I thought this book was awful. I never had to read it in high school (which is when I'm assuming most people read it) and finally got around to doing so. The 'message' of this book is a hollow platitude ("hurrr power corrupts, socialism is bad") and the way it is delivered is so heavy handed that I was actually cringing. Also, the prose was completely bland and unmemorable (he's no Faulkner).
Is 1984 better? I was pretty much going to read both for the sake of reading Orwell because of how massively popular he is, but I don't know if I can handle more of the same.
>>8254023
Its been a while. Did the humans know that the animals were sentient and talking?
If so, 1 this makes it a whole other story with way more pressing plots and themes. 2. pretty racist calling the west humans and the east animals.
1984 is the only dystopian novel worth reading.
>>8254023
1984 is pretty good just for the fact that so many of the techniques seen in this fictional alternate British society mirrors the modern west so uncannily.
I thought 1984 was his best book that I have read. I read both in high school, animal farm in 10th and 1984 in 12th grade. I liked animal farm but wasn't particularly impressed with it.
I have this book on my shelf, going to read it next.
STILL haven't read fucking 1984.
Animal farm is just a clever analogy of the formation of the USSR. It's usually taught in middleschool, because of its accessible format. It's great, desu, though if you know the plot or have already read it, then the book loses a lot of its magic. Perhaps literature is not for you?
>>8254141
forgot to attach pic.
>>8254141
>Perhaps literature is not for you?
haha. I love literature. I didn't read this as my "first book" or because of the /lit/ starter kit or whatever. I decided to read Animal Farm because, for whatever reason, I never got around to reading it when I was younger.
>Animal farm is just a clever analogy of the formation of the USSR.
That's the thing: I didn't think this book was clever. Nor did I enjoy all the ham-fisted anti-socialist preaching.
>>8254023
1984 is a fine read. You already know the story, but most smart people I know enjoyed the manner in which the story is told. Particularly the bits about English usage and propaganda. There's also a sex scene that's masturbation-worthy.
Animal Farm works for middle schoolers. It's extremely dumbed-down.
>>8254088
>>The Trial
This guy is right. If you're willing to read something incomplete, the Trial is about as good as it gets in terms of dystopian lit. Like all of Kafka, it's significantly better in the original German and all translations do a poor job.
>>8254023
>the message of the book is that socialism is bad
Orwell was a socialist, he fought for anarcho-syndicalism against fascists in Spain. Use some critical thinking skills while reading instead of forming thoughts based on your already existing preconceptions of the book.
>>8254041
Didn't the animals strike up deals with the surrounding farmers? I assumed the humans understood.
>>8254624
>anarcho-syndicalism
Crypyo-protestantism actually. He was anti-catholic, not anti-facist/anti-comintern.
>>8254624
Orwell didn't belong to any particular side of the political spectrum. He fought against authoritarian rule
He was one of the few western critical thinkers who was staunchly opposed to the ussr and communist china
Which is why he toyed with the idea of modelling the head pig after stalin
Which is why when soviet dissidents tried writing to him about a possible clandestine translation of animal farm in Russia, they did so in Russian assuming only a a Russian was able to undersatnd the horrible plight the people under stalinist rule
>>8254045
>>8254023
>>8254131
>>8254615
Nope. Animal Farm is definitely better than 1984 and open to far subtler analysis. If you thought the message was "hurr power corrupts, socialism is bad," you didn't read it properly. Pay careful attention to the language Orwell uses to describe how the pigs do their dealings (beginning even before they steal the apples - all the way back to Old Major's relationship to history) and you'll find something much cleverer than anything in 1984. Likewise ask better questions about Benjamin. He's more ambiguous than a quick reading lets on.
1984 is to Orwell what the Communist Manifesto is to Marx. Animal Farm is the real deal and of the two, the only one to approach actual literature. You just gotta get over the ridiculous idea that the story is strictly a monstrous allegory about the Soviet Union.
>>8254023
Animal Farm is a book for children and I don't mean that as an insult. The idea is that any kid that knows how to read can pick up the book and start on it, to give them an idea about the pitfalls of communism. With any idea he has trouble with he can ask an adult who, having a really good idea about the whole thing, can spell it out for them- It's the same with Dr.Seuss's The Butter Battle Book.
Animal Farm isn't a bad book, you're just too old for it, again not an insult, it's just the way it was written.
>>8255400
>when soviet dissidents tried writing to him about a possible clandestine translation of animal farm in Russia, they did so in Russian assuming only a a Russian was able to undersatnd the horrible plight the people under stalinist rule
Source?
>>8255379
A few critical remarks about the papacy does not equate to your fantasy crypto-protestanism no matter how butthurt it made you.
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism as I understand it."
You're probably just a triggered socialist.
It shocks me that you can understand this in such a dull witted way, but I assume that you are not used to allegorical fiction and have somehow missed the point that it is written in an intentionally simple manner, even if it does have a nuanced message. Try reading his essays (http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/index_en) or if you want something longer then Homage to Catalonia, a fairly riveting war memoir as well as an insight into the machinations of the communists and anarcho-syndicalists in Spain, or if you prefer something more homely then Down and Out in Paris and London is very good, and about him being poverty stricken and hangin' out with the lower orders, including some time as a tramp. Orwell has a strange naivety because he came from a semi-priviliged background as a scholarship boy at Eton and sometimes one sees his proviniciality (which can be charming) such as when he is disgusted by Spanish food, which he somehow maintained despite working in Burma and travelling a lot.
>>8254045
And We by Zamyatin.
>>8254023
Animal Farm offered a staunchly anti-capitalist perspective. Even at the end, the animals looking in through the mirror couldn't tell the difference between the 'authoritarian communist' pigs and the gluttonous 'capitalist' farmers.
>>8255629
in through the window*...
1984 is absolutely essential reading. And not just a quick one time read through but multiple deep readings. Every man, woman and child (of a certain age) needs to read that book.
>>8255491
Go outside. It's summer and your parents want you exposed to sunlight
>>8254023
This is the only book I read in school that I liked.
>>8254023
>("hurrr power corrupts, socialism is bad")
It was written right after WWII when Europe and the US were still friends with the USSR, and weren't aware of how awful the leadership really was. It's not about socialism. Orwell, was, and had always been, a socialist. The book is a warning against communism and the people who will manipulate the feelings of the population and leverage their position to gain more power. Napoleon wasn't made corrupt by power. He was always an evil pig. He just needed the opportunity.
>Also, the prose was completely bland and unmemorable
It's written in the style of a fable.
For a story so straightforward and simple, it seems that you completely failed to understand it.
>>8254624
>>8255407
>>8255522
>>8256172
Okay, I was using communism and socialism interchangeably in my OP (which was a mistake, as several of you have pointed out). I did not have the benefit of context, knowing the Orwell was a socialist when reading this and assumed he was conflating "communist" Russia with communism/marxism/whatever you want to call it and using this as an example to show how communism inevitably fails due to corrupt leaders. Reading the text in isolation I still feel that it scans as a cautionary tale about communism, regardless of Orwell's personal sympathies. (I never clearly understood the distinction between these terms as Marx simply called his political philosophy communism and it changed sometime after that? I have read some Marx though, as well as other philosophers who took after him, e.g. Althusser. Was Orwell sympathetic to Marx's political philosophy?)
>You just gotta get over the ridiculous idea that the story is strictly a monstrous allegory about the Soviet Union.
I will honestly try my best. Is there a specific essay or something you can point me towards that offers another reading you find compelling?
>Napoleon wasn't made corrupt by power. He was always an evil pig.
What do you mean by this? Because the other pig (Snowball) seemed to be good and both seemed to have good intentions at the beginning. Are you pointing towards the same thing as the other poster who said to pay attention to how the pigs conduct themselves from the start?
>It's written in the style of a fable.
That doesn't mean I have to like it though. Are his other works different or are they all equally devoid of personality wrt prose? (For example, Hemingway's "iceberg" approach isn't necessarily my favorite, but at least it's distinctive.)
>>8255479
read Homage to Catalonia the version with the parts that were cut off in the short version. He says there that he preferred the anarchists (CNT-FAI) after he spent some time in Barcelona. He joined POUM because his friends were Trotskyists and told him to join POUM, he didn't have any opinion on the different political factions before going to Spain.
>>8256303
>Communism means a society without a state and private property managed by voluntary means and self-management.
Lenin and his followers who are not even close to being communists decided to take control of the word communism just because it was popular at the time in order to impose their rule over Russia. Then when they won the civil war and decimated all of their opponents, including anarchists, they associated state capitalism to communism even though they are contradictory things.
>>8255362
The farmers or their farms?
Happy to see someone really engaging, even if you end up disagreeing.
>>8256303
>Is there a specific essay or something you can point me towards that offers another reading you find compelling?
Not that I can name, but many great works are based on historical events without being strict allegories. If Animal Farm is truly a work of art, it should break past it's specific context and speak to something universal. The Soviet Union allegory only stretches so far, anyway. Remember the pig's name is Napoleon, not Stalin. Plus, Orwell was an essayist, if he wanted to write about the USSR, he could have written a history.
>Napoleon wasn't made corrupt by power. He was always an evil pig.
>>What do you mean by this?
I'm the earlier poster telling you to pay attention to how the pigs conduct themselves. If you look carefully, Orwell is not just saying much more than "power corrupts," but making a quite subtle analysis of how it corrupts. Example: right from the gate, the pigs play it fast and loose with the history. He claims that "Beasts of England" is an old and long forgotten song, but through a dream he knows the actual lyrics as sung historically. Harmless in context, but sets the stage for Napoleon's later manipulations.
Orwell is not saying that Napoleon corrupts, but talking about the mechanisms by which people like Napoleon corrupt power.
>>8256303
I think what is meant by the napoleon comment is that power doesn't change you, but shows your true colors.
if you're good, then no amount of power can change that. If it can, you were never really that good to begin with.
kinda the same moral in antigone i think.
>>8254023
> he thinks it is criticising socialism.
Go back to your CIA funded cartoon
>>8257219
>Orwell was a socialist
True in the most painfully literal sense but really just a crutch for contrarians. If you consider Orwell (may his crotchety bitter soul burn in hell for all of eternity) a socialist it can only be in the most idealistic sense wherein he disavows any actual system in his time or ours. Functionally he wasn't, his work wasn't taken that way, and if it were it would be a mistake. He may not have advanced a positive capitalist position but he sure as shit wasn't a socialist in any way a socialist would recognize in 2016.
>>8257247
>he disavows any actual system in his time or ours
Not Catalonia.
>>8256303
Orwell's prose as an essayist is wonderful, but he is not such a good novellist. Still decent and his plots tended to carry any stylistic failings, but really that was not his major skill
>>8258376
This.
