For years, I’ve been hearing about George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” but it was only last week that I’ve bothered reading it.
Pardon my ignorance but I initially thought that the title was just metaphorical and the characters were human. However, after reading a spoiler-free synopsis of the book, the characters were indeed animals so it definitely tickled my fancy.
(Photo from orwellsanimalfarm.weebly.com)
The novella is allegorical and staunchly criticizing the inadequacy and illusion of the Stalinist rule before World War II. Each of the animals and/or animal groups supposedly represents important figures in the history of the Soviet Union.
I’m definitely not that well-versed with important figures in Soviet history pre-Cold War or even pre WWII, but I’m quite familiar with Lenin’s brand of socialism led by a vanguard party. George Orwell, a democratic socialist himself, conversely believed on a revolution stemming from the proletariat or the working class itself.
The wise boar Old Major’s epiphany moments from his death sparked a revolution that instigated the animals of Manor Farm to revolt against the abusive and irresponsible owner Mr. Jones.
Following the successful ousting of the farmer, it was readily evident that there would be a power struggle between the pigs who led the revolution. In that case, the pigs Snowball and Napoleon assumed the leadership of the now-called Animal Farm. The cunning and crafty Napoleon was able to subsequently turn the tables, thanks to the intimidating pack of dogs, and eventually managed re-writing the rules of Animalism to serves his own purpose.
Although the book had Stalin in mind in time of writing, I can’t help but think of the departed Kim Jong-il while reading the book. The way that the animals were forced to call Napoleon as “The Leader”, or to attribute every single gain of the farm, from the harvest up to the distribution of goods, was very reminiscent of documentaries done about North Korea.
Even the idea of putting up a good façade to the outside world was very reminiscent of North Korea trying to cover up their internal inadequacies (i.e. that ‘white elephant’ Ryugyong Hotel). Another good example was Napoleon splurging in fruits of trades from the outside world, such as alcohol and sweets, while the animals of Animal Farm were overworked and underfed; the same way Kim Jong-il indulged on Hennessy cognacs and even sent his cook to Japan just to retrieve sea urchins. Most ridiculous of all was the tendency to give themselves titles they convinced themselves to have deserved.
This leads us to the question of history and information. During my first semester in graduate school, my professor in Geopolitics, Prof. Clarita Carlos reminded us about the significance of understanding history.
According to her, there is no such thing as the history, but rather a history because there are as many story tellers as there are stories. The people in power may choose, and will most probably, ignore certain facts about a certain event, especially if it jeopardizes the narration to their favor.
Just like Napoleon in Animal Farm, he insisted on the supposed treachery of Snowball during the Battle of Cowshed in spite of accounts by eyewitnesses like Boxer, the diligent and loyal horse.
But what can he do? Industrious as he might be, he lacked the proper education that might give him the ability to have proper judgment over what happens in the farm. But even literate animals like Benjamin, the donkey, dare not question Napoleon, lest he wanted to be executed to say the least. Snowball’s benevolence in educating the animals in the farm was immediately thwarted by the sudden use of force by Napoleon. The continuous rewriting of the rules of Animalism was not vehemently questioned by the animals because of their illiteracy.
I was also able to see the 1954 film adaptation of the book, and I got confused over the ending. In the book, it ended with the animals being dumb-founded by the resemblance between the pigs and the men.
But in the film, it was modified to show an implicit overthrowing of Napoleon by the animals. Personally, while I was reading the book, I was expecting the dining creatures (and that included the humans) to kill each other off during the argument.
The book got me thinking. Surely Orwell meant this allegorical piece to reflect the society during that time but a huge part of their reality is still present up to this day — and that is not limited to communist states. Even government of capitalist states exhibit the same level of corruption within the government, with the ruling elite siphoning off the wealth of the masses. I just look at these officials to phenotypically having two legs but with the ‘appetite’ of a pig.
I’m now on an Orwell roll and will be next reading Nineteen Eighty-Four. Given the attentin given to the Cybercrime Law here in the Philippines now, I should be kicking myselg because I still haven’t read it as well.
