Orwell's classic is about a farm overtaken by its thinking,
The book is well-known for its cutting insight into the state of world affairs in 1945 (the year of its publication). I imagine Orwell was very frustrated with politicians gaining power by using distracting or distorting language to deceive people. In Animal Farm, he delightfully describes the consequences of such political tactics in a way readers will continue relating to for a long time.
One up: I thought the library's decision to include it as a 'young adult' title appropriately reflected the challenge of comprehending the message. The book's basic point was fairly transparent throughout.
One lesson I needed to read into a little bit was the author's viewpoint on what exactly causes high-minded socialist systems to descend into totalitarianism. From reading Animal Farm, I suggest a primary cause is the failure to adequately divide food and clothing among people of varying talents within the society.
There are many ways to approach this problem. The key insight of this book is the inability to resolve the argument about who deserves what in any meaningful or lasting way. As the leaders in the book put it, do the working animals wish to risk the return of the overthrown humans by depriving the thought-leader animals of enough food to think clearly? And on it goes from there.
One down: The 100 meter sprint winner at the 1948 Olympics won the gold medal in 10.3 seconds; the same race in 2016 required a sprinter record at least one race at 10.16 seconds or faster just to qualify. It is the nature of such things, I suppose, for the standards to adjust over time.
In the case of athletics, the performance standards rise as the athletes take advantage of better training, increased nutrition, and improved healthcare. With literature, I'm not as sure what the changes have been. But I could not help but think as I read Animal Farm that the standards are different today and a writer simply mimicking Orwell's feat would fail to meet even the minimum standard for effective satire.
I mean, did the evil pig really need to be named 'Napoleon'? Perhaps he did in 1945. But a similar type of book coming out today with a lead character named 'Hitler' would elicit only eye-rolling, I'm sure.
Just saying: As I've referenced on TOA in the past, if there is a direct way to state a truth, say it. So, here goes: was this book the best way for Orwell to protest against the political landscape of his time?
Perhaps in 1945, it was. Times were different and I would understand if a direct comment would endanger him or his family (1). But do the farm animals referring to each other as 'comrade' sound like the subtle dialogue an author seeking to obscure the message would employ?
I worry I'm becoming needlessly cynical about satire. It's nice to have a laugh about the absurd or ridiculous and maybe I should just put my pen down and enjoy myself instead. But if the result prevents people from exercising their power to change a situation, the satire is clearly doing little to help. If the result leads people to react violently against the very subjects being parodied, the satire is making the situation worse. Reading this book reminded me once more to consider how much responsibility an artist should feel when well-intended work leads others to form the radical or reactionary viewpoints required as a basis for bringing harm or distress to others.
Footnotes / imagined complaints
1. Eric Arthur Blair, in case you were curious...
Until I researched this post, I did not realize George Orwell was a pen name, though I'm sure the decision was not made solely with personal safety in mind
