Literary Essay on the topic of Communism in "Animal Farm," by George Orwell

In the book “Animal Farm” by George Orwell, even though the characters are mostly animals, there is a sense of hierarchy. The animals riot and drive the farmer off the farm and have to decide how to keep the farm at a stable condition. The animals make it clear that humans are scum, and anything on the farm that pertained to humans the animals threw out. The animals rename the farm to, “Animal Farm” and prosper until the winter comes. When winter arrives, the animals have to decide how to deal with supplies until the winter ends. The book presents the leadership of communism. It presents a hint of tyrannical leadership. George Orwell writes replicates communism in a book about hardships on a farm using an allegory. George Orwell picks out the important parts of communism and implants them into the book. He does this to explain the hardships of communism in the Soviet Union, and how communism is a horrible way of governing a country. Orwell then used his information on communism and made the characters in the book replicate the attributes of the political party.

           

            There are many moments in the book where the author obviously states a topic on communism. The lead pig Napoleon, commands all the other animals to do tasks for him. He acts like the communist Lenin who oppressed the people of the Soviet Union. Napoleon sets different curfews to restrict the freedom of the other animals. An example of forced command is when Napoleon told the animals to learn how to read, “The pigs now revealed that during the past three months they taught themselves to read and write from an old spelling book…” (Page 21). Also, Napoleon posed a set of commandments which the animals had to abide to,
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy. 
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend. 
3. No animal shall wear clothes. 
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed. 
5. No animal shall drink alcohol. 
6. No animal shall kill any other animal. 
7. All animals are equal.

There were punishments if an animal were to not follow the commandments. Although the animal’s pledge was not to be human-like, Napoleon gets caught-up too much in his power, that he turns to human ways. Lenin promised his country not to be a tyrant, but throughout his immense power, he became one of the world’s largest tyrants in history. Napoleon is also the name of a French commander that ruled Europe in the late 1700’s, the name implies a leadership role, a commander. George Orwell uses these notes to expose his allegory of communism.

            Communism was a mode of government that contains no classes, no currency, in which the whole country is ruled by the government, or one higher individual. The country usually is ruled in tyranny, the citizens don’t receive many rights and freedoms, and those are also regulated by the ruler. There are technically two types of communism. These are two basic ‘concepts’ that have different impacts on a nation. The Marxist theory includes distribution of resources based on need. If the country needs something, the government will provide the people of the country. The country will be based only on need, and will conserve resources. Jobs and private businesses are limited. In Leninism, the object of conserving resources is identical, but private businesses are not existent. George Orwell wanted his readers to be aware of the tyrannical government.

            Different characters mirror different people that actually took place in the communist government in Soviet Russia. Napoleon obviously mirrors the ruler, Vladimir Lenin, who ruled Soviet Russia in the 1920’s. The puppies represent the security of the nation, or of the government. Old Major, the ruler of the farm before Napoleon, represents the leadership before communism. He forced the two pigs Snowball and Napoleon to promise that they would leave the farm better than he left it. But that wasn’t what Napoleon wanted to do. He wanted all the power, he could not share it with Snowball, and so he drove him out of the farm. Snowball is like Leon Trotsky, a failed communist that was deported out of the country. He was friends with Lenin, but the communist party decided that he was not worthy of leadership or even citizenship. These similarities can furthermore add on to the fact that ‘Animal Farm’ is indeed an allegory of communism.

           

            George Orwell through the short book of animals taking over and leading a farm is an allegory of communism. Many details hidden throughout the text point to the fact of communist leadership. Napoleon a pig, rules over all. He commands all animals to do tasks for the farm, and he set up commandments for the animals to follow. George Orwell wanted to show his readers what communism can do, it can ruin countries and it can ruin societies.

http://pietrocosta.blogspot.com/2014/03/literary-essay-on-topic-of-communism-in.html

Critical Analysis on that of, "Chris Christie bridge scandal: a primer," by Matt Smith

A largely popular news scandal that has been circulating the media recently, is that of Chris Christie. From on the web, to news stations, to magazines, Christie has been subpoenaed to tell information about the closing of the George Washington Bridge in Fort Lee.  The suspension of access of the bridge took place last September, exactly two months before his reelection. The article, “Chris Christie bridge scandal: a primer,” by Matt Smith of CNN covers the complete story.

Matt Smith centers his article about the ignorance of the governor, making him seem like the bad guy. He accuses Christie of telling his appointees to close the bridge down, somehow getting back at the mayor of Fort Lee who didn’t endorse Christie. In the article, there are many examples of how Christie might have ordered the closing of the Washington Bridge. Private emails closely monitored by the government show the obvious agreement of the traffic “problems” at Fort Lee. Closely after the emails hit the internet, Christie fired those he appointed that exchanged the conversations about the GW bridge.

At first, I was confused. Yes, I have heard of the supposed corruption of Christie, but I didn’t know why he would close the bridge in the first place (if he commanded to).  Matt Smith explains how Christie could have gotten back at the mayor of Fort Lee, by simply closing off the bridge that led to Fort Lee. “That caused days of massive traffic jams in Fort Lee, where the Democratic mayor had declined to endorse Christie.” He hurt more of the people that lived in New Jersey than the mayor himself. This man who has helped millions get out of the “mud” that happened to be Hurricane Sandy, instantly closes one of America’s busiest bridges to get back at a mayor who didn’t endorse him. That was kind of stupid on his part.

Also, by providing a breakdown of the events taken place during the closing of the GW bridge, I could easily understand when and how the bridge was closed, making it easier for me to understand the article. The quotes taken from some of the emails exchanged by Christie’s appointees also help me interpret the whole series of events by myself.

Matt Smith wants to lead his readers in suspecting the corruption of Chris Christie. He provides specific details that make Christie seem corrupted. Matt Smith as said before puts his quotes taken from key people that took place in the closing of the bridge, conveniently right before and after suspicions of corruption. He wanted to include his side of the story without making it seem to obvious. For example he includes, “ ‘If a woman died here, he's in deep, deep trouble,’ said David Gergen,” right after he includes that Christie somehow took part in the closing of the bridge.

Personally I believe that Christie, although he did many amazing things to benefit Sandy victims, took a major part in closing the bridge. I think that there are way too many facts and lots of evidence that all eventually directs to Christie being corrupt by closing the bridge for silly political reasons. I think he should face the fact that he has done something that hurt his own people, instead of lying to cover it up.

Why You Should Think of the Benefits

              I have just finished the book, “The Fellowship of the Ring” by J.R.R Tolkien for the third time. It’s plot keeps me interested through the five-hundred or so pages. Frodo Baggins a hobbit is left a spacious home while his well-known relative Bilbo Baggins leaves the Shire, the Region where the Hobbits live. Gandalf visits Frodo time to time, and at last, during a visit written in the book in detail, Gandalf proceeds to tell Frodo about the One Ring of Sauron. Frodo learns it’s powers, the powers include making the bearer invisible and extremely insane over the ring. Gandalf includes that Sauron is going on a hunt for his long lost ring, and he will have to destroy the ring before Sauron retrieves it. Gandalf also mentions that he will be assigned the best of the best to help him destroy the ring in Mordor. Legolas, Gimle, Aragorn, and his best friend Sam are assigned to venture to Mordor.

                The importance of the fellowship (the assigned group to destroy the ring) affects the plot. When fighting a rogue group of Orcs, Sam and Frodo are separated from the other members. Tolkien makes it obvious to point out the fact of where they get separated. The book has a main theme that wouldn’t be valid if Tolkien hadn’t added the separation of the fellowship. The point of fighting against all odds, Frodo and Sam, two Hobbits, are able to destroy the ring through skill. Legolas, Gimle, and Aragorn are faced to track the two hobbits, thinking that they are dead. If the fellowship didn’t disassemble, then there wouldn’t be as much thrill to the plot, which Tolkien wanted throughout the entire Lord of the Rings books. Also the journey tested Frodo’s vigor and stamina. Also, Frodo was being tested throughout the whole book series, but it was this journey that tested Frodo truly.

                 The whole book is very inspiring, and yes, it can relate to the present world. People believe they can’t do what they need to do. Frodo was challenged; he was confronted by Gandalf and told to destroy one of the most powerful objects in all of Middle Earth. Anyone would be kind of overwhelmed. Someone commanding you to do someone that might contain lots of death, well no one would take that kindly. Besides, Frodo was extremely scared on going on the journey at first. But he thought of the benefits, which was in fact saving Middle Earth from Sauron. So he faced the problem face-first, and went on the journey. Also, he purposely left the fellowship so he could destroy his problem, he thought it to be. He took matters into his own hands to get rid of the ring. That is a lesson people should learn. Either if you are too nervous about performing a play, or too scared to speak in front of class, thinking of the benefits of trying to accomplish that one confrontation will help in advance. 

Blog Review of "Perfect Match" written by Sophie Wang

Visit Sophie's blog to read the original blog post-> http://sophieandhercats.blogspot.com/

             I read this blog post while surfing through my classmates' blogs. This blog post in particular caught my eye because of its' intellectuality and inferences on the popular book by Jodi Picoult, "Picture Perfect". Picture book is a young adult book where the main character Nina Frost tries to accuse the child molester who sexually abused her son Nathaniel. But her son goes mute, and Nina goes somewhat mad over the fact that she can't find the according name of the suspect. The horrible sexual abuse that her son endured was both positive and negative on her own working spectrum. Positively, Nina learns to be more connected with her clients and forceful to protect her clients. Negatively, well, her son has drastically become a different person. He can no longer have the 'safety' to speak, or its just because he is traumatized of the sexual abuse. Sophie throughout the blog post intertwines the two sides of the spectrum. She mentions that, "This information might push her to emphasize with them and try her best to close the case in her favor," meaning that Nina just needed a 'push' so to speak, allowing her to become better at her job and win more cases.
             Through Sophie's blog post, I want to read the book. She makes the book, (even though it might be a 'gruesome' book), interesting to some extent that I, too want my own opinions of Nina's mistakes throughout the book. I, too want to decide how Nina could be successful at her job. Also, this book, although it had a very different plot, reminded me of the recent flick, "Prisoners" where two girls are kidnapped and a detective is sent to figure out who the real kidnapper is. Both fathers of the girls are completely heartbroken, but one father (Hugh Jackman) goes completely nuts over the kidnapping of his daughter and kidnaps the suspect himself. He continues to torture the suspect throughout the movie. The two plots intertwine at the part where one of the characters goes nuts to try to protect his/her son/daughter. Also, both books I can infer are thrillers.
               Overall this blog post by Sophie is very engaging to the fact that I would even like to see more of the same great material. I encourage you guys to go to Sophie's post and read it. Also, like I am, read the book, "Picture Perfect," by Jodi Picoult.

Non-Fiction Critical Analysis

       "After Mandela," an article featured in the January 13th issue of Upfront Magazine, by Patricia Smith, is an article that summarizes the successes and setbacks of Mandela's rule of South Africa. She includes people that express their ideas about his leadership. Most of her sources conclude that because Mandela ended apartheid, South Africa is in a much better state. But others like William Gumede point at the unemployment rates among blacks and adds how twenty percent of all adults that live there have AIDS. The current President in South Africa is also put into spotlight in the article. Jacob Zuma has been suspected of corruption and accused of rape. Why after all these years of Mandela's praise for fixing the country, will presidents return to become corrupt? Well, in the article it ends up pointing out that the country was yes, deterred from the continuation of apartheid, but current presidents have become faineant in fixing the unemployment rates, and South Africa may need another "Mandela" to save it from another catastrophe.
           Smith uses many craft moves to push the idea of failure returning in South Africa. One for example, is when she hints the claim, without totally revealing it to draw the reader in. This is very smart of Smith because many people, mainly because of Mandela's passing, are close with the idea that he fixed South Africa completely, and some people would have passed the article if she straight away wrote that Mandela did not completely fix up the country. Also, Smith uses according examples and quotes that trump the thought of the 'utopian' country after Mandela. Even after apartheid, of all blacks, only 15% aren't poor. So with example, Smith trumps people that said that all blacks live without poverty in South Africa.
           I personally that the country seriously needs to be put into shape. South Africa needs new laws, new government, and a new president before it can finally become a developed country. With half the countries population poor, the rich can pretty much have all the power. Looking at developed and thriving countries like Japan, where unemployment is under 4% which allows for a great majority country to become middle-class or rich. If South Africa can replicate how a thriving country succeeds, they too can succeed.

Critical Analysis Post #2

“Third world agriculture faces unfair competition from first world,” by Bhagirathi Lal Das is an article that explains the means of why third world countries are not treated fairly. Das explains in great detail how and why this problem takes place in society. Das includes that because many third world countries are trying to develop; they are used by other developed countries as ‘factories’ so to speak. Then they are paid in extremely low wages and only the developed countries benefit. To add to that, those developing countries like Bangladesh are treated unfairly because they are thought to be a country solely used for work. The press in developed countries almost never hears about the developing countries. For example have you ever heard of the Bangladesh factory collapse that happened in May? I didn’t even hear about it until at my school, we learned about it while reading a teen magazine. Word doesn’t really get around in the US, an example of a first world country.

I think that Das wants the reader to think about how they are treated in difference of how third world countries are treated. Also through this, Das wants the reader to feel concerned about the fact that third world countries don’t get treated fairly. Das uses craft moves like a rebuttal, certain important dates, and using certain important data to support the claim. One example of a piece of data used is, “An April 2001 study of the OECD secretariat – a developed countries’ organization – indicates that the developing countries provide domestic subsidy to the extent of about 40% of their agriculture production,” this supports his claim on how developing countries have to give 40% of their agriculture away.

In my eyes, as someone from one of the largest developed countries in the world, I think that we should be the ones to be giving our stuff to the countries that need to develop. Developing countries are the ones not able to keep developing because they have to give their stuff to developed countries. 

"The Catcher in the Rye" - Answering Inquiry Question #2

The book, “The Catcher in the Rye,” written by JD Salinger is about a teenage boy dealing with teen angst and maturity. The teen, Holden Caulfield, throughout the book deals with many academic and societal obstructions. Holden is expelled from his former prestigious school, and wanders around New York City, experiencing life as an adult. Holden has to consider what he should do for the rest of his life. A long the way, love, friends and family are interfered with.

Holden struggles with past lovers and recent admirers. Holden also reflects the memories of past friends, respectable and disreputable. He doesn't want to return home, in case his parents discover his academic dismiss. His parents are one of the characters that are often thought about throughout the book, but almost never introduced.

The reason why Salinger does not include his parents’ perspective is because the book is about how mature and independent Holden’s choices are. It is not about how Holden is controlled by his parents. Holden has an endless supply of freedom. An example is when after Holden is expelled, even though his parents aren’t informed yet, he can roam around freely through NYC. Holden also has the idea of living in a secluded area with his lover Sally Hayes, which in turn she declines. But Holden had the freedom of actually having the opportunity to do so at only seventeen years of age.

Even if these seem like mature choices, Holden only thinks about them because he wants to be a rebel. Holden wants to escape society, although he says he wants to fit in. He is a hypocrite, and the ironic thing is, he despises hypocrites. Holden’s choices put him in a awkward position as a teen. He doesn’t try when it comes to academics. Love is his priority at seventeen. He could easily devote his life to both.

This goes back to the perspective missing. His parents don’t censor him at all. Through dialogue between Holden and his younger sister, I can infer that his parents are strict enough to be able to look after him. But since there isn't any real proof, Salinger leaves the reader unable to concur if his parents are even able to take care of him.