50 Years After the Revolution, Orwell Still Speaks : ANIMAL FARM: A Fairy Tale, <i> By George Orwell</i> .<i> Illustrated by Ralph Steadman (Harcourt Brace: $26; 180 pp.)</i>

Long before “Babe,” pigs talked. Bank in 1945, Squealer and Snowball and Napoleon and the others spoke in a classic tale of tyranny and corrupted ambition. Someday, the author said, a suitable illustrator might emerge. Fifty years later, he has--in this memorable barnyard encounter between the powerful, fanciful imaginations of George Orwell and Ralph Steadman. We wondered what tomorrow’s generation would think of the anniversary edition of “Animal Farn.”

****

“Animal Farm” deals with . . . conflicts, about animals being slaves and how they rebel against men, their masters. Their seventh commandment--”All animals are equal”--turned into a lie, used by the pigs: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

I wouldn’t quite call this book a fairy tale, although it has its funny moments, like the idea that animals can talk and how Major gave an incredible speech somewhat like Martin Luther King. . . . It also showed their intelligence, courage and ability to work together . . . how some of the animals wanted to fight for what was theirs but didn’t know how, because of lack of intelligence. The pigs tricked them into sharing all of the apples. Even though this book had a funny situation, you realize that it is a metaphor.

--Toni Henderson

****

This book says a lot about our government. At first the pigs and all the other animals were equal, but as time passed, the pigs felt superior to other animals. That is why Napoleon and Snowball fought; each wanted to control the Animal Farm, and Napoleon, the strongest, won. The system on Animal Farm was not a democracy anymore, where all animals vote, but now a dictatorship by Napoleon. To enforce his laws, he had the dogs do the dirty work the same way people do when they want to control somebody. . . . They use money and fear to manipulate them.

Some of the greatest countries in the world were destroyed by greed and laziness. For example, Rome was destroyed because one man had the power of a dictator; it is because of this greed that people and countries are destroyed.

As I read this book I saw a lot of things happening. First of all, the pigs started to live in the house, and they changed the laws to suit themselves. Then the government changed from a dictatorship to a slavery type. Pigs had all the best things while the other animals had nothing. Just like in the real world, white people have everything, while black people didn’t have anything (during slavery).

I think neither Snowball nor Napoleon would have made a good ruler, because both of them wanted all the power.

Somebody like Benjamin should have been a ruler because I think he was really wise.

The ending of the book made me very sad, the way pigs almost turned into humans, when they swore they would never walk on two legs. That made all the other animals realize that it was just a bunch of pigs controlling them. All they had was an illusion. All the while the pigs did nothing at all, the other animals worked their skin off. There was never any republic, there were just lies.

As they say, “What goes around, comes around.” The animals were never free. At first they were controlled by humans, but then they were controlled by pigs.

It is the same way with humans. I think somebody always controls you. At first it is your parents; then it is your boss and job and the kids; then when you get old, you’re already afraid to change anything because soon you will be gone.

Nothing will ever change unless we take a team effort to change it.

“Animal Farm” isn’t based on just Stalinist Russia. I think it is based on every government. No government that I know is perfect. Government is just like chess, it is all based on what strategy you use. In government you have the key players just like in chess, and it is they who have all the power. In government, all that matters is power. “Animal Farm” is based on government.

Snowball and Napoleon wanted all the power; they didn’t want to share.

Napoleon is just like Stalin and Squealer is his helper, just like Beriya. All the animals represent the common people, people who believed in the cause and pushed themselves to the limit to see it succeed. The pigs who died sacrificed themselves because they were afraid and ignorant. They were afraid of the unknown future. They represent all of the people who were sent to concentration camps during the period Stalin ruled. They did not go willingly, but they were afraid for their families. The dogs in the book represent the army, the enforcers of the system--not only the army, but also organizations like the secret service or the FBI.

At first I did not like the illustrations because I thought they were too ugly. But then I realized that they weren’t supposed to represent beauty but were supposed to represent what the animals looked like and their personalities.

--Ulia Ippolitova

****

To me this story shows the true characteristics of humans, even though the protagonists of the story are animals. When the animals started off, they abhorred all things human. They disliked beds, homes and clothes. This is the same thing that happened in Russia: At the fall of the monarchy, people did not like the big ostentatious palaces that the rich “boyars” lived in, but the Communist Party members established themselves as the upper class. They did not call it an aristocracy, but they still elevated themselves to a higher rank, as Napoleon did in the book.

Even though in the U.S. we are not as extreme as the Russians, we still cling to some abhorrent ideals. This country was established for the people, but immigrants and blacks are often left out. . . . Even though we aren’t ruled by a monarch, the “people” don’t run the government. A few self-elevated, royal--i.e., rich--families do.

Napoleon showed the world that the animals could run the farm by building windmills. Stalin did the same thing by almost forcing people to do slave labor, building factories and giving lavish fetes . . . by producing a certain gross to show the world that Russia was doing well.

When Napoleon came to power, he changed the very ideals upon which the farm was established in order to form his own government. Under the practice of animalism, he indoctrinated the animals into believing that everything he said and did was right. Those who opposed him were killed by his secret police, the dogs. Russia had the KGB, and all those who opposed Stalin were eliminated.

--Yoyce Jones-White

****

People like my grandfather, who think Stalin was a fair man, that all of his cruelty to people was all right and that people deserved what they got, don’t know any better and can be compared to the animals in the middle of the book. These animals’ minds are still raw, like a little child’s. They believe whatever they hear from the people they think are smarter.

Many books and people describe Stalin as a cruel, boundless assassin and a murderer. These people can be compared to the rest of the animals at the end of the book when they grow wise and understand the true identity of Napoleon and all the other pigs.

At first I didn’t understand why the animals were drawn in such an ugly way. Now I think it’s because the illustrator is trying to show the true identity of the animals.

The pictures show how cruel Napoleon was. He stood up high, with his nose even higher, a grin on his face and no sign of mercy while his dogs killed animals that didn’t follow all of his orders. The rest just stood with amazement and fear, scared to say anything because they didn’t want to end up dying.

--Ruzanna Khetchian

****

Since the Earth was created, we as living creatures have had one wish in common. This wish has made many of us suffer and struggle, and it has also put tears in our innocent hearts. That wish is the desire to be able to have our own freedom and justice.

This remarkable book by George Orwell is a lesson for me. It points to the idea of having freedom and justice. Giving animals human characteristics makes the story seem engaging and hilarious to read. Every animal resembles a certain human. One is portrayed as powerful. Others are shown as poor. One is respected. Others are controlled. One is described as the oppressor; others as his victims. Some are wise; others are ignorant. Each of us has our own personality.

“Animal Farm” describes our society, our government and its unfair structure. . . . And every government is like that. Governments promise people their rights, freedom, justice and a better life, but people never seem to get all that they are promised. This is the structure of our society. We become too overwhelmed and so excited by the choices of the government that we don’t realize we’re being brainwashed. We find ourselves trapped in those choices; once again the government has tricked us. And we become more oppressed and destroyed.

--Lusine Mesropyan

****

While I was reading, I thought about our government and how, more and more, it’s not living up to its promises--affirmative action, for example.

I wondered why the animals didn’t realize what was going on, but I realized that in their eyes, life was better only because humans weren’t oppressing them (it didn’t seem to matter if their fellow animals did the oppressing). Maybe one of the reasons they didn’t protest was that they were afraid, not just of the dogs but of being susceptible to humans. They obeyed Napoleon because they didn’t want the humans to see that they couldn’t hold the farm together.

--Stephanie Rubenstein

****

The animals think it’s easy fulfilling their dreams. What they don’t understand is that they do not own their time or money. There has always been some evil who wants to be . . . No. 1. There has always been. . . . I’m glad that they realize that there is no such thing as equal. This is because everybody has a different way of thinking, some good, some bad. It’s hard to live life as a whole. Martin Luther King said, “All men are created equal.” Is everybody treated equal, though? No, there has always been someone who feels superior.

The artist’s illustration of the characters during the meeting where the humans and the pigs gathered is exactly what I thought it would look like, the way the book said the animals who were looking from outside the window noticed as they looked from man to pig and from pig to man, it was impossible to say which was which. . . . In the end, pigs and humans were all the same.

--Mevelyn Santiago

****

After finishing this book, I wonder why the author tried to prove his point the way he did. Using animals to represent the Russians was a good idea, but the way he brought about the pigs’ intelligence was slightly unclear. Where did they acquire their knowledge and their ability to read? This is the question that baffles me the most.

I understand that without some sort of intelligent animal, the plot of this story would have crumbled, but I believe that George Orwell could have brought about their intelligence in a way that made sense, instead of just suddenly throwing it upon them. Since they started out as ordinary farm animals, the only thing, in my opinion, that they could have possibly read was the word “grain.” I would feel more comfortable if he had presented a situation in which it were actually possible for the pigs to know how to read. Could he not have said that when the owners of Manor Farm went to the market on Thursdays, the pigs sneaked into the house and looked at the literature the farmers owned?

Also, I have to say that I disagree with my peers when they say that this story focuses only on a notorious dictator of Russia. Since I know nothing of the history of Russia, while reading this novel I automatically compared the events in the first few chapters to the encounter that America had with slavery.

As for the last few chapters, I compared them to the actions of many average Americans. Even if they have just escaped an unpleasant situation, if people get the chance to be in charge and get what they want, they take the chance, often placing people in the same position they were just relieved of. They do this because they feel that they deserve to be on top of the pyramid after so many years of acting as the base and supporting the top.

Although I feel sorry for all of the animals, the one character I feel particularly sympathetic toward is Boxer. He worked so hard to do as Napoleon pleased. He pushed himself to the limit; his motto, “I will work harder,” proved that. Even when his physical being was screaming for him to stop, his mental being urged him to move on, to work even harder. He was extremely loyal and never spoke a harsh word toward Napoleon. What was his reward? A trip to the horse slaughterer when it was discovered that he could work no more.

Before you nod your head in agreement and mutter “poor Boxer,” take a minute to reflect upon yourself. How many times have you paid someone back for a favor she/he has done for you? How many times have you mistreated someone who has done only good things for you? I myself cannot say that I have paid back every favor, which is why I do not have any hard feelings toward Napoleon for the way he treated Boxer. It’s “human” nature; people tend to do things that benefit themselves before they do things that benefit others.

--Tanea Washington

****

The human beings in this book made me feel ashamed to be human. For them to take away something from the animals who worked so hard was disgraceful. Their leader, Comrade Napoleon, did not do a good job of leading the animals. For one, he discriminated against other animals because they were not pigs. This all bears a resemblance to reality. Years ago whites discriminated against blacks. The pigs could get an education because they were known for their intelligence. The other young animals could not.

Another thing I think Comrade Napoleon is wrong about is changing the commandments. He went against everything the animals stood for or fought for. He slept in the bed the enemy once owned; in the end he sold the farm to the enemy who had tried to take the farm through violence once before. He abolished the song that gave the animals hope and courage.

This reminds me too much of the days of segregation, how black people struggled for equality and justice and how the white people tried so hard to tear it down. When the animals built the windmill and the humans blew it up, that reminds me of the church bombing in Birmingham. The windmill was something the animals accomplished together, something they took much pride in, and it was stripped away--just as the church was where black people could go and feel safe in the hands of the Lord, where they could get away from the hostility of the angered white people. But as they were soon to find out, they are not safe anywhere.

But the question I have is, Why is the world like this? Couldn’t everyone just be happy and mind their own business? Who cares who prospers and who doesn’t? Who cares what color your skin is? If you stripped the skin away, we’d all look alike underneath.

Can somebody just answer that question? Why?

I think Old Major was like Harriet Tubman, for she helped slaves escape on the underground railroad. Old Major helped the animals escape the stupidity of Mr. Jones. And like Harriet Tubman’s legacy, old Major’s legacy lives on. It inspired the animals to run Mr. Jones and his crew off the farm. And just like the blacks, they fought to abolish slavery.

I think people could learn a valuable lesson from these animals. For someone to take something of yours that you worked for is morally wrong, and you shouldn’t go down without a fight. Even if the invader succeeds, you have the knowledge that you did try to keep what was rightfully yours.

--Nicole Woodard

****

I drew Napoleon and his dogs before I looked at the illustrated book. I see that Napoleon should’ve have been a lot bigger and have no white on him . . . I put white on him because I looked up “hog” in my encyclopedia, and in that story, Napoleon was a Berkshire, and the article said that Berkshires were black with white markings . . . As for the dogs, I guess I should have made them look more fierce and mean. Mine are too friendly . . . the book said they were the size of wolves, so I know they would have had to be larger than Napoleon. Napoleon looked meaner in the book than what I drew.

--Traniece Figgers

Teacher’s Notes on the Assignment

The students who read “Animal Farm” belong to my College Prep English class in the Health Careers Magnet on the campus of Markham Middle School. We study literature in thematic units, exploring issues of universal human concern. I teach my students to read actively, as reading expert Judith Langer puts it, “to recognize ambiguities, to explore possibilities, and to seek ways of using their knowledge of text and human experience to develop deeper insights. “Since they were already reading autobiographies by Maya Angelou, Russell Baker, Sandra Cisneros, Elie Wiesel and Malcolm X, I invited volunteers to take on the extra reading only as an outside project.

Ten of the more avid readers responded. We briefly discussed what some people already knew, that “Animal Farm” was a satire of Stalinist Russia. Two of the participants are recent immigrants from Russia; another, from Armenia, said her grandfather had admired Stalin.

A few responses trickled in. I called a lunch meeting (complete with a pizza bribe) and conducted a “grand conversation” about their first impressions. After that, a few more responses dribbled in, but then the group cajoled me into letting them come in every day at lunch, ostensibly to write, but mostly to talk about the book. After the first day, I stayed out of the conversation. The group held strong opinions and possessed great background knowledge, especially Yoyce Jones-White, an African American and the only male in the group. A voracious reader, he regaled his peers with grim details of Stalin’s actual treatment of his detractors.

To encourage some of the slower workers, I gave them a slew of structured questions, but they ignored them, and slowly, but confidently, constructed their own meaning of this venerable classic.

--Yvonne Divans-Hutchinson

On Ralph Steadman’s Illustrations

I feel that these pictures are very violent and very fitting to such a book. The vivid colors and grotesque drawings are nothing less than grand. These pictures will probably draw more people to this book. Rather than waiting for it to be assigned to them, they’ll read it themselves.

The picture with Squealer propagandizing is a message in itself. It shows the pig preaching to the other animals that Napoleon’s way is the right way, in the same manner that Stalin’s agents indoctrinated his subjects.

In the last picture, where the pigs and the humans are having dinner, ‘twas impossible to discern the pigs from the humans. This showed that the humans and pigs were alike in their thoughts, feelings and views. I think that if a person reads this book and gazes at some of the drawings, he’ll probably be able to understand the book better.

--Yoyce Jones-White