animal farm essays pdf

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Download Free PDF

Animal Farm Essay

Related papers

Revolution as a phenomenon is considered as a way to a complete change of a situation or system of government to a better one. Is revolution really the right way to fulfil our dreams and have a better way of life? Or is it simply just changing the face of rulers or the name of the governments? Many writers and novelists have written about this issue. George Orwell, who is considered as a political writer, is one of them. He wrote many novels. Animal Farm, as one of them, is an allegorical story of some animals on a farm. They begin a revolution against the humans with the dream of getting rid of Man as the root cause of their problems, and to be rich and free. They have a short period of honeymoon revolution, but then their dream of building a utopian farm is crashed by the pigs and they would find themselves in dystopia. This paper aims to study the nature of revolution generally to shed light on human history, Then to explore how this phenomenon is treated by Orwell in his novel. Can we consider revolution as a right way to have a complete change in the political system and thinking of people? The researchers try to illuminate and find answers for those questions by providing examples from the story of Animal Farm.

Between the species : a journal of ethics, 1992

Language and Ecology Online journal, 2004

A philosophy initiated by a pioneer redirects its course from the proposed ideology when the origin ceases to exist. In this case, it happens to be the OLD MAJOR; an old wise pig. Staying by chance not by choice in the setting of MANOR FARM; 'the comrades of old major' have accepted their lives to be no other way but this, ruled and governed by man's interests and luxuries. Mr Jones, the owner of MANOR FARM; exploits these animals treating them ruthlessly up until one of them challenges and refuses to keep things the way they were. He turns out to be the motivator for the herd inspiring them to change things around them; convincing them about the fact that; to be born as an animal is not living a laborious life for the benefit of human race. He infact states that " MAN IS THE ONLY CREATURE THAT CONSUMES WITHOUT PRODUCING. REMOVE MAN FROM THE SCENE, AND THE ROOT CAUSEOF HUNGER AND OVERWORK IS ABOLISHED FOR EVER ". Few days later; after his death, the fellow beings continue living in the same scenario with the Major's wise words still ringing in the head, unaware of how to implement the revolt and when and why should it happen if at all it has to. Anything that reaches its maximum level of tolerance backfires at the peak point, No different are the animals who vouch for a REBELLION on being starved for the entire day by their self centred master. ANIMAL FARM as the name changes from manor farm is seen as the initial step of freeing the animals from the shackles of humans. Being slightly more educated than the fellow beings, makes the pigs sit on the position to decide the so called habitability for the rest of the farm. This scenario could very much draw a parallel between animals and the way humans lead their life. NAPOLEAN and SNOWBALL, obedient descendants of old major keep legacy maintained by taking the lead and imparting reading and writing classes to the fellow beings. Characters that highlight several

Childrens Literature in Education, 2000

This paper aims to focus on finding and highlighting the misanthropic aspects and their effects on the characters in the novel Animal Farm by George Orwell. The misanthropic perspectives in the novel have been premeditated deeply. Misanthropy has been implemented on the characters. The characters like, Old Major, Napoleon, Squealer, and others have been studied to manifest the misanthropic attitudes in it. Old major is the father of misanthropy in the novel Animal Farm and gives the idea of rehabilitation in the animals' lives and Napoleon accomplishes it. The disgusting behavior of the animals leads to revolution. Misanthropy affects humans' lives and they become homeless. The findings of the paper are that the animals possess disgusting behavior against humans. The paper concludes that the whole novel is replete with misanthropy and it is the very aspect that has been probed by this article. Eventually, misanthropy proves to be a nightmarish dream for animals of the Animal...

Animal Farm is a short novel written by George Orwell during the Russian Revolution. The novel is full of satire which aims to teach, make people laugh and at the same time make people think, written in a fable style which transfers a human's trait to non-human beings. George Orwell himself was an opponent of communism. So, this work is often seen as a critical piece against the Soviet Russian regime.

Humanities and social sciences, 2017

İSAM TAHKİKLİ NEŞİR KILAVUZU, 2023

Zeitschrift des Geschichtsvereins Mülheim an der Ruhr, Heft 97/2024, 2024

Maʿālim al-Qurʾān wa al-Sunnah, 2021

EPJ Web of Conferences, 2021

Revista de Comunicación, 2023

Çizgi Kitabevi Yayınları, 2022

Assemblea Generale di CHARIS, Aula Paolo VI - Città del Vaticano, 4 Novembre 2023.

Studies in Conservation

IX Jornadas de Jóvenes Investigadores en Estudios Comparados. "Bien de archivo", PELCC, UNTREF, 2018

Pfl�gers Archiv European Journal of Physiology, 1982

Revista Ibero-Americana de Estudos em Educação

Environment International, 2021

Predigt zu Mk 10,35-45 (B/29), 2024

Planta Medica

BMC Public Health, 2015

Toxicon, 2019

Fisioterapia em Movimento, 2020

Related topics

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• About George Orwell
• Partners and Sponsors
• Accessibility
• Policies and complaints
• Upcoming events
• The Orwell Festival
• The Orwell Memorial Lectures
• Books by Orwell
• Essays and other works
• Encountering Orwell
• Orwell Live
• About the prizes
• Reporting Homelessness
• Previous winners
• Orwell Fellows
• Introduction
• Volunteering
• Terms and Conditions
• Start your journey
• Inspiration
• Find Your Form
• Start Writing
• Responding to Feedback
• Our offer for teachers
• Lesson Plans
• Events and Workshops
• GCSE Practice Papers
• Finalists 2024
• The Orwell Youth Fellows

The Orwell Foundation

• The Orwell Prizes
• The Orwell Youth Prize

The Freedom of the Press

Proposed preface to Animal Farm , first published in the Times Literary Supplement on 15 September 1972 with an introduction by Sir Bernard Crick. Ian Angus found the original manuscript in 1972.

This material remains under copyright and is reproduced here with the kind permission of the Orwell Estate . The Orwell Foundation is an independent charity – please consider  making a donation  or becoming a Friend of the Foundation to help us maintain these resources for readers everywhere. 

This book was first thought of, so far as the central idea goes, in 1937, but was not written down until about the end of 1943. By the time when it came to be written it was obvious that there would be great difficulty in getting it published (in spite of the present book shortage which ensures that anything describable as a book will ‘sell’), and in the event it was refused by four publishers. Only one of these had any ideological motive. Two had been publishing anti-Russian books for years, and the other had no noticeable political colour. One publisher actually started by accepting the book, but after making the preliminary arrangements he decided to consult the Ministry of Information, who appear to have warned him, or at any rate strongly advised him, against publishing it. Here is an extract from his letter:

I mentioned the reaction I had had from an important official in the Ministry of Information with regard to Animal Farm. I must confess that this expression of opinion has given me seriously to think… I can see now that it might be regarded as something which it was highly ill-advised to publish at the present time. If the fable were addressed generally to dictators and dictatorships at large then publication would be all right, but the fable does follow, as I see now, so completely the progress of the Russian Soviets and their two dictators, that it can apply only to Russia, to the exclusion of the other dictatorships. Another thing: it would be less offensive if the predominant caste in the fable were not pigs[1]. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are.

This kind of thing is not a good symptom. Obviously it is not desirable that a government department should have any power of censorship (except security censorship, which no one objects to in war time) over books which are not officially sponsored. But the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the MOI or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.

Any fairminded person with journalistic experience will admit that during this war official censorship has not been particularly irksome. We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian ‘co-ordination’ that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.

Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia. Everyone knows this, nearly everyone acts on it. Any serious criticism of the Soviet régime, any disclosure of facts which the Soviet government would prefer to keep hidden, is next door to unprintable. And this nation-wide conspiracy to flatter our ally takes place, curiously enough, against a background of genuine intellectual tolerance. For though you are not allowed to criticise the Soviet government, at least you are reasonably free to criticise our own. Hardly anyone will print an attack on Stalin, but it is quite safe to attack Churchill, at any rate in books and periodicals. And throughout five years of war, during two or three of which we were fighting for national survival, countless books, pamphlets and articles advocating a compromise peace have been published without interference. More, they have been published without exciting much disapproval. So long as the prestige of the USSR is not involved, the principle of free speech has been reasonably well upheld. There are other forbidden topics, and I shall mention some of them presently, but the prevailing attitude towards the USSR is much the most serious symptom. It is, as it were, spontaneous, and is not due to the action of any pressure group.

The servility with which the greater part of the English intelligentsia have swallowed and repeated Russian propaganda from 1941 onwards would be quite astounding if it were not that they have behaved similarly on several earlier occasions. On one controversial issue after another the Russian viewpoint has been accepted without examination and then publicised with complete disregard to historical truth or intellectual decency. To name only one instance, the BBC celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Red Army without mentioning Trotsky. This was about as accurate as commemorating the battle of Trafalgar without mentioning Nelson, but it evoked no protest from the English intelligentsia. In the internal struggles in the various occupied countries, the British press has in almost all cases sided with the faction favoured by the Russians and libelled the opposing faction, sometimes suppressing material evidence in order to do so. A particularly glaring case was that of Colonel Mihailovich, the Jugoslav Chetnik leader. The Russians, who had their own Jugoslav protege in Marshal Tito, accused Mihailovich of collaborating with the Germans. This accusation was promptly taken up by the British press: Mihailovich’s supporters were given no chance of answering it, and facts contradicting it were simply kept out of print. In July of 1943 the Germans offered a reward of 100,000 gold crowns for the capture of Tito, and a similar reward for the capture of Mihailovich. The British press ‘splashed’ the reward for Tito, but only one paper mentioned (in small print) the reward for Mihailovich: and the charges of collaborating with the Germans continued. Very similar things happened during the Spanish civil war. Then, too, the factions on the Republican side which the Russians were determined to crush were recklessly libelled in the English leftwing press, and any statement in their defence even in letter form, was refused publication. At present, not only is serious criticism of the USSR considered reprehensible, but even the fact of the existence of such criticism is kept secret in some cases. For example, shortly before his death Trotsky had written a biography of Stalin. One may assume that it was not an altogether unbiased book, but obviously it was saleable. An American publisher had arranged to issue it and the book was in print — I believe the review copies had been sent out — when the USSR entered the war. The book was immediately withdrawn. Not a word about this has ever appeared in the British press, though clearly the existence of such a book, and its suppression, was a news item worth a few paragraphs.

It is important to distinguish between the kind of censorship that the English literary intelligentsia voluntarily impose upon themselves, and the censorship that can sometimes be enforced by pressure groups. Notoriously, certain topics cannot be discussed because of ‘vested interests’. The best-known case is the patent medicine racket. Again, the Catholic Church has considerable influence in the press and can silence criticism of itself to some extent. A scandal involving a Catholic priest is almost never given publicity, whereas an Anglican priest who gets into trouble (e.g. the Rector of Stiffkey) is headline news. It is very rare for anything of an anti-Catholic tendency to appear on the stage or in a film. Any actor can tell you that a play or film which attacks or makes fun of the Catholic Church is liable to be boycotted in the press and will probably be a failure. But this kind of thing is harmless, or at least it is understandable. Any large organisation will look after its own interests as best it can, and overt propaganda is not a thing to object to. One would no more expect the Daily Worker to publicise unfavourable facts about the USSR than one would expect the Catholic Herald to denounce the Pope. But then every thinking person knows the Daily Worker and the Catholic Herald for what they are. What is disquieting is that where the USSR and its policies are concerned one cannot expect intelligent criticism or even, in many cases, plain honesty from Liberal writers and journalists who are under no direct pressure to falsify their opinions. Stalin is sacrosanct and certain aspects of his policy must not be seriously discussed. This rule has been almost universally observed since 1941, but it had operated, to a greater extent than is sometimes realised, for ten years earlier than that. Throughout that time, criticism of the Soviet régime from the left could only obtain a hearing with difficulty. There was a huge output of anti-Russian literature, but nearly all of it was from the Conservative angle and manifestly dishonest, out of date and actuated by sordid motives. On the other side there was an equally huge and almost equally dishonest stream of pro-Russian propaganda, and what amounted to a boycott on anyone who tried to discuss all-important questions in a grown-up manner. You could, indeed, publish anti-Russian books, but to do so was to make sure of being ignored or misrepresented by nearly the whole of the highbrow press. Both publicly and privately you were warned that it was ‘not done’. What you said might possibly be true, but it was ‘inopportune’ and played into the hands of this or that reactionary interest. This attitude was usually defended on the ground that the international situation, and the urgent need for an Anglo-Russian alliance, demanded it; but it was clear that this was a rationalisation. The English intelligentsia, or a great part of it, had developed a nationalistic loyalty towards me USSR, and in their hearts they felt that to cast any doubt on the wisdom of Stalin was a kind of blasphemy. Events in Russia and events elsewhere were to be judged by different standards. The endless executions in the purges of 1936-8 were applauded by life-long opponents of capital punishment, and it was considered equally proper to publicise famines when they happened in India and to conceal them when they happened in the Ukraine. And if this was true before the war, the intellectual atmosphere is certainly no better now.

But now to come back to this book of mine. The reaction towards it of most English intellectuals will be quite simple: ‘It oughtn’t to have been published.’ Naturally, those reviewers who understand the art of denigration will not attack it on political grounds but on literary ones. They will say that it is a dull, silly book and a disgraceful waste of paper. This may well be true, but it is obviously not the whole of the story. One does not say that a book ‘ought not to have been published’ merely because it is a bad book. After all, acres of rubbish are printed daily and no one bothers. The English intelligentsia, or most of them, will object to this book because it traduces their Leader and (as they see it) does harm to the cause of progress. If it did the opposite they would have nothing to say against it, even if its literary faults were ten times as glaring as they are. The success of, for instance, the Left Book Club over a period of four or five years shows how willing they are to tolerate both scurrility and slipshod writing, provided that it tells them what they want to hear.

The issue involved here is quite a simple one: Is every opinion, however unpopular — however foolish, even — entitled to a hearing? Put it in that form and nearly any English intellectual will feel that he ought to say ‘Yes’. But give it a concrete shape, and ask, ‘How about an attack on Stalin? Is that entitled to a hearing?’, and the answer more often than not will be ‘No’. In that case the current orthodoxy happens to be challenged, and so the principle of free speech lapses. Now, when one demands liberty of speech and of the press, one is not demanding absolute liberty. There always must be, or at any rate there always will be, some degree of censorship, so long as organised societies endure. But freedom, as Rosa Luxembourg [sic] said, is ‘freedom for the other fellow’. The same principle is contained in the famous words of Voltaire: ‘I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of western civilisation means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakable way. Both capitalist democracy and the western versions of Socialism have till recently taken that principle for granted. Our Government, as I have already pointed out, still makes some show of respecting it. The ordinary people in the street – partly, perhaps, because they are not sufficiently interested in ideas to be intolerant about them – still vaguely hold that ‘I suppose everyone’s got a right to their own opinion.’ It is only, or at any rate it is chiefly, the literary and scientific intelligentsia, the very people who ought to be the guardians of liberty, who are beginning to despise it, in theory as well as in practice.

One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought. This argument was used, for instance, to justify the Russian purges. The most ardent Russophile hardly believed that all of the victims were guilty of all the things they were accused of: but by holding heretical opinions they ‘objectively’ harmed the régime, and therefore it was quite right not only to massacre them but to discredit them by false accusations. The same argument was used to justify the quite conscious lying that went on in the leftwing press about the Trotskyists and other Republican minorities in the Spanish civil war. And it was used again as a reason for yelping against habeas corpus when Mosley was released in 1943.

These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at Fascists. Soon after the suppressed Daily Worker had been reinstated, I was lecturing to a workingmen’s college in South London. The audience were working-class and lower-middle class intellectuals — the same sort of audience that one used to meet at Left Book Club branches. The lecture had touched on the freedom of the press, and at the end, to my astonishment, several questioners stood up and asked me: Did I not think that the lifting of the ban on the Daily Worker was a great mistake? When asked why, they said that it was a paper of doubtful loyalty and ought not to be tolerated in war time. I found myself defending the Daily Worker, which has gone out of its way to libel me more than once. But where had these people learned this essentially totalitarian outlook? Pretty certainly they had learned it from the Communists themselves! Tolerance and decency are deeply rooted in England, but they are not indestructible, and they have to be kept alive partly by conscious effort. The result of preaching totalitarian doctrines is to weaken the instinct by means of which free peoples know what is or is not dangerous. The case of Mosley illustrates this. In 1940 it was perfectly right to intern Mosley, whether or not he had committed any technical crime. We were fighting for our lives and could not allow a possible quisling to go free. To keep him shut up, without trial, in 1943 was an outrage. The general failure to see this was a bad symptom, though it is true that the agitation against Mosley’s release was partly factitious and partly a rationalisation of other discontents. But how much of the present slide towards Fascist ways of thought is traceable to the ‘anti-Fascism’ of the past ten years and the unscrupulousness it has entailed?

It is important to realise that the current Russomania is only a symptom of the general weakening of the western liberal tradition. Had the MOI chipped in and definitely vetoed the publication of this book, the bulk of the English intelligentsia would have seen nothing disquieting in this. Uncritical loyalty to the USSR happens to be the current orthodoxy, and where the supposed interests of the USSR are involved they are willing to tolerate not only censorship but the deliberate falsification of history. To name one instance. At the death of John Reed, the author of Ten Days that Shook the World — first-hand account of the early days of the Russian Revolution — the copyright of the book passed into the hands of the British Communist Party, to whom I believe Reed had bequeathed it. Some years later the British Communists, having destroyed the original edition of the book as completely as they could, issued a garbled version from which they had eliminated mentions of Trotsky and also omitted the introduction written by Lenin. If a radical intelligentsia had still existed in Britain, this act of forgery would have been exposed and denounced in every literary paper in the country. As it was there was little or no protest. To many English intellectuals it seemed quite a natural thing to do. And this tolerance or plain dishonesty means much more than that admiration for Russia happens to be fashionable at this moment. Quite possibly that particular fashion will not last. For all I know, by the time this book is published my view of the Soviet régime may be the generally-accepted one. But what use would that be in itself? To exchange one orthodoxy for another is not necessarily an advance. The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment.

I am well acquainted with all the arguments against freedom of thought and speech — the arguments which claim that it cannot exist, and the arguments which claim that it ought not to. I answer simply that they don’t convince me and that our civilisation over a period of four hundred years has been founded on the opposite notice. For quite a decade past I have believed that the existing Russian régime is a mainly evil thing, and I claim the right to say so, in spite of the fact that we are allies with the USSR in a war which I want to see won. If I had to choose a text to justify myself, I should choose the line from Milton:

By the known rules of ancient liberty.

The word ancient emphasises the fact that intellectual freedom is a deep-rooted tradition without which our characteristic western culture could only doubtfully exist. From that tradition many of our intellectuals are visibly turning away. They have accepted the principle that a book should be published or suppressed, praised or damned, not on its merits but according to political expediency. And others who do not actually hold this view assent to it from sheer cowardice. An example of this is the failure of the numerous and vocal English pacifists to raise their voices against the prevalent worship of Russian militarism. According to those pacifists, all violence is evil, and they have urged us at every stage of the war to give in or at least to make a compromise peace. But how many of them have ever suggested that war is also evil when it is waged by the Red Army? Apparently the Russians have a right to defend themselves, whereas for us to do [so] is a deadly sin. One can only explain this contradiction in one way: that is, by a cowardly desire to keep in with the bulk of the intelligentsia, whose patriotism is directed towards the USSR rather than towards Britain. I know that the English intelligentsia have plenty of reason for their timidity and dishonesty, indeed I know by heart the arguments by which they justify themselves. But at least let us have no more nonsense about defending liberty against Fascism. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. The common people still vaguely subscribe to that doctrine and act on it. In our country — it is not the same in all countries: it was not so in republican France, and it is not so in the USA today — it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect: it is to draw attention to that fact that I have written this preface.

• George Orwell and the Battle for Animal Farm , a short film from The Orwell Foundation

We use cookies. By browsing our site you agree to our use of cookies. Accept

• Ask LitCharts AI
• Discussion Question Generator
• Essay Prompt Generator
• Quiz Question Generator

• Literature Guides
• Poetry Guides
• Shakespeare Translations
• Literary Terms

Animal Farm

George orwell.

Welcome to the LitCharts study guide on George Orwell's Animal Farm . Created by the original team behind SparkNotes, LitCharts are the world's best literature guides.

Animal Farm: Introduction

Animal farm: plot summary, animal farm: detailed summary & analysis, animal farm: themes, animal farm: quotes, animal farm: characters, animal farm: symbols, animal farm: literary devices, animal farm: theme wheel, brief biography of george orwell.

Historical Context of Animal Farm

Other books related to animal farm.

• Full Title: Animal Farm
• When Written: 1944-45
• Where Written: England
• When Published: 1945
• Literary Period: Modernism
• Genre: Allegorical Novel
• Setting: A farm somewhere in England in the first half of the 20th century
• Climax: The pigs appear standing upright and the sheep bleat, “Four legs good, two legs better!”
• Antagonist: Napoleon specifically, but the pigs and the dogs as groups are all antagonists.
• Point of View: Third Person

Extra Credit for Animal Farm

Tough Crowd. Though Animal Farm eventually made Orwell famous, three publishers in England and several American publishing houses rejected the novel at first. One of the English editors to reject the novel was the famous poet T.S. Eliot, who was an editor at the Faber & Faber publishing house. One American editor, meanwhile, told Orwell that it was “impossible to sell animal stories in the U.S.A.”

Red Scare. Orwell didn’t just write literature that condemned the Communist state of the USSR. He did everything he could, from writing editorials to compiling lists of men he knew were Soviet spies, to combat the willful blindness of many intellectuals in the West to USSR atrocities.

• Quizzes, saving guides, requests, plus so much more.

Animal Farm

By george orwell, animal farm essay questions.

How is Animal Farm a satire of Stalinism or generally of totalitarianism?

Answer: A good way to answer this question is to pick a specific example of totalitarianism in any country, historical or current, and explain how the ideas Orwell puts forth in Animal Farm apply to it. Go back and forth between the historical facts and the events of the novel. Note the actions of the leaders, the mechanisms of fear and power, and the reactions of the people over time.

Elucidate the symbolism inherent in the characters' names.

Answer: The symbolism ranges from the obvious to the more cryptic. Compare Napoleon with the historical Frenchman and Moses with the figure from the Bible. Take Snowball as representative of something that grows larger and more forceful. Squealer has something to do with the spoken word. Boxer suggests strength. Make sure to consider each character at various stages of the story and to use specific examples from the text.

What does the narrator do, or fail to do, that makes the story's message possible?

Answer: The narrator lets the story tell itself to a large degree by relating what is said and done without moralization and reflection. The narrator speaks from the perspective of the animals other than the pigs, a kind of observer who can point out the significant details without interfering. The reader then can draw his own conclusions about the symbolism, concordance with historical events, and the awfulness of the events themselves.

What does the windmill represent?

Answer: The windmill's symbolic meaning changes during the course of the novel and means different things to different characters. It is to be for electricity but ends up being for economic production. As it is built, it is a locus of work without benefit and a medium of the pigs' power. For the humans, it is a dangerous symbol of the growing power of the farm. Consider also the relationship between the windmill and the biblical Tower of Babel.

What role does the written word play in Animal Farm ?

Answer: Literacy is a source of power and a vehicle for propaganda. Some examples to consider are the Seven Commandments, "Beasts of England," the child's book, the manuals, the magazines, and the horse-slaughterer's van.

Examine the Seven Commandments and the way they change during the course of the novel from Old Major's death to the banquet Napoleon holds with the farmers.

Answer: The commandments begin as democratic ideals of equality and fraternity in a common animal identity, but they end in inequality when some animals are "more equal" than others. As the pigs take more control and assume their own liberties, they unilaterally change the commandments to fit their own desires. Consider especially the interactions between Clover, Muriel, and Squealer surrounding the Seven Commandments, determining how easy it is to change the fundamental rules of society on the farm, where most of the animals can do no better than to remember that four legs are good and two legs are bad.

Would Animal Farm be more effective as a nonfiction political treatise about the same subject?

Answer: Given the success of the novel, it is hard to see why Orwell might have chosen a different genre for his message. A nonfiction account would have had to work more accurately with the history, while Orwell's fiction has the benefit of ordering and shaping events in order to make the points as clear as possible from a theoretical and symbolic point of view. A political treatise could be more effective in treating the details and theoretical understandings at greater length and with more nuances, but the readership and audience for such a work would therefore become quite different as well, so the general population would be less likely to hear Orwell's warnings.

Can we perceive much of Orwell himself in the novel?

Answer: Orwell seems to be most like the narrator, who tells the story from the perspective of experience with the events related. We know from Orwell's history that he was a champion of the working class and did not much like the idea of being in a role where he had to exercise power to control people under him. Orwell seems to be a realist about the prospects for the socialist ideals he otherwise would promote.

Compare Animal Farm with Orwell's other famous novel, 1984 .

Answer: Consider the ways in which both novels are allegories with a political message against the evils of state control and totalitarianism. How does totalitarian control affect the illiterate versus those who are educated and wish to exercise their human rights? Compare the political regimes in the two novels. Does the relative anonymity of the leaders affect the reactions of the people?

Pick a classic fairy tale or fable and examine it in comparison with Animal Farm .

Answer: A good way to answer such a question is to consider the function of animals as characters. For instance, each of the Three Little Pigs expresses a different approach to planning for the future and managing risk, which can lead to an analysis of how each character represents a moral or physical quality. In terms of narration, note the degree to which the narrator lets the characters speak in their own voices and lets the plot play out without editorializing. In terms of structure, consider how critical events shatter the calm (such as getting lost in the woods or encountering an enemy) and lead to a moral once some kind of order (for better or for worse) is restored.

Animal Farm Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for Animal Farm is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

The skin I’m in

Maleeka is teased because her skin is too dark. Miss Saunder's gets made fun of because she has a rare skin disease. Maleeka is ashamed of her skin, and Miss Saunders is proud of her own.

Animal Farm contains mainly extremely effective scenes. Some are humorous or witty, others bitterly ironic or pessimistic . Which scene did you find most effective and memorable? why?

A seen that sticks with me is a terrifying one: I suppose that is why it has stayed with me for so long. The scene is when Boxer the horse. One afternoon, a van comes to take Boxer away. It has “lettering on its side and a sly-looking man in...

What is the relationship between Snowball and Napoleon?

Both Snowball and Napoleon are leaders. They see leadership in each other. Napoleon sees Snowball's loyalty to the animals as a threat to his dictatorship. While Snowball works for the good of the farm, Napoleon works only for his own interests.

Study Guide for Animal Farm

Animal Farm study guide contains a biography of George Orwell, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About Animal Farm
• Animal Farm Summary
• Animal Farm Video
• Character List

Essays for Animal Farm

Animal Farm essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of Animal Farm by George Orwell.

• Bit and Spur Shall Rust Forever: Hollow Symbols in George Orwell's Animal Farm
• Consent to Destruction: the Phases of Fraternity and Separation in Animal Farm
• Character Textual Response - Benjamin
• Non vi, sed verbo (Not by force, but by the word)
• Comparison of Values: Animal Farm and V for Vendetta

Lesson Plan for Animal Farm

• About the Author
• Study Objectives
• Common Core Standards
• Introduction to Animal Farm
• Relationship to Other Books
• Bringing in Technology
• Notes to the Teacher
• Related Links
• Animal Farm Bibliography

Wikipedia Entries for Animal Farm

• Introduction

Animal Farm by George Orwell: Literary Analysis Essay

The significance of the novel’s title, the major themes emerging from the novel, important passages and their significance, the setting of the novel and its effects on the plot, the main characters and their motivations, important relationships among characters in the novel, the narrator of the story and impact of his perspective on the narration, the ending of the novel, recommendation of the novel, works cited.

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is often discussed as an allegorical story having the features of the fable and satire. The significance of the novella’s title is in its satirical nature. An animal farm is traditionally discussed as a place where animals are bred by humans. The farms are usually named after the owner. However, Animal Farm is rather different. It is a place where animals are owners of the properties (Orwell 6). While referring to the meaning and significance of the phrase which is used for the title of the novella, it is important to emphasize the opposition between animals and humans as well as their differences.

The name “Animal Farm” is chosen by the characters in order to accentuate the meaning of this specific place where animals can rule instead of humans and without being exploited by them. However, the ownership of the farm by animals is a rather provocative idea. While focusing on the fact that the purpose of the novella is to present the political regime in the Soviet Union before World War II, it is possible to state that the title is significant because it stresses on the inhuman nature of Joseph Stalin’s regime.

Providing the title for the work, Orwell seems to ask the questions about the differences in the regime of the Soviet Union and irrational rule of animals at the farm. The satirical title is significant because the reader also starts asking questions about the political and social meaning of the work’s message and ideas. Using the metaphor in the title, Orwell draws the readers’ attention to the Animal Revolution as his allegory to demonstrate the results of the Russian Revolution of 1917. That is why, the title is significant to represent the double meaning of the story and stimulate the readers’ interpretation of the literal and allegorical aspects of the title’s meaning.

The major themes represented in the novella are the leadership and power in the Soviet Union, corruption, inequality, the role of an individual in the society, exploitation, and control. In his novella, Orwell discusses the power in the Soviet Union as unlimited and focused in the hands of the elite, as it is typical for the totalitarian governments. These leaders are allegorically described in the characters of pigs which are powerful, but selfish, brutal, and vicious.

The theme of corruption is discussed with the help of stating that the absolute power makes people corrupted or depraved because of receiving the unlimited resources. Thus, those pigs which were the leaders of the Animal Revolution betrayed their ideals and principles and chose to live in Manor’s house because of the convenience and extreme desire to satisfy their needs while ignoring the needs of the other working animals.

These animals chose to follow the principle “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” (Orwell 112). Thus, Orwell also discusses the themes of inequality and the role of an individual in the society. In spite of the fact that the Animal Revolution was declared to be organized for the welfare of all animals, only the leaders received the real benefits. The same situation was observed in the Soviet Union. The social stratification and the division into rich and poor were not overcome, but these problems were hidden now.

The other significant themes discussed in the fable are exploitation and control supported by the leaders of the revolution. The pigs were satisfied with the work of hard-working animals, but any differences in the views could result in violent punishment. This allegory represents how Stalin chose to resolve the problems with dissenters. Thus, the institution of control in the Soviet Union was People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs, and the guarantee of the pig’s control was dogs which were used to persecute dissenters.

The first passage that attracts the reader’s attention is Major’s speech about the role of a man in the world. Thus, Major states in his speech, “Man is the only creature that consumes without producing…Yet he is lord of all the animals” ( Orwell 6 ). Major notes that a man makes animals work, but he does not care about them and only “prevent them from starving” ( Orwell 6). Major persuades the animals that they are better than men, and they have to rebel while focusing on the threats of exploitation. This statement reflects the Socialists’ arguments declared during the Revolution period. However, the significance of the passage is in the fact that the pigs forget about their statements and ideals while receiving some power, and they begin to exploit the others.

In Chapter 3, the principles of the Socialists’ attitude to work and the belief of the poor men in the better future are reflected. The horse Boxer becomes the inspiration for each animal at the farm because he follows the principle “I will work harder!” (Orwell 25). This principle is actively followed by lower class animals, but it is also used by the pigs to exploit workers. The ideology prevents these animals from seeing the real situation at Animal Farm.

The expulsion of Snowball with the help of dogs can be discussed as the important allegorical description of the struggle between Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky observed in the Soviet Union. Napoleon used any means to realize his goals. Thus, he even used dogs to fear Snowball and other animals, “there was a terrible baying sound outside, and nine enormous dogs wearing brass-studded collars came bounding into the barn. They dashed straight for Snowball, who only sprang from his place just in time to escape their snapping jaws” (Orwell 48). Napoleon could not support his leadership with the other resources, and he used violence to state his high social position. This moment is symbolic to represent the deterioration of any Socialist principles declared at Animal Farm.

The next significant passage is about judging Snowball as a scapegoat. This moment is important to describe the reality of Animal Farm and make the reader think about the Soviet Union. Snowball was accused of any crime at the farm only because he did not support Napoleon. Thus, “If a window was broken or a drain was blocked up, someone was certain to say that Snowball had come in the night and done it” (Orwell 66). This situation is the first step in persecution of ‘suspicious’ animals who were killed because of possible relations with Snowball. Thus, the authorities used all the cruel methods to justify and support their regime while violating the basic principles of their ideologies.

The setting of the novella is imaginary Manor Farm located in England. This place becomes the communal territories owned by the animals after the Animal Revolution. The time period associated with the described events is not stated clearly. Animal Farm becomes the place where animals live according to the principles of Animalism and equality of all the animals. These equal animals have the only enemy in men who previously exploited them (Orwell 4).

Concentrating on the allegorical meaning of the novella, it is possible to note that the setting of the story is the Soviet Union after the period of the Russian Revolution in 1917 and during the rule of Joseph Stalin. The setting can be considered as affecting the plot significantly because all the described events occur at Animal Farm where animals try to develop the communal way of life. This farm becomes the place where the pigs win the people and receive the power.

It is possible to state that the story could be told in a different setting, but the features of the fable can be lost because the main distinctive feature of the novella is its allegorical character. While putting the characters of the novella in the real-life setting, it is possible to discuss the moments from the history of the Soviet Union without using any allegories and metaphors in order to accentuate the dramatic features of the regime. That is why, this story about the corrupted leaders and exploited workers presented in a different setting can be discussed as ineffective to reveal the author’s main idea.

The main characters of the novella are Napoleon, Snowball, Boxer, Squealer, and Old Major. The character of Napoleon is based on the personality of Joseph Stalin. This ambitious pig tries to become a leader at Animal Farm after the death of Old Major. Napoleon uses all the means to achieve the goal, and these means are mostly persuasive speeches and unlimited violence. As a result, Napoleon can be described as a political tyrant.

The character of Snowball is based on the personality of Leon Trotsky, the main rival of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union. Snowball is an idealist, and he also wants to become a leader at Animal Farm, but he fails because of avoiding the use of extremely violent means and because of basing only on clear reasoning. That is why, Napoleon makes Snowball to become a scapegoat in order to receive the opportunity to cope with the smart competitor.

Boxer is a cart-horse who represents the working class at Animal Farm. Boxer works hard in order to contribute to the farm’s intensive development. He is loyal, strong, naïve, and dedicated to the ideals of Animalism. Boxer can be discussed as motivated by the belief in the better future and achievements of the working animals.

Squealer is a pig who develops the active propaganda at Animal Farm in order to support Napoleon’s ideas and personality (Orwell 20). This pig speaks in a language that is understandable for other animals, and he is motivated by possible Napoleon’s appraisal.

Old Major is an old pig whose character is written basing on the personalities of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. Old Major is rather wise, and he is focused on finding better ways for living at farm while avoiding the exploitation of the animals as the lower class (Orwell 3-4).

The character to whom it is possible to relate oneself is Boxer. This cart-horse is the appropriate choice because he discusses the hard work as the only way to build the better future, and he tries to inspire the others to do their best to create something good.

The novella is based on the description of the problematic relationships between Napoleon and Snowball. These pigs are rivals in their fight for leadership at Animal Farm. In spite of the fact that both Napoleon and Snowball orient to receiving the unlimited leadership and influence, the methods which they use to complete the goals are different. That is why, Napoleon who uses violence and fear becomes more powerful than Snowball who uses reasoning. Although Napoleon and Snowball start applying the ideals of Animalism to the regime at Animal Farm as a team, they need more leadership after the death of Old Major. These relations are typical for the ruling class where the fight for power is not only extreme but also prolonged.

The other type of relationships is described with references to workers Boxer and Benjamin. Orwell describes these animals’ relations the following way, “the two of them usually spent their Sundays together in the small paddock beyond the orchard, grazing side by side and never speaking” (Orwell 4). The horse and the donkey represent different visions and attitudes to the world and situation, but they live to support each other. Boxer can be described as more enthusiastic and positive while discussing the ideals of Animalism. Benjamin is more passive in spite of the fact that he understands the real situation at Animal Farm. Benjamin chooses not to do anything to fight cruelty of Napoleon’s regime. Thus, this character represents the visions of the majority in the Soviet Union.

The narrative point used in Animal Farm is third-person, and this point of view can be discussed as impersonal and omniscient because Orwell is not presented as a character in the work. First, it seems that the narrator’s perspective is limited, but then it can be found that readers know more than animals which are discussed in the story. Thus, the anonymous narrator not only retells the actions of the animals, but he also presents the motives and thoughts of such characters as Napoleon, Squealer, Boxer, and Benjamin (Orwell 3-14). As a result, this perspective can affect the way according to which the story is told and understood by the reader. The used approach helps accentuate the differences observed in the pigs’ words and their actions toward horses and other animals who work hard to support the commune.

The narrator can also be described as detached, and there are more opportunities for the author to present and develop the allegorical meaning of the novella while focusing on the real motivation of such characters as Napoleon and Squealer while comparing their words, thoughts, and actions with the activities of the other animals at the farm (Orwell 58-64). This point of view is effective to be used in the allegorical novella because the reader can understand all the hidden meanings of the described activities and words while referring to the narrator’s ironical remarks and hints. That is why, the choice of the perspective is rather appropriate to address the idea or message of this satirical story.

The ending of the novella can be discussed as appropriate to represent the result of corruption of the ideals and principles developed at Animal Farm. Thus, animals betrayed their ideals because of the benefits of working with their human enemies. However, the last scene demonstrates that animals and men have many features in common because of their focus on cheating, exploiting, and expanding only their own properties. The quarrel between animals’ leaders and people observed by the other animals through windows of the house reveals that “the creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which” (Orwell 118). Thus, Orwell effectively stresses on how tyrants can use the ideals against the lower classes and support their power with the methods used by the previous leaders.

Animal Farm should be recommended for reading to others because this allegorical novella is helpful to understand the nature of the totalitarian regimes which can be based on the effective ideals. Furthermore, the novella is interesting to help readers become detached from the historical reality associated with the Russian Revolution and look at the events from the other perspective. The satirical anti-utopian story makes the reader think about the true nature of many things observed in different types of the society. In his work, Orwell effectively discussed the threats of the totalitarian regimes which can be corrupted because of the aspects of the human nature. That is why, the novella can be actively recommended to the readers to look at the political events from the perspective of the satirical fable.

Orwell, George. Animal Farm. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1990. Print.

• Social Conflicts in “Animal Farm” by George Orwell
• "The Remains of the Day" a Novel by Kazuo Ishiguro
• "Some Mother’s Son" and "The Boxer"
• Feed: It Is not the Hypothetical Future, but the Allegorical Reality
• The Animal Farm by George Orwell
• Chapter 21 of "A Clockwork Orange" by A. Burgess
• Orwells' The Road to Wigan Pier: Sentence Analysis
• The Novel "The Remains of the Day" by Kazuo Ishiguro
• "Romeo and Juliet" and "The Winter's Tale" Comparison
• The Poem “Model Village” by Carol Ann Duffy
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, June 19). Animal Farm by George Orwell: Literary Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-farm-by-george-orwell-literary-analysis/

"Animal Farm by George Orwell: Literary Analysis." IvyPanda , 19 June 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/animal-farm-by-george-orwell-literary-analysis/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Animal Farm by George Orwell: Literary Analysis'. 19 June.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Animal Farm by George Orwell: Literary Analysis." June 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-farm-by-george-orwell-literary-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda . "Animal Farm by George Orwell: Literary Analysis." June 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-farm-by-george-orwell-literary-analysis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Animal Farm by George Orwell: Literary Analysis." June 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-farm-by-george-orwell-literary-analysis/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

Animal Farm Essay Structure Strips

Subject: English

Age range: 14-16

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

22 October 2024

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

Animal Farm by George Orwell GCSE structure strip bookmarks to help write out and formulate an English Literature response for the 2022 Snowball as the hero essay.

Structure strips for a detailed essay response FULL WAGOLL response with corresponding strips Key success criteria for each section of the essay.

It is also FULLY EDITABLE.

Visually engaging graphics for display, homework, home learning, tutoring, intervention and more.

FREE Animal Farm resources:

Introduction lesson Moses and Boxer lesson Scheme of Work document

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource: