Critical Review

[da_zerg]

Critical Review: This is your chance to critically examine the book. Now is the oppritunity to "plug in" your thesis. Consider where the text is weak. Some things to consider are: bias on the part of the author, inappropriate or ineffective sources, as well as ideas the author fails to consider.

Ive got to write a paragraph on this question; but i dont know how to tackle this, seeing as how i liked this book so much. Could somebody try helping me out?

[The Atheist]

I must confess to have been racking my brain on this since you posted it and I'm still struggling.

As far as the actual English goes, there are no weaknesses, Orwell was possibly the most accurate writer of all time.

One thing which could be described as a weakness is when the forged banknotes come to light, AF immediately switches sides in the war against neighbours.

No reasoning is given as to why the former enemy would now be a friend. We understand why the seeming friend becomes an enemy, but no rationale is given as to why the other farmer is now "friendly".

Not much of a weakness really - maybe Baz has something better.

Good luck.

[bazarov]

Not much of a weakness really - maybe Baz has something better.

I was going to skip this and then I saw 8th AF commandment :lol:


One thing which could be described as a weakness is when the forged banknotes come to light, AF immediately switches sides in the war against neighbours.

If forged banknotes came in your country, then they surely passed through your neighbours area so they attacked them. It's easier for stupid civilians to accept that they are in war with someone who is closely to them and not somewhere there far far from Farm. And USSR and Germany were neighbours in WWII ( after ''resolving'' Poland). It was normal and often that enemies were sending forged banknotes one to another in order to unstable their economy. Germans were doing that, British, USSR etc.


No reasoning is given as to why the former enemy would now be a friend. We understand why the seeming friend becomes an enemy, but no rationale is given as to why the other farmer is now "friendly".

Friends to enemies - Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939 to Barbarossa in June 1941.
Enemies to friends - Italy to Allies after 25 July 1943.


da_zerg asked:

Consider where the text is weak. Some things to consider are: bias on the part of the author, inappropriate or ineffective sources, as well as ideas the author fails to consider.

Text isn't weak in any point. Absolutely every scene, statement or act in this story has strong history base. If we think that something is wrong; problem is not in Orwell, it's the lack of our history knowledge.
You can't blame author for not considering some ideas. It's his story, he can pick ideas he wish to explore and he made his choice. Maybe he have some other ideas but he wants to explain them in some other book. In 1984, for example...

[The Atheist]

I was going to skip this and then I saw 8th AF commandment :lol:



Hey, we're a team, what can I say?

:D


Friends to enemies - Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939 to Barbarossa in June 1941.
Enemies to friends - Italy to Allies after 25 July 1943.

I don't see it as a weakness myself, but it's the closest thing to one in the book. I think it could also be viewed as a strength - that Orwell didn't see the need to spell it out precisely given the huge historical precedents of many sides changing teams in WWII, being quite happy to let the reader figure it out.


Text isn't weak in any point. Absolutely every scene, statement or act in this story has strong history base. If we think that something is wrong; problem is not in Orwell, it's the lack of our history knowledge.
You can't blame author for not considering some ideas. It's his story, he can pick ideas he wish to explore and he made his choice. Maybe he have some other ideas but he wants to explain them in some other book. In 1984, for example...

Agree entirely, it is one of the most accurate pieces of literature available, thanks to Orwell's journalistic eye.

I think it's a poor choice of subject by the teacher, but it's better for students to compromise Orwell than tell the teacher he/she is wrong. ;)

[bazarov]

No reasoning is given as to why the former enemy would now be a friend. We understand why the seeming friend becomes an enemy, but no rationale is given as to why the other farmer is now "friendly".



I answered:

Friends to enemies - Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939 to Barbarossa in June 1941.
Enemies to friends - Italy to Allies after 25 July 1943.



I don't see it as a weakness myself, but it's the closest thing to one in the book. I think it could also be viewed as a strength - that Orwell didn't see the need to spell it out precisely given the huge historical precedents of many sides changing teams in WWII, being quite happy to let the reader figure it out.



I am not saying that something is incorrect on story, I was just explaining how can enemy became friend. :)

[The Atheist]

I am not saying that something is incorrect on story, I was just explaining how can enemy became friend. :)

Oh, I was agreeing with you; the history of side-changing in WWII is a web of deceit to match any spider!

[Etienne]

Oh, I was agreeing with you; the history of side-changing in WWII is a web of deceit to match any spider!

Nah, just regular politics, but applied to a World War. :p