On Orwell and Rebellion

            Animal Farm and 1984, what do they have in common? They are both written by George Orwell, but they also have the author’s style and opinions sprinkled in. Orwell is known for commenting on political and societal ideas, and these two novels are no exception. Both are big on the idea of revolution and rebellion against an oppressive society or government. Animal Farm and 1984 provide social commentary on the possibility of failure, but necessity, of societal uprisings against authority. However, despite Orwell’s consistent writing about rebellion and fighting for one’s beliefs, he was actually a democratic socialist (more on this later). 1984 and Animal Farm really reveal his mindset and makes the readers (if you’re anything like me) a bit upset with the outcome. 

1984 is a dystopian novel where the main character, Winston Smith lives in a society of oppression. Everyone is forced to work for the common good and to think the same thoughts about Big Brother, their idol. Winston Smith rebels by bringing the societal system of Oceania into question. While not a full-scale rebellion, the act of curiosity and disagreement in his mind is enough to name Winston a traitor. Citizens don’t even have freedom of thought, forget about freedom of speech. Orwell crafts 1984 so that his readers root for Winston. As the audience, we hope for Winston’s ability to live freely and outside of the oppressive thoughts of Oceania. As someone who gets way too emotionally invested into books and movies, I couldn’t help but hope for Winston’s success throughout the entire novel. It is pretty clear to us that Orwell planned for that to happen because of his characterization of Winston as a protagonist. However, the novel takes a surprising turn when Winston is captured and essentially brainwashed. He returns - or becomes - the perfect citizen, glorifying the idea that “ignorance is bliss”. When I first read this as a middle schooler, I thought that the end of the novel ruined the whole book and was completely unnecessary when Orwell could have ended it positively. My main comment on this book to my teacher was “Why did it have to end like that? It didn’t have to happen that way. That book was so stupid.” Yet this is one of his forms of social commentary. Readers are able to see just how corrupt and sadistic the government of Oceania is and are inclined to want Winston’s mental freedom, and Winston achieves this - almost. When he returns to a harmless citizen, the readers see the true consequence of a society like Oceania’s. Sure, Orwell was a democratic socialist, but to me, the novel was an eye-opener and a warning. He was writing about the future, and at the time I’m sure it must have felt like a nightmare, or a “If we’re not careful, our world could end up like that”.

Taking the same theme but with a drastically different concept, Orwell makes effective points as well in his novel Animal Farm. This novel begins with a more successful uprising. Because of the consistently difficult conditions all the animals are put through at the farm (no to animal abuse!), a revolution occurs in which they overtake the land and the humans. Unlike 1984, however, this event ends successfully, with the animals achieving their freedom from the humans and the ability to work for their own comfort. This is what I would've called a successful rebellion in 1984, with the members of society rising up and achieving the freedom to live how they want. That would be the perfect happy ending that my child-like self wants everytime I read a novel. But, like 1984, the novel takes a turn for the worse when a natural hierarchy forms, with pigs at the top. Napoleon (if his name says anything about his personality…), the leader of the pigs, gradually becomes a tyrant while other animals are either too scared or unaware of the inequality that plagues their once peaceful farm. This aspect of Orwell’s novel I found incredibly applicable to real life situations (more on this later too!). The natural characteristic that causes some groups to have power over the others. Orwell once again has the readers leaning towards the protagonists’ side - except this time it is all the animals on the farm except for the pigs and dogs. While the dogs are the ones with higher status, I’m sure most of us rooted for the underdogs… Get it? Ok, moving on. Our inclination to believe that the novel - as well as all books - will end happily is shattered with Orwell’s inventive and sadistic ending: the pigs walk around mimicking the stature of humans and acting as symbols for the dictators that Orwell had a strong opinion about. 

I read Animal Farm a lot later than I read 1984 for the first time, in fact I read Animal Farm a couple months ago. This time, prepped with a “How to Read Literature Like a Professor” mindset, I wasn’t completely turned off by the unsuccessful ending of Animal Farm. Why did Orwell bother to write two novels about revolutions and social uprisings if he was going to end both of them in tragedy? Well, social commentary and opinions. Orwell was all for the scary, controlling governments that we would hate to imagine today. 

            Onto a more academic and literary aspect, the similarities and intertextuality between both of Orwell’s novels, 1984 and Animal Farm, becomes pretty clear once spelled out simply. Orwell was a writer who spelled out his political ideas clearly for his readers. His heavy use of symbolism gives us a clear view of his intentions as well as his central theme. 

In Animal Farm, Manor Farm is meant as a representation of Russia, which is run by humans who revolve around the idea of capitalism. The revolution occurs in which they overthrow Mr. Jones in a similar fashion as World War I, yet their freedom is slowly and once again taken away from them by the powerful figure Napoleon who, contrary to his name, is Orwell’s representation of Stalin (American R. D. M. Corp.). Symbolism was Orwell’s way of making sure that his novels had a strong connection to real life events, because that’s what makes a story good: when the readers can connect to it and understand it.

To give some background, Orwell grew up as a kid who was already questioning the natural hierarchy of life, which affected his writing and shaped his idea that those who were born to wealth and high status created the government and laws.

“It was during the early years that Orwell acquired the feeling of inevitable failure that was to haunt his life. It seemed to him that the rich, the handsome, and the strong of this world had made the rules which constituted virtue. Because he was poor and thought of himself as weak, and ugly, he felt he could not possibly keep these rules: ‘the good and the possible never seemed to coincide.’”

-American R. D. M. Corp.

Now that really hurt… I’m sure a lot of us have felt something similar to this, or at least some aspect of what Orwell did. As a part of human nature (and especially Troy High nature), we’re constantly comparing ourselves to others and striving for the things we don’t have, and Orwell was no different. He talks about his feelings of inferiority to others in this quote, which is a good summary of his novels. Those that were ugly (Winston) and weak (the lower class animals AND Winston) failed to overtake the rich and strong (the pigs and Oceania’s government). Despite this insecurity of Orwell’s, he was still a democratic socialist… Something I don’t know how to explain… After Orwell’s experience in Spain where he fought in the Spanish Civil War (he went to Spain with intentions to just write but I guess he got a little sidetracked), his identity as a democratic socialist strengthened, which was clear in his writing (American R. D. M. Corp.). 

Happy endings please!

Animal Farm and 1984 both had this idea about how their revolution or rebellion was unsuccessful and eventually led to their unhappiness. As someone who always loves happy endings, I had originally thought the whole premise of 1984 was to teach readers to rebel against oppression and to fight for equality. Unfortunately, my idealist eighth grade version of myself was shattered when Winston warped into a version of himself that believed “two plus two equals five” if Big Brother deemed it to be (Orwell). Was Orwell commenting that rebellion was pointless though correctly intentioned? Or was Orwell commenting that rebellions should not occur in societies such as those in his novels? I can’t be sure, but my guess is the second one since he seemed to be for controlling governments because of his political stance. Unfortunately, this doesn’t align with the usual views in America, making his endings difficult to relate to, or maybe not?

Interestingly, 1984 has kept a high spot on the fiction bestseller list since the inauguration of Trump, “a truly extraordinary achievement for a book originally published seven decades ago” (Rodden). This is an effective example and proof of the relevance of Orwell’s books to even today's society. While America is definitely not as far left as Orwell had intended his societies in his novels to be, it’s interesting how the ideas of government and control can maintain themselves throughout a century. 

Continuing on with the relevance of Orwell’s novels and ideas still today, we could take a look at many of the current events occurring recently. Most recently, the protest at the capital in which supporters of Trump trespassed violently to object to Biden’s win (Capital Protest). I’m sure most people have heard about this, an event that will go down in history. People created a precedent, or in the case of Orwell’s novels, rebelled against the ideas that they thought were unjust. In Animal Farm, the first revolution took place with good intentions but ended unsuccessfully due to ignorance and corruption. In 1984, the rebellion was for mental freedom but ended unsuccessfully due to lack of power. How do these relate to the protest at the capital? Well, whenever people (or animals) are pushed too far, just a little bit past their threshold of tolerance, they fight back for their beliefs. Interestingly, the real life protest was ill-intentioned while the novel protests were carried out with the belief of freedom, equality, and a better life, but every situation ended with failure.

Animal Farm was more focused on inequality between breeds, which is definitely a topic relevant today. Particularly, this reminded me of the Black Lives Matter protests, where skin color created a division and feelings of superiority or inferiority, and - like the animals - caused people to protest when their rights were taken. Unfortunately though, the lower class of Animal Farm wasn’t as successful in fighting for their rights. I’m not talking about success in gaining equality, I’m talking about the act of rebellion when you’re pushed past your line of tolerance. You could argue that the animals just weren’t pushed far enough, but I just find that they were ignorant of the possibilities and of their situation. 

“Animal Farm is a political pamphlet focusing on the hypocrisy of leaders.” 

-Popescu

I thought this quote was really interesting when I first read it, and it applies to 1984 as well. Orwell wrote with the intention of spreading his political ideas (he was actually known for ranting about everything, including the decline of cricket). I think that’s one of the main reasons that his writing is still so relevant, interesting, and celebrated. Politics is something everything can relate to, whether you know anything about it or you don’t (I personally definitely do not keep up with politics), because it has some part in shaping our lives. If you’ve learned anything from reading Orwell’s novels, I hope it’s not that controlling governments are good, but that you have to speak out when you’re pushed past your line of tolerance and fight for the things that you believe in.