NTHS - Animal Farm

Heidi- In response to your last post, I like to believe that Animal Farm is a vicious cycle: The animals rebel, the pigs take control, the government goes corrupt, the pigs turn into humans, repeat. I mean, why else would the book end when the pigs turn into humans? In a few years, when a new batch of non-human pigs come around, the animals will get the idea into their heads and overthrow the cruel, thoughtless humans that rule over them. They will form what they think to be an "equal" society, and the entire story will repeat itsself. Pretty cool, huh? :)

wow. i hadn't really liked the book. butafter seeing this, i have to say, i certianly missed something. maybe i'll go back and reread it!
i wonder, ifit wasn't for the pigs, would any of it happened though? or would the other animals continued to work for Jones? or would any of the others taken charge?
and another question, way off subject, but could humans have lived without animals?

hey mrs. paul does tht mean im not brilliant? cuz u said the rest of you.. lol
well yea thanx and i have a question for everyone tht can help me
didnt the pigs say not to read and drink or do anything liek the humans did??

keanna, i think that the pigs did say that they could not read or drink the way that the humans did and they did it in such a way that most of the animals didn't quite know what to say in retaliation as they still thought that what the pigs said was law. Unbeknownst to the animals, the pigs were going back on their word in order to benefit themselves. I could relate this to a certain situation that might give a better picture of what im trying to say, but because "some people are more equal than others" im not obliged to do so. much love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Please do not discuss current politics here

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ead.php?t=2982

any further such posts will be edited/removed.

---

this is why im not obliged to say more:banana:

the quote "some people are more equal than others" what does that really mean? because some people can argue that but they might use religion how like "every one is equal in gods eyes" so mabye it depends on the eyes of someone wich sees everything else differently I know we have a bunch of people with many different perspectives or point of view 'mitchell, bailey' cough cough j/k but I think that if we were ask everyone in our class I think that they would think most people or all are equal in which ways? im not sure.

like in animal farm the pigs are "more equal" than the others and the humans, because i bet if boxer told them "hey im like you and I do more stuff than you to help. You dont really do anything" then all the others could rebell against the pigs just because one animal knew they should be treated the same

I think that boxer only knew hard work, so that is why he worked so hard not to relax later but because that was all he new.

I wonder why napolean stole the windmill idea from snowball if he himself was against the idea ?

i really dont think that even if the windmill got completed, the farm animals other than the pigs would really have benifited from it. and even if ithey did benifit from it it would ever be worth all the hard ship and death?

Someone said something about Animal Farm relating to politics today, but i think that it could relate to anywhere, anytime, any government for the last 4000 years. People have not changed dramatically in 4 millenia, our instincts and, i dont know how to say this but the deep lying forces that compell us to put ourselves first, those emotions that create greed, hate and love, are still there. People have always fought about power, who had the wealth, who did the work, etc. For more than 4k years, probably close to 100k years. WE NEED TO MAKE SOME PROGRESS!!!!!!

Or will progress EVER be made even if humans live for another 10mil years. Are we so set in our ways that our very genetics will have to be completley altered before we can all work together and prosper?

In response to Ms. Pauls original questions...the one about satire.
I dont think you can really consider this book to be satirical. The book is sad on a lot of levels, the first of them being whats actually happening to the actual animals on the farm. I was really sad when i saw what was going to happen to the animals, and then what eventually did was just terrible. Then you realize that what happened to the animals happened to 100 million russians. You develop a kind of affection for the animals that i dont think you would develop if animal farm was a nonfiction book about the russian revolution and that affection really ddrives the point home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliagoolia

Heidi- In response to your last post, I like to believe that Animal Farm is a vicious cycle: The animals rebel, the pigs take control, the government goes corrupt, the pigs turn into humans, repeat. I mean, why else would the book end when the pigs turn into humans? In a few years, when a new batch of non-human pigs come around, the animals will get the idea into their heads and overthrow the cruel, thoughtless humans that rule over them. They will form what they think to be an "equal" society, and the entire story will repeat itsself. Pretty cool, huh? :)

---

I think that is probably true, but here is another variation on it. The pigs were able to overthrow the actual humans because of majors inspirational teachings And because of how badly Jones ran the farm. When the pigs took over and became nasty humans, things were a little different. There was no moral leader that would lead any pigs to revolt against the original nasty piggies, and if one did emerge, the nasty piggies would eliminate it. Secondly, the pigs would never allow for there to be any "non-human" pigs. They would grow up taught by pigs and have themselves brainwashed. Also, the pigs had a pretty sweet life, not working at getting all the food. The "non-human" pigs would have no reason to rebel. Only characters like Benjamin or other fairly intelligent animals that werent under the pigs controlw oudl have the chance to overthrow the pigs. They would also need the support of a Boxer, someone powerful enough to defeat the pigs physically.

I think that the main question that we need to ask is would this have happened without the pigs or not? Are the pigs really bad if the other animals wouldn't have done it without them?

P.S. HAPPY NEW YEARS!!!!!!!!


by the way i agree with you ben about the dialup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulteach

Dear Triskele,
As the teacher of these wonderful freshmen, we read the book, just finished it in fact. I like (as well as discussed in any educational class) my students to dive into a new world without "the real happenings" as it would not only ruin the book, but relate terms and ideas to Russia and "communism". Why not first grapple with the idea that "all people and animals CAN be equal" and find fault in that form of government...before being told the fault...Thank you for your imput - I will make my comments to my students.

---

thank you for that insight, i do question however your connection b/w communism and Russia, is it not also true that communism could be applied to the EU, China, many south american countries, southern asia, socio-economic theory, as well as many other products of the utopian socialists theory. the book i believe was written during the time of the Cold War, but should that force the perspective into propagandistic intrigue? the concept that all people and animals can be free is the basis of the social utopians arguments and any argument for such an optimistic idea(whether possible or not) likely came from some of them... just a thought, forgive me but i like to think,

p.s.(thanks for putting your class in this forum, it has made for an excellent thread)