Talk:Animal Farm

Shoddy Analysis

"Napoleon is Orwell's chief villain in Animal Farm. Napoleon, the pig, is really the central character on the farm. Obviously a metaphor for Stalin, Comrade Napoleon represents the human frailties of any revolution. Orwell believed that although socialism is good as an ideal, it can never be successfully adopted due the to uncontrollable sins of human nature."

Did Orwell believe this, or is this a reader's interpretation of his views? I'm very familiar with George Orwell's essays and novels, and I can't recall him ever saying anything so simplistic as 'socialism is a nice idea that doesn't work in practice.' If no one objects, I'll take this bit out, aside from being of questionable accuracy it is completely superfluous.

Animated Version and the CIA

Professional movie reviewer Roger Ebert wrote:

The animated version of "Animal Farm" (1948) was paid for by a CIA front, and twisted Orwell's fable about totalitarianism both East and West into a simplistic anti-communist cartoon.-Source

I'm not sure about the CIA front claim, and I personally disagree with Ebert's "twisted" evaluation. I always felt that the book, along with 1984, was chiefly if not entirely about Communism's excesses.--Uncle Ed

Interestingly enough, it was the first feature length British animated film.

I really think the note about interpreting "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL… BUT… " should be removed. To use either MORE or LESS when talking about EQUALITY is an absurdity. This has always irked me, and if no one objects, and can argue that it should be retained, I will delete this within the week. Kalki 20:11, 2003 Nov 9 (UTC)

"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" is supposed to be ironic and absurd. The point is most of the animals are so stupid, they don't recognize the saying as being strange.

Well, yeah... I don't doubt it's most possible purpose, and I don't deny George Orwell might've thought of humour in that grim situation of the Animals, but...sometimes...it has other - double, perhaps - meaning's, aswell. To interpret what it would directly mean can be interesting to some, even if makes no apparant sense. Any attempt to make it a useful statement I'm willing to give a shot, but I won't care. It's atleast nothing logical, and still just pointless propaganda (And any philosophing on it being anything but unsincere) in my ears. But...well, if that's what people want to read..give them bread and circus!--OleMurder 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Thinly veiled?

Gotta look it up in a day or so, but Orwell wrote a letter to his publisher when "Animal Farm" was in the last stages of preparation for press, asking him if he could change some detail sentence, about Snowball's precise location in some point in some battle, as "I have found out that Trotsky was probably not in [thus-and-such-place during thus-and-such incident]." I hadn't realized this myself, but obviously Orwell intended it to have a very detailed relationship to history, and only my ignorance of the history of the Soviet Union prevented me from realizing it.

There's also some letter to a publisher in which he says, in reference to Animal Farm, something like "I'm working on something now but it is so not OK politically that Gollancz will never accept it..."

As I say, details when I have time to look them up. They're all in the Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters.--Dpbsmith 16:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Orwell subtitled his novel "A Fairy Story". If he didn't want to veil it he would never have given such a subtitle (Does it read like a fairy story to you?). It is meant to mislead the authorities but not others.

The whole point of a satirical allegory is to represent something in another mode. Why? Think about it. "Thinly veiled" is not wrong. Authentic representation does not mean the book can't have a few red herrings to throw the unsuspected parties offguard.--Mandel

Animal Farm (Fictional government)

This page is a recent creation, but I can't honestly see justification for its inclusion since there is nothing there that couldn't be in here, it's just awfully silly. I just though I'd offer it to you for improvement, but I will VFD it if it is not improved.

If you say so. But I think it could only be a section of this article.--OleMurder 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pincher

I don't know who took out Pincher as the leader of the Animal Guard. I'm not sure if you know, but there was a film adaptation of Animal Farm in 1999, starring Patrick Stewart, Ian Holm, and Kelsey Grammer. In the movie, Napoleon makes Pincher the leader of the Animal Guard. I even put Pincher down in the fictional military people.--B-101 12:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Modern 2002 view removed by User:64.230.96.197

The section was removed by User:64.230.96.197, perhaps by error, when inserting a link. There seems to be no explanation here for the removal, so I am restoring it.--Hu 17:41, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Sure, that's cool...I don't doubt so...if it's really that pointfull to restore it...BUT! Why are you so sure it was in harmless intent, by incident?--OleMurder 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest 9 possible wiki links and 2 possible backlinks for Animal Farm.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Animal_Farm article:

Can link Animalism: ... Animal Farm), the pigs, who have developed the doctrine of Animalism and lead the revolution, gradually take over. The two [[boa]]... (link to section)
Can link history of the Soviet Union: ...ers in Animal Farm are all carefully drawn to represent the history of the Soviet Union and Orwell makes this explicit in the case of Napoleon who... (link to section)
Can link real world: ... letters. The other characters have their analogies in the real world but care should be taken with these comparisons as they do ... (link to section)
Can link a new song: ...nd]]'', but later, Napoleon and the other pigs ordered that a new song be sung in it's place. This is a reference to the replacemen... (link to section)
Can link state socialism: ...[[Soviet Union]], probably for the purpose of distancing Soviet state socialism with Trotsky's revolutionary socialism. ... (link to section)
Can link live action: ...successfully revolt against the pigs. There was also a 1999 live action film directed by John Stephenson. In addition, radical soc... (link to section)
Can link John Stephenson: ...the pigs. There was also a 1999 live action film directed by John Stephenson. In addition, radical socialist rappers [[Dead Prez]] released... (link to section)
Can link John Reed: ...===now of the book's premise=== In [[2002]], the American author John Reed published ''Snowball's Chance''. This book adopts Orwell's... (link to section)
Can link western countries: ...on had suffered less from the [[Great Depression]] than most western countries, and because Stalin had led the Soviet Union in the success... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

In Recurring South Park characters, can backlink animal farm: ...=== Big Gay Al is a [[stereotype]]d [[gay]] man. He runs an animal farm for gay animals who have been rejected by [[homophobia|homo]]...
In Windmill Farm Railway, can backlink Animal Farm: The '''Windmill Farm Railway''' is located at the Windmill Animal Farm, Burscough, near [[Ormskirk]], Lancashire.The railway opera...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.

Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Differences between the book and the 1998 movie

There's a whole section like this that reads like it was written by a high schooler, including the line "Mr. and Mrs. Jones went home and got it on."

While I've not seen the movie and have no reason to doubt that this happened, that doesn't seem to be very "encyclopedic".

Also it's written in a first person point of view, with a lot of "I" statements, as in, "I didn't include them all, so if you know of any others, go ahead and add them."

I personally see little to no redeeming value in this section whatsoever and, at the very least, should be rewritten to something appropriating more professional language.--159.121.130.84 12:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, this sounds like a school report, not a serious encyclopaedic entry Twrist 21:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to lend my support to the removal of this section, or at least to its replacement with a brief sentence referencing the movie. In its current form it serves only to trivialize the book (not to mention this article). --Koyna 11:02, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

It goes on and on and on and doesn't get anywhere. If the differences between the novel and the movie are that important, perhaps we could make a new novel, and get it rewritten by someone else? But I'd support removing that section completely.

Well? First of all, let's not take any extreme choichepoints here. (Heh! New word invented.) Section-removal, yaddah, yaddah. Hey! What's so wrong 'bout school report's anyways? It depends on how you read between the lines. Although I know the sex-lingo "Get it on"....Be prepared that it might've been literally. To get something on. And if you think that's dirty-meanin'..well, it depends...it doesn't necessarily mean the author thought so, but the reader. Stop thinkin' "briefcase". Pretend that it's not. And if they did ('Get it on'), it's a fact, who cares about the phrasing? Oh yeah, go ahead, write "sexual intercourse". I'll laugh my arse off over this academic quabbling. To the people who search care? I know I don't except for helping to resolve conflicts, like this.--OleMurder 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is the similarity in meter between "Beasts of England" and the German National Anthem a coincidence?

Since I first read Animal Farm in High School, I've always wondered whether there was some hidden significance to the similarity in the meter of the Animals Anthem Beasts of England and the German National Anthem (Once known as Deutschland Über Alles).

Without too much strain, the meters do match. You do have to spread some of the syllables (Such as the 'aw' sound in trod and the 'ah' in alone) out over several notes, but that is not uncommon in music.

Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland, 
Beasts of every land and clime, 
Hearken to my joyful tidings 
Of the golden future time. 

Soon or late the day is coming, 
Tyrant Man shall be o'erthrown, 
And the fruitful fields of England 
Shall be trod by beasts alone.

When I first read Animal Farm, for some reason I realised the meter fits very nicely (In fact, perfectly ... no straining needed) to 'La Cucaracha'. Still does ... try it! Proto 11:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or 'My darling Clementine', come to think of it.--Proto 09:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had always assumed that "Beasts of England" essentially equalled Internationale. The original Soviet Union anthem, and later gotten rid of by Stalin. Infact, these lyrics fit the tune of Internationale!--Oldak Quill 4 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)

Identical Article

I found this when I was looking up other Animal Farm information. The meta date expiration tag for their site showed a date in 2003. Which do you think ripped the other?--^demon - 6/08/05, 02:08 UTC.

From the page you linked to:This article was derived fully or in part from the article Animal Farm on Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. --Canderson7 01:11, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

What is Animal Farm about?

I did Animal Farm as a set book about 1962 - it was presented to us then as a very close allegory of the events in Soviet Russia (E.g. the Socialism in One Country vs World Revolution debate). And contrary to the intro to the present article Orwell was not a CP-Sympathiser for most of his life . He witnessed aspects of the CP-Behaviour in the Spanish Civil War which made him suspicious of the Moscow-directed CP. He was a good old fashioned thinking British leftie :-) Suggest we amend the silly last sentence in the intro.--Linuxlad

I think the book's was a merely a distrust of some Communist's genuine-ness in helpin' people, not the ideology of Communism itself. Of course, Capitalists like to twist this book, well around their finger's, and use it against Leftist's. The book was more about a farm led by a man called Jones Manor, that was overthrown by the Animal's, obviously enough, and they suceed, as was foretold by an ol' pig called fer "Old Mayor". The leaders of the revolution were "Napoleon" and "Snowball". Not givin' away too much here, but some of them suceed's more than the other in the long-run, an'trough keen propaganda and cunningness, one of the other has to go. Read it.--OleMurder 21:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Er, thanks...) The identification of the characters presently quoted in the text is pretty standard, (and more or less as I remember it from a 1960s 'gloss') but not totally above contention - have we got a _reference_ for the version in the WP article?? (Especially the slightly POV statements on how much Mr. Blair really loved Mr. Marx greatly - which may well be true for all I know...)--Linuxlad

"Modern revisionist view"

However, Reed's critique, a concentration on the contrasts of capitalism and socialism, fails to recognize the book's message of the corruption of the ideals of the Russian Revolution and the progressive subversion of the ideals of Lenin (Old Major) and Trotsky (Snowball) by Stalin (Napoleon). The humans (capitalists, fascists, and the tsar) are in no way portrayed sympathetically. Nevertheless, the book was released at a time when Stalin was widely admired by portions of the Western Intelligentsia, partly because the Soviet Union had suffered less from the Great Depression than most western countries, and because Stalin had led the Soviet Union in the successful and dearly-won victory over Nazi Germany. The Destalinization of Russia under Nikita Khrushchev was still more than a decade in the future.

This is a critique of Reed's critique and needs to be de-POV'd before it gets back in the article. No editorials. It was the second paragraph of the "modern revisionist" section. --Mr. Billion 00:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plot (long) (short)

Two seperate sections for plot is really silly. They might as well be titled Plot for those who have homework due in a week and Plot for those who have let it slide and have to hand in tomorrow. These should be deleted/merged unless someone can justify it.--MeltBanana 14:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, I've not seen it in any other book pages. Do people think one should go or should it stay how it is?--SamTrev 22:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently somebody already merged the two plots.--AndyZ 22:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the HELL is that supposed to mean? Because you see a general use for it, as in cheating at school, you decide, that a long and short plot probably is totally meant entirely for so? Talk about reading inbetween the lines way too much. Black and White. Guess WHAT!? They could've just copied the whole article, perhaps entire wikipedia is meant to help students cheat, so we should delete it! HOORAY FOR INSANITY. It doesn't need justification. People sometimes want to read the long or short plot, based on their time available on a PC. And if a student may 'cheat' because of getting a good summarization...well, there's risks to being a good enclycopedia, so if we're 'sposed to be afraid of that and take the blame for such a silly thing I'd "approve" of anyways (Who cares? It doesn't give them better succsess in life to summarize a fiction book) - then perhaps even running a site based on free information wasn't a good idea because of that possibility...it's not Wikipedia's fault if someone does, and it's not in the rules.--OleMurder 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's this?

"When Boxer was injured, The pigs gave him a pink medicine, or Pepto Bismol, which would not help his leg. This demonstrates the communists' inability to give products that the people wanted to the people."

The communist's inability to give products that the people wanted to the people? I want to correct it but i have no idea what it's trying to say. Someone? Anon 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should probably be deleted. For one thing my edition does not name the medicine and it probably has much more to do with Orwell's own dislike of miraculous medicines, obesity cures and advertising, rather then a direct criticism of communism. MeltBanana 19:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Cold War Part

"Thanks for your contributions to Animal Farm! However, please don't delete parts of articles without stating why. Tense relationships between US and Soviet Union immediately developed with the end of World War II, and both superpowers were involved in a power struggle for dominance. Since the animals of Animal Farm were representing satirically the Soviet Union and Mr. Pilkington represented the Allied powers, it follows that the ending struggle was probably a representation of the Cold War. AndyZ 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)"

Retract the part in my statement about "stating why".AndyZ 23:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this: "Animal Farm was written before the Cold War. (deleted bit about how the quarell between Frederick and Napoleon represented the cold war"

Although Animal Farm was published around the end of WW2, it was written during WW2.

My error... I'm so sorry, I was rushing my homework and reverted your edits while looking at the part in the parenthesis only. I kind of retract what I said before (not fully though), I do think rising tensions between the Soviet Union and Allies powers did prompt the Cold War and hence I restored it. It has now been changed to a more passive view, where it is now like "might have" and stuff like that. I realize that the book was written before the end of WW2, and therefore the action was not exactly the Cold War. Still, I think the two have some sort of a relationship, though it is possible that Orwell just placed it in there to further the satirical part of the book. AndyZ 23:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Anyway, I see your point and agree with you. f00b13 December 2005 (UTC)