Napoleon persuades the other animals to obey him by changing the rules for them, and then to suit him-self. He gave them extra food and tells them he would be a better leader. He then gets them on his side.
Napoleon starts to brainwash the animals and uses guard dogs to protect him. He tells them that if they did not do what he said things would go back the way they were when Farmer Jones was in charge of them.
At the start there were seven commandments. Napoleon decided to change the commandments to suit him-self. Like he changed the commandment “No animal shall sleep in a bed” to “No animal shall sleep in a bed with bed sheets”.
Napoleon is starting to threaten the animals that if they don’t obey him he would get them slaughteded. He scares the animals and when he slaughters one animal they all start to listen to him more and finally takes it in that he is the leader.
Napoleon then starts to think he is “God”. Napoleon has so much power it is got to his head and that is why he thinks he is God.
As Napoleon thinks he is God he starts wearing, clothes and walking on two legs like man.
The history of Animal Farm
George Orwell based animal farm on events, which followed the Russian Revolution in 1917. That revolution turned Russia, ruled by an emperor, into a communist state. Communism was founded on the ideas of Karl Marx and promoted class war and public ownership of property.
Lenin led the revolution and, after his death, there was a struggle for power between Stalin and Trotsky. Stalin and Trotsky had to escape from Russia in disgrace. Stalin took over total power; setting up his own secret police and killing or imprisoning those who criticised him or who stood in his way.
Napoleon started of as a powerless pig and worked his way into power and got to control the farm. He done this by blackmailing the animals, saying he was going to kill them and by telling them things would go back to the way it was before if they did not listen to him. That is my essay on animal farm, which was written by George Orwell.
Here's what a star student thought of this essay
Quality of writing
The Quality of Written Communication is good, however there is no sufficient evidence that the candidate can form an effective, coherent essay with integrated analysis and knowledge. Elsewhere, the grammar, spelling and punctuation are not too much of an issue, with no large errors that compromise the clarity of the essay present.
Level of analysis
The Level of Analysis is good in some parts, but not so good in others. Where the candidate is good, they make a fair reference to parts of the text when considering how napoleons reaches power but even then, the segregated structure and the lack of quote/reference to a specific scene leave the analysis open-ended. For instance, at one point in this essay, the candidate correctly identifies Napoleon' use of his vicious dogs as his henchmen, but fails to link this to how he instills fear into the other animals in order to gain control. All analysis is rendered weaker than it's full potential if it is not linked back to the question.
Response to question
This is a peculiar response, as few essays are ever required to use sub-headings and two/three-line to segregate the structure and analysis, so naturally, the candidate loses many marks of the "evidence of a natural ability to construct a cohesive essay" part of the mark scheme, but the content of their essay is at least marginally better. There is a good understanding of the question shown in the introduction, but the analysis does not focus explicitly enough on the methods by which Napoleon gains power (control over language; fear arousal in the other animals; Squealer being an excellent public speaker) and instead partially resorts to simply re-telling the events of the novel. Candidates must not re-tell parts fo the novel - the examiners know the novel off by heart and are looking for interesting and illuminating analysis pertaining to the question. No marks are given for pointing out what happens.