My biggest complaint was how thin the allegory was. Like, Orwell didn’t have to use animal farms at all, it read like a history lesson for most parts. I felt between chapter 3 to chapter 8 were mostly just boring and pigs Doing a power capture slowly. Did chapter 3 to 8 help create the impact of chapter 9 and 10? Absolutely. Could they have been done better? I think so, it didn’t have to be read like a history lesson.
I’d argue Animal Farm, and Orwell in general, isn’t necessarily there for the enjoyment of the story so much as they’re an exercise in political perspectivism. The theming choices and what not were just artistic choices to tell what is essentially a real life cautionary tale in the setting of a story. I feel like he was trying to teach history and politics the same way you sneak vegetables into a kid’s food, he understood what he was trying to say wasn’t palatable but was nourishing.
Has been a while, but IMO the animals work well because they abstract the history lesson away from any specific people. It shows how universal these patterns are. I didn’t like Animal Farm because it was so well written or had such an intriguing story arc. I liked it because draws a picture of behavior in societies and holds up a mirror to us humans.
Many of the animals are just direct references to specific people though.
Sure, but most people will not realize that and it makes it easier to have certain discussions with them.
I don’t follow. People not understanding the book makes it easier to have discussions about what, exactly? Why have the characters be direct allegories in the first place if missing the allegory makes it easier to discuss things?
I can get behind that explaination. Well, I do think I had a more “artistic” expectation from the book given how many people recommend it, instead got something that was very raw and direct about it’s message.
Yeah, I think I know what you mean. I read 1984 before Animal Farm, and it also didn’t turn out how I expected (still good though). So I was more open about what to expect for Animal Farm I think.
However thin the allegory was for you, you still live in a country where most people do not understand it.
How do you know where I live?
How many Indian people do understand Animal Farm?
I was surprised you know I am an Indian. Yeah true almost no one understands it, but also almost no one has read it. I don’t think our education system has the guts to teach animal farm, cause Orwell is warning against exactly what our government is doing. Also I don’t think it’s hard to understand, Orwell is pretty direct in warning against authoritarianism
It is a warning against whatever governments do worldwide. It is not limited to India, and the worst cases are the big three: China, the US, and Russia. Basically kleptocraties with only fig leaf democracy.
The animals were necessary, because they allow Orwell to disguise his chauvanism and elitism.
In Animal Farm, the pigs are biologically more intelligent than the other animals. It’s not simply a matter of lack of education, in fact, there is a literacy campaign, it just fails because the workers are stupid and lack the capacity to learn:
As for the pigs, they could already read and write perfectly. The dogs learned to read fairly well, but were not interested in reading anything except the Seven Commandments. Muriel, the goat, could read somewhat better than the dogs, and sometimes used to read to the others in the evenings from scraps of newspaper which she found on the rubbish heap. Benjamin could read as well as any pig, but never exercised his faculty. So far as he knew, he said, there was nothing worth reading. Clover learnt the whole alphabet, but could not put words together. Boxer could not get beyond the letter D. He would trace out A, B, C, D, in the dust with his great hoof, and then would stand staring at the letters with his ears back, sometimes shaking his forelock, trying with all his might to remember what came next and never succeeding.
This innate lack of intelligence means that the animals representing the working class can never (even theoretically) develop into a political entity, capable of asserting political positions. Far from being able to develop and propose solutions, the animals can barely comprehend political questions:
According to Napoleon, what the animals must do was to procure firearms and train themselves in the use of them. According to Snowball, they must send out more and more pigeons and stir up rebellions among the animals on the other farms. The one argued that if they could not defend themselves, they were bound to be conquered; the other argued that if rebellions happened everywhere they would have no need to defend themselves. The animals listened first to Napoleon, then to Snowball, and could not make up their minds which was right; indeed, they always found themselves in agreement with the one who was speaking at the moment.
This means that true liberation and self-governance of the animals is impossible and any attempt at such a goal will only lead to the establishment of a new ruling caste.
In this way, Animal Farm is not merely anti-Stalin or anti-authortarian (in fact, it presents authoritarianism as an unavoidable necessity), but rather anti-revolution and anti-liberation. Which is probably why it’s taught so widely and treated like gospel in capitalist countries.
Yeah the fundamental flaw is that the premise is analogous to immutable hierarchy based on race or class. And I am not sure which is better or worse.
Its not something I would choose for myself to read for entertainment but relative to most school fair I would rank it pretty high.
All political allegories are alright but some are more alright than others.
What did you not enjoy? The content or style it was written? I didn’t get that part.
To me animal farm is still among the absolutely best books I have ever set my eyes on. Not for the reason it was written: communism, power. No, the very picture that it paints using animals: they are used and then discarded.
Looking at it at face value, this is happening in both communism and capitalism. It is a feature of how we organize our societies.
For me the book has never been a criticism of communism. But an eye opener how we use and abuse the world around us for our own benefit, no matter in which ideology we fall.
It’s was a critique of authoritarianism, using example of communist ideologies, in my opinion.
I didn’t like the style, like in history textbooks, how they gloss over minute details? That’s what I felt about animal farm. Like, it felt like most of the animal farm was written by a distant observer, not someone who lives on the farm. Most notably the book lacked first person dialogues. It was almost entirely written in indirect speech, except for a few moments.
I feel it is more about the human tendendcy toward authoritarianism. Like initially after throwing off the humans there are many improvements but they get slowly degraded. Actually maybe kinda about nationalism and such. Some see the issues and others blindly following the movement.
I think that’s kinda the point of allegories - they are timeless and open to interpretation. People read animal farm and can apply it to various parts of society, politics, philosophy. If it was too detailed and specific it would be MORE like a history book and just about the Russian Revolution. Which would likely not have had such a wide reach as it continues to have.
For me it wasn’t a strong book. But one with a clear message which was aimed at the people from that time period. Some elements aged too good. Some are boring. I get it.
Still an interesting read, especially since it is short.
