Before I begin I should state that I have never been Orwell's greatest fan. I read Nineteen Eighty-Four in school as part of my A-Level course and I have to say I did not get on easily with it. When I eventually got into it I found I respected the novel but that I could not enjoy it. Indeed, is Nineteen Eighty-Four a novel that can be enjoyed? So, it was with a feeling of foreboding that I looked for Animal Farm in the library. I believed that it would be like the other in terms of, well, just about everything. You can probably imagine my surprise (and relief), therefore, when I realized that it was nothing of the kind. True, both act as a sort of critique of communism in the case of the Soviet Union, but I feel that the two novels do this very differently. Where Nineteen Eighty-Four supposes a time in the future (or the future when Orwell was writing) and one can recognize it as a work of fiction, with Animal Farm we get a concise political history of the Soviet Union in the guise of a 'fairy tale.' Plus, it is much shorter.
Published in the United Kingdom in 1945, Animal Farm chronicles the rebellion of the animals on Manor Farm and the consequent overthrowing of their human master Jones. The animals then take over complete ownership of the farm and start to envisage a world without humans at all. Indeed, 'four legs good, two legs bad' becomes the central party line. However, amidst the fight for total equality amongst the animals, we bear witness to the rise and power struggles of the pigs. Before long, the pig Napolean takes his place as the 'leader' of the animals. In his rise we see a complete turn around in policy. Indeed, the initial commandments of the rebellion become so edited they now have the reverse meaning. Even the basic precept of animalism, that 'all animals are equal,' changes to 'all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.' Along the way animals disappear and even the most hardworking are betrayed. Ultimately, we see how the pigs break each of the formative principles of animalism and in doing so treat the animals worse than their human counterparts ever did. The final sentence of the book sums this fact up succinctly:
"The creatures outside [the farmhouse, looking in on a gathering of pigs and local human farmers] looked from pig to man, man to pig, and from pig to man again; but it already was impossible to say which was which."
As with Nineteen Eighty-Four, I can't exactly say that I particularly like Animal Farm. Both are books I respect more than like. This is especially the case with Animal Farm. I respect the way in which Orwell has made a complex subject i.e. totalitarianism, in particular that of communist totalitarianism, accessible by conveying it in the manner of a 'fairy-tale.' It is easy to read as the language is uncomplicated, and the fact that the characters are animals creates the impression of a story that even children could understand. Yet the fact is that if you were to replace the animals with human characters you would not have a 'fairy-tale.' 'Fairy-tale' implies fiction, made up, fantasy. If Animal Farm were about humans you would have a book that is pretty far removed from the realm of fiction.
It is a book that I am glad that I have now read, if for no other reason than just to be able to say that I have. Maybe one day I will go back to Orwell and have my mind opened further to his works, but in all honesty I am in no rush to pick them up again any time soon.
As pedantic as I may be, I would say not that some are more equal than others, for this makes no sense. However, some animals have more privileges in the view of Napoleon.
ReplyDeleteIf two legs are bad, curiously, I assume they see to eradicate birds and kangaroos?
It sounds like a fun book to read with a deeper meaning based on historical players.
I would not say that some are more equal than others either, but the pigs on Animal Farm do say that. The fact that it doesn't make sense is part of the irony of the novel, for how can anything be more or less equal than something else? It defeats the whole point of equality. The point is that the farm is meant to be based on the principles of equality of all animals, and yet we see that this is not the case. I think that when Orwell wrote 'all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others' he was critisizing the Soviet Union for being non-sensical in their politics. I mean, here is a government that claimed to be communist, the most basic precept of which is that of equality, and yet actually it is the complete reverse. We are meant to see past the nonsense, in order to fully appreciate the novel's finer points.
ReplyDeleteI seem to remember that they actually do discuss the case of birds, and that they considered a birds wings to be like legs and so they were exempt from the 'two legs bad' situation. I don't believe they mentioned kangaroos.
It is a good book as it gives loads to think about. If you are interested in politics or modern world history I would definitely recommend it.