How has George Orwell used Animal Farm to criticise the Russian Revolution

Authors Avatar

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.

Join now!

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 harder’” This shows that he sees work as the answer to everything. Boxer represents the workers of Russia, and the other animals admire him. I know this because Orwell writes “Boxer was the admiration of everybody.” As he gets older, he can’t work. Napoleon has no use for him, so Boxer is sent to the knackers. Boxer is betrayed by Napoleon. He has worked ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a star student thought of this essay


The Quality of Written Communication is average. The essay is written as a long continuous line of very simplistic sentences and so the simplicity of the sentences structure limits the prowess and flair that is meant to be demonstrated by high grade students. I would also encourage a better use of more complex punctuation and vocabulary to ensure that the examiners see a confident writer who not only analyses well but presents their analysis clearly and precisely.

The level of Analysis here is very poor. There is an obvious attempt at analysis, but somewhere along the long the candidate has misconstrued analysis for personal opinions and resorts to commenting on what they think about the book, rather than what is factually-founded; a lot of what they say is not based upon actual evidence as provided from the text and they resort to a subjective response frequently, meaning their answer lacks the objectivity required of effective analysis. To avoid this, I would ask the candidate to ensure they do not mention themselves in the answer, as the question does not ask for their opinion, this they should not give it. They are instructed to find links between the text and Orwell's attitude to the Russian Revolution. Though ther candidate's contextual knowledge is fair, it is not implemented into answering the question because what they say is merely listed as a series of facts rather than a coherently, flowing essay that could very easily add the odd "Orwell believed this... and so this is reflected in his use of of" in order to fortify the answer and achieve a higher grade.

This candidate's response does not appear very focused on the question. In fact, there is very little the candidate does to explicitly make connections between the novel 'Animal Farm' and the events of the Russian Revolution. The comparisons and critical analysis of Orwell's criticism of the Russian Revolution are limited only to making simple links between which characters represent which real-life political figures (with the exception of Squealer, who isn't mentioned). I would recommend the candidate re-read the question to ensure that what they say actually has any relevance to it, because this candidate's answer has gone seriously awry.