How has George Orwell used Animal Farm to criticise the Russian Revolution
Animal Farm Essay, page 1 Animal Farm is an allegory and a warning, written by George Orwell. Orwell wrote books about societies and was interested in how people worked in a group. Animal Farm is a story about animals, based on events that happened in the Russian Revolution. Orwell wrote it to criticize the Russian Revolution and show how the people of Russian ended up worse off. In Animal Farm, farmer Jones represents Tsar Nicholas II, who was the leader of Russia before the revolution. He believed in his divine right to rule, as humans believe in their right to rule over animals. The Communists seized power and drove Tsar and his family out, as the animals chased the Joneses out. Napoleon represents Stalin, and Snowball represents Trotsky. They were Russian leaders. Stalin took control of the secret police, just like Napoleon took control of the puppies. Stalin became a dictator. A propaganda about external enemies helped him keep control of Russia, after he drove Trotsky out. There was famine. Stalin became distant, just like Napoleon was seen less and less. Stalin encouraged his followers to worship him. The idea of hard work was proved wrong, and Stalin had absolute power. Boxer is a strong, hard-working horse. He believes that the solution to any problem is to work harder. I know this because Orwell writes "His answer to every problem, every setback, was 'I will work
Overview of Animal Farm
Overview of Animal Farm George Orwell (who's real name is Eric Blair) wrote animal farm in 1943 to describe how he felt about dictators and leaders during revolutions. A good example of this is Russian revolution (the events of which are paralleled in Animal Farm), Orwell believe that once leaders had achieved their goal, they should resign and let the community take over and a committee should make the decisions. However in the Russian revolution Josef Stalin (the leader in this case) did not resign and (in my words) became corrupt, as he thought that Capitalism no longer communism was the best way to go, the idea that the original plan that even was equal got thrown out the window after the revolution. People greed and hunger for power is overwhelming and each time someone has obtained this power it has been met with by conflict. The only way the human race has progressed (shall we say) is by the slaughter of one another. Most wars are a good example of this. However when someone does come to total power (totalitarianism) the community don't realize what power they have in these situations. If one worker refuses to do his duty then he is met with conflict and is set t death or another form of punishment, but if the mass of them form together and protest then there is little that the person with total dominance can do, he has to met the problem with another solution than
What linguistic devices does Orwell use to communicate rising tension and a sense of horror in this passage?
What linguistic devices does Orwell use to communicate rising tension and a sense of horror in this passage? In this passage Orwell uses emotive language, specific punctuation as well as other themes found previously in the book to create a rising tension and a sense of horror in this passage. Also, given this passage is set in a place where Julia and Winston thought they would be safe, it is ironic that they are captured in it. Therefore, the surprise of the attack adds to the horror of the passage. Orwell also uses emotive words, which add to the increasing tension and horror of the invasion. For example, in this passage there are a lot of references to loud, sudden noises, such as, 'snap', 'crash' or 'clang'. This adds to the tension because these words are almost onomatopoeic, causing the reader to become as startled as Winston when the words are read. Orwell also uses the word 'stampede', which suggests a loud, onrushing noise and panic. This leads the reader to panic too because of the uncertainty of what is to come. Towards the end of the passage Orwell uses the word 'meditatively' to describe one of the thought police. This suggests that he is thinking which seems uncharacteristic given the robotic way Orwell describes them. Orwell also uses a lot of short sentences followed by long sentences in this passage. For example, in the last paragraph, Orwell writes, 'The
How does Orwell (1984) create a believable setting?
How does Orwell create a believable setting? Written in 1948, George Orwell created an anti-Utopia novel and foresaw that the world will be divided into three great powers; Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia. The book is set in 1984 and Winston Smith, who is the main character, plans to overthrow "Big Brother" with his two members of the Brotherhood, Julia and O'Brien. Orwell created a setting that has many similarities with our world, whilst giving warnings to the reader of what may happen if no precautions are made beforehand. One of the main similarities is the details of the landmarks, the way the characters live and the technology mentioned. In the book, Winston decided to meet Julia, for the first time in "Victory Square, near the monument". However, Julia later said that there are many telescreens there. In other words, that place is very important and therefore requires a lot of security. In our world, Victory Square is actually Trafalgar Square and that the statue of Nelson there is replaced by a statue of Big Brother. Also, the place where Winston worked, the Ministry of Truth was described as "an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete". This could possibly be the University of London Senate House. For the way of living, we can see that Winston life is controlled by Big Brother in many ways. For example, Winston was not even allowed to
How does Orwell use the language of hate effectively in the "Two Minutes hate" scene in part I chapter I of 1984
How does Orwell use the language of hate effectively in the "Two Minutes hate" scene in part I chapter I of 1984? This scene begins in quite a calm descriptive way in which it features just descriptions of people entering the room. Orwell does this to set the scene for the 2 Minutes hate also it is calmly described lulling the audience. This gives the point where the language more tenacity to the reader as they are relaxed. Then suddenly everything gets very dramatic. Firstly it says "Uncontrollable exclamations of rage" showing that things are getting very dramatic in this room illustrating the hate. The uncontrolled nature of the rage of the people gives the scene more drama as it shows the hatred of Goldstein as very strong. This effectively shows the reader how much the people of this world are indoctrinated through the language of hate. Orwell then goes on to describe Goldstein as "an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia". This shows that in Oceania Goldstein is a great figure of hate even stronger than their enemies in war. This statement gives the 2 minutes hate more affect because the reader is wondering why so many people can carry such hatred for one man. At this point the scene is very dramatic with hatred building up through the language of hate. Interestingly Orwell takes this scene in a different direction bringing in irony. Saying
Conception of the Future in 1984
Conception of the Future in 1984 "I do not believe that kind of society I describe (in 1984) necessarily will arrive, but I believe... that something resembling it could arrive. I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere". George Orwell,1949 The conception of the future portrayed by Orwell in 1984 is one of grim cautionary warning. The world of 1984 is vague enough to, still today, cause a feeling of dread at what might be. The future of 1984 is one vastly different from many previous attempts to predict the future for it does not give the future the present's prejudice about many things such as expected technologies or events. The world is recognizable using no outlandish inventions to give across the idea of a future; instead the future is represented by society and the individual. Orwell knowingly writes a future that could not be, that he knew would not come to pass as he had written it for the purpose of making it all the more enduring and the message all the more chilling. I believe he exaggerates aspects of the post-WW2 world, trends he notices and makes a general outline of where the world was, or mayhap still is, possibly headed. The oppressive nature of communism and the totalitarian regimes which had caused WW2 are oft said to be the sole or primary basis for Oceania. While this idea holds merit, I believe
Animal Farm - explain how Napoleon gained power over the farm and what the book is about.
Animal Farm Essay Introduction: In this essay I am going to explain how Napoleon gained power over the farm and what the book is about the name of the book is "Animal Farm" and the author is called "George Orwell". At the start of the story Farmer Jones was in charge of the animals. Farmer Jones was always drunk and he overworked the animals and he didn't feed them enough. Old major decided to start a rebellion against Farmer Jones and he got all the other animals involved Main Paragraphs: So the animals all decided to run Farmer Jones out of the farm. They named the battle "The Battle of the Cow-shed" and they then had control of the animals and were organising the working farm and the food. Napoleon keeps interfering with Old Major's control of the farm and he was pushy, ambitious and he wanted to be a leader. He also was giving them food and trying to get them on his side. 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
Animal Farm.
Animal Farm Orwell's use of simple characters to express the effect of power and revolutions on normal people can be interpreted in two ways. For some readers, Animal Farm could be seen as an innocent fable or fairy story. However it hides a much more complex story a much more complex story. Its deeper meaning is that of revolutions, dictatorships and also a warning of what can happen under a totalitarian state. Orwell uses the fable as a way of putting the story across in a simple, understandable fashion. The fable style makes the story more accessible to a large audience. Animal Farm was written by Orwell to put his vies of revolution across. He questions if there is any positive outcome from rebellion or revolution and if it does actually make everyone have equal benefits from the poor to the rich and leaders. Orwell's representation of historical figures is accurate. Each character is a portrait of a person involved in the Russian Revolution and its progression to dictator-led communism. The book is written in a way so we almost instantly loathe the pigs as characters and also for what they represent. They never worked in the fields but told the other animals what to do. Napoleon is the clear leader almost from the beginning of the story. Napoleon is described by Orwell as: "not much of a talker, but with a reputation for getting his own way." Snowball seems a more
Animal Farm: About the Author; Overview; Setting; Themes and Characters; Literary Technique; Historical and Social Context; Topics for Discussion; Questions; Related Titles and Adaptations
Animal Farm Published 1945 Outline About the Author; Overview; Setting; Themes and Characters; Literary Technique; Historical and Social Context; Topics for Discussion; Questions; Related Titles and Adaptations I ABOUT THE AUTHOR Born Eric Arthur Blair in Motihari, Bengal, India, on June 25, 1903, George Orwell was the son of a British civil servant and belonged to what he considered "the lower-upper-middle class". He returned to England with his mother in 1905 and attended preparatory school before winning a scholarship to Eton College, where he first demonstrated an apparent animosity towards convention and authority. Orwell decided against continuing his studies at either Oxford or Cambridge and instead enlisted with the Indian Imperial Police in Burma, a decision that would permanently affect his philosophical perspective, political consciousness, and creative legacy. Orwell returned to Britain in 1927, ostensibly on leave after serving overseas for five years. Within a month of his arrival he had resigned from his post, announcing to his parents his intention of becoming a writer. Attracted to a bohemian, artistic lifestyle, he travelled to Paris in 1928, where he lived for 18 months. He started a career in journalism in Paris, but did not fully realize his literary potential until after his return to Britain. His work began to appear in the journal Adelphi, most
Analysis of the Christian (or another religion) teachings to the ethical debate about animal rights
Analysis of the Christian (or another religion) teachings to the ethical debate about animal rights "Animals are God's creatures, not human property, nor utilities, nor resources, nor commodities, but precious beings in God's sight. ... Christians whose eyes are fixed on the awfulness of crucifixion are in a special position to understand the awfulness of innocent suffering. The Cross of Christ is God's absolute identification with the weak, the powerless, and the vulnerable, but most of all with unprotected, undefended, innocent suffering." --Rev. Andrew Linzey1 The main purpose of this essay is to identify those religious points which could support arguments for animal rights in general, and vegetarianism in particular. I will point out a variety of areas within each faith that activists will find most useful in making a case for vegetarianism (and by extension, other animal rights issues). The traditions of each religion will find some arguments more compelling than others. Identifying the points which each particular faith will or will not be likely to support will prevent activists from wasting time on some approaches and allow them to focus on those with the most promise. Once these areas are identified, the possibility arises of establishing an ecumenical front of religious protest and boycott. While the support of one group or denomination would be a boost to
