Although the animals generally do not realise it, the pigs are exploiting the animals into living a life worse than how it was before the pigs took over. Another example of Orwell’s satire is when the most powerful and perhaps gullible animal, Boxer, falls after the strains of building the windmill, and is taken away in a cart, much to the animals despair. Squealer then goes on to tell them that the cart was for a hospital and once again the animals are tricked. The ironic fact is revealed when a crate of whisky arrives for the pigs and the reader realises what they have done.
After the removal of Snowball by Napoleon at the beginning, Napoleon has acquired himself a scapegoat for all the bad things that happen on the farm by blaming them on Snowball. For example, Napoleon explains to the animals that the food shortages are because of Snowball sneaking in at night. At a gathering in the barn, many animals come forward to explain that Snowball has been telling them to cause trouble amongst the farm and Napoleon’s dogs kill them in front of the other animals. This is a most likely to be a tactic of Napoleon to get the animals to say that, to reinforce Snowball’s existence and act as a deadly warning of Napoleon’s power and authority.
Like Swift, Orwell uses humour as a part of satire in certain places to make a point. Orwell’s humour is very subtle, he shows the pigs difficulty in getting to grips with human tools in a comical way “it is not easy for a pig to balance on a ladder”, whereas some of Swift’s humour is scatological, this causes much offence to certain people. Orwell’s writing style is similar to Swift’s in that it is clear, strong and precise. These qualities are vital for a book where it is important for the reader to understand the message they are trying to convey. It also increases the impact and can be very influential. The idea of including humour teaches the reader to study other ideas, specifically the satirical aspect.
The main point that both these novels compare on is the great irony in the general outline of each story. ‘Gulliver’s Travels’ tell us of the supposedly successful, civilised people of Lilliput. Gulliver exposed them as corrupt, disloyal and animal-likes individuals. Animal Farm however, tells us of these apparent, well-meaning and thoughtful animals that are exposed as having careless, slovenly and corrupt human characteristics.
Despite several hundred years separating the two authors, there are many similarities and contrasts between ‘Gulliver’s Travels’ and Animal Farm’. The books were both very successful and were appreciated by a wide audience.
The most noticeable thing the books have in common is the way they use fantasy characters to represent the situation in Russia and in England. Swift writes Gulliver’s Travels in the form of a log whereas Orwell goes so far as to call Animal Farm a fairy tale. These two different forms of recording events suit the authors' purposes perfectly. Orwell sticks to the chronological history of Russia and dramatises it. Animal Farm has a definite plot and so can be called a satirical novel. Swift however, has multiple objectives. The mockery seems far less subtle than in Animal Farm and this is partly because Swift has no chronology to follow. There had been no revolutions in England at the time and no world wars that he could use to add excitement. He therefore has to keep referring back to English customs by sarcastically (and in my opinion rather blatantly) insisting that they are very different from those back home:
"There are some laws and customs in this Empire very peculiar, and if they were not so directly contrary to those of my own dear country, I should be tempted to say a little in their justification.
The travel book gives Swift an excuse to use his obvious sarcasm. It was also very popular during the period. If Gulliver had existed, he would have certainly mentioned Europe in his account. Indeed, Swift goes to great lengths to make Gulliver's Travels as believable as possible without losing its purpose. He describes everything in minute detail which in turn is accounted for by Gulliver's character. He is a doctor and a linguist which instantly explains away the language barrier and his unnatural attention to detail. This in itself mocks travel books at the time which were very similar to each other in going into boring detail. The detail Gulliver includes in his account however, is often there to serve a satirical purpose. For example, Swift seems to have an unhealthy obsession with bodily function. He describes Gulliver's movements far more than any other author would have dared at the time. It is Gulliver's reaction to having to undertake these rituals that provides the satire here. In some ways he is ridiculously proud of himself, his torrent of urine compared to the Lilliputians' and the size of his genitals; in others he is embarrassed to the point where he seriously inconveniences himself, when he relieves himself in his own sleeping space to avoid the embarrassment of doing it in public, for example. This not only provides more realism to the voyage, but also mocks humanity. Humans have physical needs just like animals, yet they don't take them for granted like other creatures. They are proud or ashamed of their bodies. In this case, Gulliver is not portrayed as morally inferior/superior to the Lilliputians
When comparing the satire of Animal Farm and Gulliver's Travels, it seems that Orwell uses far less subtle techniques and the result appears more sophisticated. He includes strong personal opinions just like Swift as he had Trotskyite sympathies. Animal Farm forces us to empathise with the revolutionaries and so side with true Socialism. This is how Orwell tells us his views. He doesn't state them, but presents his argument in such a persuasive way that the conclusions we draw are the same as his. In contrast, Swift's satire covers a much broader spectrum, ranging from religion and human pride, to contemporary affairs and scientists. In this way, Gulliver's travels is a more challenging book to read if you are trying to search for satire as the theme keeps swapping: sometimes he is criticising Gulliver and sometimes the Lilliputians. It also makes it harder to read as he completely fills his books with satire, taking every opportunity to include another personal "stab" at those he resented. In the case of Swift's irritation over those in power who weren't born into it, he resorts to a pun to get his message across that politicians are mere acrobats, performing for the Prime-Minister. He crams in so many of his personal opinions that I feel the important points are lost in a sea of criticism and one can no longer take them seriously. Orwell on the other hand, delivers his views in a far more presentable fashion. His fairy tale may not be as intellectually stimulating as Swift's novel, but its simplicity means his argument is far more likely to have an effect on the reader. He carefully structures his debate and leaves us with a resounding sound-bite: In a final ironical twist, Orwell composes the ultimate Animalist/Communist law: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".
