. I assert that the use of animals as Lenin, Stalin, Marx, and other revolutionists seems to be an attack on their ideas and morals. While I can agree Stalin lacked any sort of human morality, the use of animals to potray these men is not just an attack on their status. In using animals as the characters of the Russian Revolution, it shows that we have a view that animals are more simplistic than humans. While the characters in Animal Farm reflected hugley complex actions in history, they brought the revolution into a much simpler perspective by using animals as way to group up diffrent groups in history. Take for example the Boxer, the horse, who represents the working class. Horses are defined as working animals and are commonly thought as the loyalist of all farm animals (Boxer was always mentioned for how hard working and loyal he was). In addition to Boxer, were the pigs who represented the revolutionists, nationalist, and eventually the ruling animal of the farm. Pigs are often considered to be of high intelligence and most similiar to humans. By Orwell using animals to simplify the story and create assumptions of characters I attest that the use of animals in "Animal Farm" shows that we have a passive opinion that animals are more basic that humans.
I thought that this was that book about the meat packing industry. What am I getting it mixed up with?
ReplyDeleteOh well, anyway, on to more important issues...
When you say basic, what exactly do you mean? Is that necessarily a bad thing. There are some who view more "simple people" (a rather derougatory term I think) as being more virtuous and innocent than "modern people". Some people may consider animals to be more virtuous than humans because of their simplicity. So how do you answer that?
Thinking of "The Jungle" possibly.
ReplyDeleteI have not read Orwell's book, but I have the Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", and from your analysis of Orwell's book, I really wish it was the other way around. The idea of attributing different man made political ideologies to animals, based upon the value that humans place on the animals is very interesting. Not only is it a commentary about the worth of animals, but the worth of these different ideologies. A natural pecking order to the ideologies which seems to really demonstrate the premise of the book, that there are certain capable and inept political practices in the world, and that due to this pecking order some will inevitable fall while others march on. Once again, I have not read the book, so I could be totally misinterpreting this and am kind of just reiterating what you already have elaborated on. But I thought it was really interesting.
ReplyDeleteIn response to David's question, I think that as illustrated in Gage's post, the animals are so personified that they no longer represent animals or therefore can bear animal innocence, but serve only as symbolic reminders of their status on a farm.