Literary Criticism Of George Orwell Essay, Research Paper
* Again, sorry about that spacing, there’s more where this came from, though! *
LITERARY CRITICISM
Eric Blair s Evaluation of Animal Farm (positive)…
Eric Blair wrote much in response to George Orwell s Animal Farm. The
following is a small excerpt which I feel best describes his positive review of the book
in a limited amount of writing… Orwell is significant for his unwavering commitment,
both as an individual and as an artist, to personal freedom and social justice. While
he wrote a variety of works, his novels Animal Farm (1945) and Nineteen Eighty-Four
(1949) are best known and most widely read. Animal Farm, a deceptively simple
animal fable about a barnyard revolt, satirizes the consequences of the Russian
Revolution, while also suggesting reasons for the universal failure of most
revolutionary ideas. Orwell s skill in creating a narrative that functions on several
levels is almost unanimously applauded, and the novel is generally regarded as a
masterpiece of English prose. Nineteen Eighty-Four attacks totalitarianism, warning
that absolute power in the hands of a Western democracy could result in a repressive
regime. Orwell s ability to perceive the social effects of political theories inspired
Irving Howe to call him the greatest moral force in English letters during the past
several decades.
Frederick R. Karl s Evaluation of Animal Farm (negative)…
The following is an excerpt from Frederick R. Karl s 1972 essay titled, George
Orwell: The White Man s Burden. Orwell does frequently fail us, however, in not
clearly indicating what belongs to literature and what is proper to history. History
demands, among other things, blinding clarity, while literature can be impressionistic,
frenzied, symbolic, romantic. Between the two, as Aristotle remarked in his Poetics,
there is bound to be a clash, for the intention of one differs crucially from that of the
<
elements sufficiently, so that one frequently gains at the expense of the other. There
is no conscious sacrifice on Orwell s part, but there is an evident lack of
imagination, the synthetic process capable of wedding dissimilars. Having accepted
Naturalism as the mode for his type of novel, Orwell forsakes those techniques that
might have projected his political ideas into deeply felt literary experiences. Lacking
Zola s tremendous intensity, he cannot compensate for what he loses through
unadventurous methods.
An Evaluation of Animal Farm from a Potential Publisher of the book (negative)…
After the Animal Farm is over, there is a section (in my copy of the book) titled,
APPENDIX 1 Orwell s Proposed Preface to Animal Farm. In this proposed preface,
Orwell speaks of a publisher who started by accepting the book, but went against
publishing it after consulting someone from the Ministry of Information. Here is an
extract of a letter from the publisher featured within APPENDIX 1. I mentioned the
reaction I had had from an important official in the Ministry of Information with regard
to Animal Farm. I must confess that this expression of opinion has given me
seriously to think…. I can see now that it might be regarded as something which it
was highly ill-advised to publish at the present time. If the fable were addressed
generally to dictators and dictatorships at large then publication would be alright, but
the fable does follow, as I see now, so completely the progress of the Russian Soviet
and their two dictators, that it can apply only to Russia, to the exclusion of the other
dictatorships. Another thing: it would be less offensive if the predominant caste in
the fable were not pigs. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt
give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as
undoubtedly the Russians are.