Review by Edward Tanguay January 28, 1996

Napoleon is such a pig. His appropriation of the puppies at the beginning shows that he was looking to take over from the beginning. I have to think of Paul's economic rule, that if competition is suppressed, it surfaces in another way. But only those smart enough to compete are able to compete. That's the problem with these animals: there are only a couple who really seem to know what's going on, most of them are push overs, and all of them are losing power and don't really know it.

The characters don't seem to be representing individuals from the Russian revolution but rather stereotypes: Napoleon the power-thirsty politburo con artist and Squealer the right-hand man. The funniest stereotype is poor Boxer: big and dumb and well-meaning. The descriptions of his strenuous cogitations are priceless, here when he is trying to learn to spell:

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. On several occasions, indeed, he did learn E, F, G, H, but by the time he knew them, it was always discovered that he had forgotten A, B, C, and D. Finally he decided to be content with the first four letters, and used to write them out once or twice every day to refresh his memory.

. . . and trying to comprehend the meaning of the dogs coming in and carrying out the coup on snowball:

Even Boxer was vaguely troubled. He set his ears back, shook his forelock several times, and tried hard to marshal his thoughts; but in the end he could not think of anything to say.

The allusions to the corruption of communism are quite obvious: use of a common enemy ("you don't want Mr. Jones back, do you?), rewriting of history ("the role of Snowball at the battle of the cowpen has to be reconsidered"), the party-toters (sheep), and deception of the masses ("there was never a rule about pigs not living in the house"). Despite these "loudspeaker allusions," this is a simple little story that's fun to read. A bit disturbing as well.

Edward Tanguay

*** Animal Farm, by George Orwell
*** Notes on the SECOND half
*** by Edward Tanguay
*** February 5, 1996

The only character that has a bit of human personality is the cynic donkey, Benjamin! He is different from the rest that he seems to stand outside the book. His humor is dry, here when watching the humans near the windmill after the battle:

But Benjamin was watching the movements of the men intently. The two with the hammer and the crowbar were drilling a hole near the base of the windmill. Slowly, and with an air almost of amusement, Benjamin nodded his long muzzle.

"I thought so," he said. "Do you not see what they are doing? In another moment they are going to pack blasting powder into that hole."

This isn't a happy book but an important book. It's not really "pro" anything: Mr. Jones was a drunk who didn't take care of the farm, and none of the other farmers are particularly respectable. As C.M. Woodhouse writes in the introduction to my edition, this book does not have a moral, but its message is "like that of all fairy stories: 'life is like that--take it or leave it.'" You might have noticed that the subtitle to this book is "a fairy story." Mr. Woodhouse considers this a good description, as it "has the same theme, for instance, as a little girl who goes into the forest to do a good deed for her grandmother and gets gobbled up by a wolf." That's life. Also, a fairy tale does not use for characters "rounded, three-dimensional human beings that develop psychologically through time, but fixed stereotypes, puppets, silhouettes--or animals." The review, written in 1954, goes on to describe this book's impact:

Already Orwell has launched the "long haul" of wresting back some of those cardinal, once meaningful, words like "equality," "peace," "democracy," which have been fraudulently converted into shibboleths of political warfare; and already it is impossible for anyone who has read Animal Farm (as well as for many who have not) to listen to the demagogues' clap-trap about equality without also hearing the still, small voice that adds: ". . . but some are more equal than others."

This review ends with an unsettling statement: ". . . Orwell has, anyway, two strings to his bow: he is the author of 1984 as well as of Animal Farm. If the worst comes to worst and Orwell fails as a legislator he is then virtually certain of immortality as a prophet."

Edward Tanguay

From: KEITH MACKENZIE <kmac@UVic.CA>
Subject: Animal Farm

Just finished reading Animal Farm late last night in bed. I found it to be uniquely complicated but very simple at the same time, much like Dr. Seuss, where one can understand a story by simply reading it (children especially), but if one were to dig deeper into it, deeper meanings would be found. Animal Farm is just that, a children's book that can be easily understood by a mature child but at the same time encouraging debate among adult scholars.

I don't actually see this book as a satire of totalitarian rule, but rather as a depiction of the natural tendencies of the human animal. My own impression of this book was that it allows us the opportunity to view ourselves from a neutral third party point of view, so that we can recognize the flaws in ourselves as human beings, in our natural inclination to attain power and using violence in order to get there. What really convinced me of this was the very last paragraph, how the farm animals could no longer tell the difference between the pigs and the men, a paragraph that really struck home the whole point of the book in my own humble opinion.

An interesting thought here: the sheep never seemed to protest at all. Rather, they simply learned the mantra of the farm ("Four legs good, two legs bad," and later on "Four legs good, two legs BETTER"), with absolutely no questioning whatsoever. Perhaps Orwell chose the sheep to fill out this role because of the idea of people as sheep flocking towards a leader, and following him with a blind eye.

Another thought: Benjamin the donkey was probably the wisest of the animals. He knew better than everyone that it mattered not who was in power, what sort of government was in place, what philosophy the animals followed; none of this mattered, because it was simply nature that nothing would EVER change. Everything will always remain the same. In adopting this view he remained stable, without any broken dreams or unfulfilled hopes, and without any regrets to look back upon.

Just a few tidbits on what I thought was a great book, although I felt a little chill when it got to the point where the pigs were walking on their hind legs. That spooked me a little bit, and of course the last paragraph kept me awake thinking for a little bit before I finally sunk into sleep.

Keith MacKenzie University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada

From: kobensha@runet.edu (Kathryn Obenshain)
Subject: Animal Farm

This is one of those "deceptively simple" books: easy to read, perhaps, but such complex undercurrents! I agree with Edward that the characters are stereotypes not representations of actual historical personages. I have read the book several times through the years, and each time its poignant overtones strike me anew: the callous treatment of poor, faithful Snowball, for example, is heartbreaking. Animal Farm is an important book of this century, but as much as I believe this and think that it should be a part of required reading for high school students, etc., it will never be a favorite book of mine, simply because it "hurts" me too much, and leaves me somewhat depressed.

Best regards & Good Reading to all!
Cordially,
Kathryn o/o/ o/

Send your thoughts on this book to The Online Reading Club.
Find out which books we are currently reading.