Orwell’s Animal Farm is capturing the cynic and sick reality of the world through farm animals, becoming one of the thought-provoking literary pieces for many people. However, the author’s style has also initiated certain arguments and was frequently called mediocre. His books often talked about politics and the unjust system, being somewhat overrated, which relates to Animal Farm. Thus, this essay will critique Orwell’s writing style in Animal Farm, based on considerable literary evidence, proving his plain writing.
Orwell’s political views portrayed in Animal Farm are frequently glorified and quoted. However, people do not tend to analyze his writing from a different side. Setting aside the prejudiced perception of the style, in reality, the author used linguistic pet hates to express his position, which would not be acceptable in today’s society. His statements regarding the government and the system unfolded under the prism of animals provoke to only hate the politics: “If you have your lower animals to contend with,” he said, “we have our lower classes!” (Orwell 51). He accuses politicians of vaguely presenting horrible crimes as protective mechanisms, dismissing any fair doings of the officials.
Animal Farm uses specific language to depict simplicity and truth and vague lies. He conveys some political statements in a complex style, as in the excerpt with Squealer explaining Napoleon’s actions. In other parts, the truth is described in a straightforward and simple way, so that even the most unintellectual individuals would be able to understand the writing, whereas in more insignificant parts he chooses to portray it in a deceptive style: “Four legs good, two legs bad” (Orwell 13). Such a contrast between plain language to infuse particular political views and vague imagery is seen as a manipulative instrument for instituting power and politically deceiving the readers.
By reading Orwell’s Animal Farm, the distinct simplicity of demonstrating political statements is perceived as specifically aimed at a mediocre population that would not understand it otherwise. In his writing, the reader gets a distinct impression that the simplicity that is often so glorified in this book is solely used because the author wanted to manipulate the low intelligence of average individuals, who are only capable of comprehending the fundamental nature of more complex themes. Though he succeeded in his deeds, and through such concise style, precisely the mediocrity, the population responded to his call “to chow down on a big bowl of conformity.” Therefore, his writing can be considered to be in some way cynical and sarcastic towards the average population.
Orwell’s depiction of political statements through farm animals is also somewhat a form of satire. He takes for granted the mass-driven population against self-seeking individuals in defining their views on the government, directly hinting at the lack of intelligence: “Several of them would have protested if they could have found the right arguments.” (Orwell 21). From such perception, Animal Farm is quite heartless, assuming the stupidity of the most, with no hope for gaining any knowledge or consciousness. The way in which Orwell depicts pigs in all their easiness of being manipulated is an exact comparison to the majority of society, which is clearly unconscious in their decisions.
In conclusion, the glorified simple style of Orwell’s writing in real life is only a masked form of calling the masses unable to understand the more complex context of politics. He manipulates the average population into his views of the world through plain writing and easy imagery of farm animals. Therefore, his well-covered messages to the mediocre population became the defining style indicators in Animal Farm, blindly making it classical writing.
Orwell, George. Animal Farm. Signet Classic/Penguin, 1996.