Sorry if its so bad that you want to cry

Compare the relationship the rabbits have with man in Watership Down, to the relationship that the animals have with man in Animal Farm

Man is referred to regularly in both George Orwell’s Animal Farm and Richard Adams’ Watership Down, shown in a both positive and negative light. The texts make the reader question many parts of our society and kind as ‘man’, provoking thoughts about whether our intentions or actions as people are as harmless as we may be led to believe.

In both novels, man causes pain and destruction at some point. In Watership Down, the demolition of the first warren is directly caused by the building of homes for mankind. The sign is described as a dangerous thing to us, ‘the sharp, hard letters that cut straight as black knives across its white surface’ creates an air of foreboding and menace. Through the powerful imagery of the letters cutting like ‘knives’ we know the sign is going to bring suffering and misery to the rabbits. Adams involves us in what will unfold, but the animals are kept ignorant, with only Fiver’s vision to warn them. This provokes sympathy towards the rabbits which is contrasted to the mistrust and anger towards man. When the homes are eventually built, the atrocities that happen to the rabbits are gruesome and distressing for the reader, causing us to question our influence on the world; how much we have destroyed? How many we have harmed?

In ‘Animal Farm’, we have a small relationship with Mr. Jones, as the animals depend on him for not only food and shelter, but for work too. This contrasts greatly with Watership Down, as the animals are predominantly wild. Although the animals of Manor Farm are described as ‘underfed’ and look at Jones as their ‘tormenter’, we cannot help but feel a small bit of compassion to Jones. The conditions for the animals don’t appear as grotesque as the suffocation some poor, helpless rabbits do in Watership Down. Jones is described a man who has lost his way and become ‘disheartened’ after ‘losing money in a lawsuit’, taking to drinking to perhaps drown his sorrows. By learning minor details about human characters we as readers can empathise with them, understanding why man’s relationship is turbulent. We are less condemning towards man in Animal Farm, whereas in Watership Down, due to the lack of a relationship with human characters, we side more with the animals, appreciating the lack of trust.

Woundwort, a totalitarian, dictating leader who oppresses and manipulates, is a product of humans. His brutal leadership is without a doubt cruel and unjust, but nonetheless successful. He has a lot of good qualities that would make a very effective Chief Rabbit; he's brave (as even Bigwig notes) and he is clever (he designs Efrafa to hide the entrances, making it harder for humans to exterminate them). He's very good at organizing his troops and improvising a plan, like when Hazel's rabbits are escaping. Woundwort is almost a hero, but he uses his qualities for selfish and unnatural goals. It can be argued that humans warped Woundwort into the negative character that he is; he had the potential to be an incredibly positive leader, but due to his bad experience and relationship with man, he has been permanently damaged.

Man’s influence can be seen as positive in some aspects of Animal Farm, unlike in Watership Down, where man is the ‘common enemy’. Most ‘guidelines’ that the pigs lay down appear to be against mankind, but the act of reading and writing is something that separates man from animals, so the act of writing the rules is ironic in of itself.  While the concept of ‘Animalism’ opposes wearing clothes, living in a house, walking on two legs etc. at the end of the novel, the pigs have adopted all of these and manipulated the other animals into believing that this is acceptable. Everything which supposedly ‘betters’ the animals follows ideas that are human. An example of this is the tools used to build the windmill. The work is described as ‘hard’ due to the tools being ‘designed for humans and not for animals’; the animals are working towards something devised by men, for men, using man’s tools. Here we can debate that the animals never better themselves by following man’s constructs, and only decline, however they do try to educate themselves and learn, which is very ‘human’.

To summarise, the animals’ relationship with man in both Animal Farm and Watership Down is mostly negative. The reasons for this differ in the novels; in Watership Down lots of pain and suffering is implemented by humans, whereas in Animal Farm, the ideas that man had, which are followed, are more destructive than any physical action. However, despite the relationship being predominantly negative, man’s intellect and innovative ideas in Animal Farm (which are admired by the pigs), are adopted, helping to ‘advance’ the animals’ way of life.  

Chapter Two questions

1. The three pigs seem to represent the Communist leaders. Who represents who?

2. The leaders of the 'Animalists' try to dissuade the other animals from believing in 'Sugarcandy

Mountain'. How does this fit in with the communist view of religion?

3. Boxer and Clover, the carthorses, are the most faithful disciples of 'Animalism'.   Do you find their loyalty touching? What do they represent?

4. There are many conditions that allow Mr Jones's farm to get into such a state of disrepair as to facilitate the success of the rebellion. After an expensive lawsuit, the buildings start falling apart, the other farm workers become lazy and self-serving, and the animals remain unfed. Link this to the actual history of how the Russian Revolution became possible. Consider the Tsar's role, the role of World War One, and the condition of the Russian people.

5. Discuss the symbolism of the destruction of Mr Jones’s whips, reins and saddles.  Link this to the destruction of imperial icons in 1917.

6. What do you think happened to the missing milk? Is this portentous?

Extension Task

Look at the descriptions of Napoleon, Snowball and Squealer at the beginning of the chapter. Make a list of adjectives used to describe each character. How do these descriptions fit in with the way each character behaves in the story? Could you relate each of these adjectives with these characters’ actions later in the story?

Chloe's Response

Fiver also dreams, but is his dream clouded by a personal vision?

The dreams presented in both Watership Down and Animal Farm are both very different with consideration of the intentions and the result of each book. Both dreams could be considered to be clouded by personal visions, however some stronger than others.

In both Watership Down and Animal Farm dreams are created and spoken of by all characters, however the intentions of the dreams are very different in comparison and can be clouded by a personal vision. In Animal Farm, the reader is only observing the dream which exploits the real intentions of the dream which is to manipulate and control. Major’s dream is clouded by a personal vision as he believes himself and the other pigs are the more skilful and intelligent animals on the farm and suggests the others are inferior. Throughout the speech, Major utilizes and uses manipulation to convince the other characters that all animals are equal and the only way to create a classless society is through revolution, however he suggests the most superior characters are the pigs in which reveals and makes his personal vision more visible.

Major persuades the other animals that his dream will create a utopia but human nature is corrupting this utopia and the only way it can be resolved is to banish the humans. Although Major may seem as though he has good intentions the deception of the dream is shown when the result of the revolution is poverty, death and corruption.

Comparing the dream in Watership Down to Animal Farm, the intentions are very dissimilar. Unlike Animal Farm, we see the dream through Fivers eyes. The dream Fiver had was seeing a field covered in blood ‘’There isn’t any danger here, at this moment. But it’s coming – it’s coming. Oh, Hazel, look! The field! It’s covered with blood!’’ which is different in comparison to Majors dream to create a utopia and gain power. Fivers dream was used to inform rather than manipulate and alter the society.

I believe Fivers dream was not clouded by a personal vision and the intentions of his dream were not to corrupt or deceive other members of the warren. Fivers dream may have been clouded by fear and which shows the terror rather than to create terror, but he has the dream to inform the other characters for their own awareness and for the good of the group rather than for individuals like Major. Fivers dream suggests that all characters are equal which different to Animal Farm as the intentions can be strongly argued.

To conclude, the dream in Watership Down did not carry any bad intentions nor was it clouded by a personal vision. Major’s dream in Animal Farm was intended to alter and manipulate the characters and make him, Napoleon and Snowball the more superior characters which is different to the intentions of Fivers dream which did not carry and element of manipulation or corruption.

Compare how mythology is used in the 2 novels

Compare how mythology is used in the 2 novels Both Orwell and Adams use mythology to govern the lives of the animals in there novels and they perhaps reflect two opposing opinions about religion and myth. Whilst Animal Farm's strict rules eventually become corrupted and lead to downfall, Watership downs fables guide the animals to safety and peace. Orwell portrays aspects of religion through the character Moses. Moses tells the animals of a utopian "heaven", in the sky called 'sugarcandy mountain'; it is arguable that he has good intentions in keeping up the morale of the animals. The fact that the pigs try to stop the spreading of these stories perhaps shows how fragile their system is. It is clear that the pigs want all the animals to be focused, maybe even brainwashed into thinking about how fortunate they are to be a part of the regime. They want all the animals to work their hardest and also want them to think they are living the best possible life. Boxer and Clover are described as 'disciples' of the pigs and they rely on them completely. The horses in this novel are the working class on Animal Farm who have no say in the way things are run but do the overwhelming majority of the work that allows the system to continue. Discouraging the tales of Moses is perhaps more important for the horses if they believe a perfect afterlife awaits regardless of the amount of labour they've done, the system may fall apart. However the afterlife is shown very differently in Animal Farm. Initially, Hazel is scared of the 'Black Rabbit of Inle', and is 'trembling' at the thought of it. However by the end of the book and as Hazel has grown older he is more accepting. The black rabbit has a strangely and enticing friendly tone, inviting Hazel to join his 'Owsla', and inviting him into the afterlife. This perhaps reflects human nature and how are opinion of death and whether we should accept it changes over a lifetime. In this instance, Adams is possibly telling the reader that it is futile to worry about death as he gives a comforting portrayal of the afterlife. Orwell uses the 7 commandments in Animal Farm to show how the promise of a communist regime can be easily corrupted and destroyed. The changes made to the commandments throughout the book, by the pigs, clearly marks the deterioration of ideals, as well as having obvious religious connotations. Orwell focuses more on a religious belief in Animal Farm than the mythology surrounding 'sugar candy mountain' to perhaps portray the strong influence the church has on the way countries develop. The pigs in this instance, are the leaders of the religion and they change, without anyone noticing the rules of living a moral life to suit them. This reflects the way the a political party can sometimes allow religion in a way which only suit the ideals of the government. In contrast, the beliefs that rule the rabbit's lives in Watership Down teach the reader lessons instead of being a warning. The fables of El'arairah are allegorical and teach the characters in the story how to react to certain situations. Adams uses mythology, perhaps to show the importance of storytelling to provide life lessons for the young. Some of the stories of El'arairah are used to explain the importance of following the pattern of nature. However, like in Animal Farm, there is also a warning about what may happen if morals aren't followed. Cowslip's and Woundwart's warrens show the extreme of characters that disobey the fables and in this way Animal Farm and Watership Down are similar. In conclusion, Orwell uses mythology to reflect the futility of a communist regime whereas Adams shows a positive outcome for those who believe in fables and the supernatural.

Hannahs

 To what extent is the achievements of Woundwort a purer reflection of the weaknesses of Man’s society?

 

Adams creation of General Woundwort and the way he organizes his warren create a direct parallel with the dictators and dictatorships in our human society. Woundwort was protected by humans (or ‘elil’) but resents it as soon as he has the ability to, biting the ‘kind old schoolmaster’ as often as he could. The automatically presents woundward to the reader as resentful and brave, however I believe that where Woundwort is being brave he is also being incredibly stupid as he mistakes someone caring for him as a capture. This is mirroring of the psychological issues that are present in humans where the once a person is damaged by a problem in their past, they begin to resent anyone’s attempts at loving them. This sets Woundwort up to be a damaged and evil character in the novel. This is strengthened by Adams’ attempts to separate Woundwort completely from other rabbits by claiming that ‘most rabbits in his situation, lacking almost all experience of wild life, would have fallen victim at once to elil: but not Woundwort’ This shows how woundwort will be a stronger character that the others in the novel and this also gives the character an almost heroic reputation already as it shows how he is not like other rabbits.

 

He mirrors a dictator in human society because of his lust for strength and power. He increases the rabbits under his control, refereeing to it as his ‘kingdom’ and ‘his followers’. These words have connotations of religious figures which is ironic since Woundword actions develop to be quite sinister. However I believe that Woundworts actions begin as quite heroic and selfless, as ‘Woundwort himself went on with their work while they slept’ which is an extremely selfless act showing how he begins acting for the benefit of the entire warren. I believe that this is a direct parallel of Hitler as he also began with the intentions to build and benefit his people but then was driven to evil by power, showing the human weakness in the drive for power. Woundwort creates a hierarchical system in his warren to enforce control, this creates a societal divide in the warren which shows the warren will not be one of equality like the warrens before.

 

Adams uses this parallel of Woundwort and humankind to show how even the worst actions could have begun with the best intentions. Woundwort is a character which the reader does not want to feel sympathetic for but cannot help having feelings of empathy for, because of woundworts tragic backstory his actions are not fully forgiven but are understood by the reader who can recognise this behaviour in the faults of human society. Even though his reign of dictatorship upsets and creates an awful society for anyone in his power he is still unarguably brave and strong and creates the most efficient warren. This shows how in society we must get the correct balance between the happiness of people at the bottom of hierarchical system and the efficiency of the system and woundworts warren is a clear example of how not to run a society no matter how efficient it is.

 

Compare the relationship the rabbits have with Man.

Compare the relationship the rabbits have with Man

In Watership Down and Animal farm, Man is seen as an enemy, but for different reasons in animal farm, this opinion changes over time and the relationship with man develops, whereas in Watership Down, the relationship remains consistent.

In the first part of Animal Farm,Jones (representative of man) is seen as the one enemy of the animals. He is the source of all of their oppression. Old major tells the animals that their lives are 'miserable, laborious and short,' and that this is due to Man. He says that 'Man is  the only real enemy we have'.  
   In the early part of the pigs reign, Man was still considered an enemy to all, and the pigs used the threat of Jones coming back to control the animals. This was only effective due to the hatred the animals had of Man. Later in the novel, however, the relationship between the pigs and Man starts to change as the pigs gain more power. When they begin trading with Man, they are showing that they see man as an equal, and as a resource to utilize. This eventually evolves into the pigs adopting the lifestyle of man, and although they initially claim to still hate Man, they begin to become friends, and so this show that they seen Man as equal, and as not an enemy but an ally.
   The animals always have an interactive relationship with Man throughout the novel, be it by Jones running the farm, or the trading and communication that happens later in the novel. This close relationship may be the reason that the pigs ended up being corrupted by Man and adopting the lifestyle.

In Watership Down, the rabbits live in complete detachment to Man. Unlike the trading that occurs in Animal Farm, Man has nothing to provide or offer the rabbits. He is just an enemy, just like another elil. When Man does intervene with their lives, it is always in a negative way, such as the wires set at Cowslips warren.
   Man is shown to be powerful, but incompetent and ignorant. This is shown by how the Men that shoot Hazel speak in a dialect that is stereotypical of ignorance or stupidity.
   Woundwort was raised by Man, but he rebelled and escaped. This may be because there is nothing that Man can provide that a rabbit cannot provide himself. Woundwart was however influenced by Man, and that became the reason for the failure of his warren - his warren was successful in that the rabbits survived, but due to the human influence, their nature was lost and none were happy, so overall the warren was a failure.
   Form the beginning to the end of the novel, from Man destroying the Sanford warren to the fight with the human-influenced warren of Efrafa, the rabbits relationship with Man has remained the same, and remained detached.

Posted on behalf of Catalina

JS2: Compare the portrayal of the heroes of “Watership Down”.

In “Watership Down”, the whole theme of heroes is simultaneously less and more obvious – although any supposed heroes do not come with their propaganda as they do in “Animal Farm”, they are far more worthy of the title.

Within “Animal Farm”, Old Major is first seen as a huge influence, and could be seen as a hero of Animalism: it is he who first thought of the concept, and he who prophesised the revolution, yet he is forgotten – if anything, humans become more of influence, despite their being the common enemy.  Humans are imitated, evident in that it is the one with the most power who is considered a hero; namely, Napoleon, who terrorises the other animals and rules using the fear of death as motivation.  Of course, one who wields power is not the definition of a hero, yet it is all too easy in a dictatorship to revere the leader as a hero when the consequence of thinking otherwise is death.

This is completely different to “Watership Down”.  The characters in particular that show elements of heroism – in this case, real heroism – are Hazel and Bigwig, who have something of an antagonistic relationship, with Bigwig being the only rabbit to refuse to call Hazel “Hazel-rah”, and so refusing to accept his authority as leader. Bigwig’s heroic characteristics come mainly from his strength, and the respect gained from his position in the Owsla in the Sandlefordwarren; Hazel’s come from his actions in a situation he is really far too young and inexperienced to be in – he has gone from being an outskirter of the warren, and only a year old, to leading a group of rabbits on a journey that is not only long, but which has unknown consequences.  Considering this, Hazel does incredibly well – he is responsible, and has enough sense to have control of their situation (at least for the most part).

However, it could be argued that there are no true heroes in either novel – those in “Animal Farm” are totally false, and it doesn’t take long for them to betray their supposed comrades. It could be of note, though, that Boxer could be viewed as something of an unsung hero in his way – he works hard, and keeps himself motivated (“I will work harder”) even when he is driving himself to utter exhaustion, and when he is sold, by the pigs, to be slaughtered, it is undoubtedly one of the saddest parts of the book.  On the other hand, though, he is only a hero in his undying loyalty and hard work – merits that are to be valued, but he does nothing to help the other animals aside from working himself into the ground: this can be forgiven, though, when it is considered that he is too dim to realise the horror of the situation, and does what he can. The heroes in “Watership Down” – with the exception of El-ahrairah, who is a mythical figure – are given their titles based primarily on their hierarchy: Bigwig is respected because he is strong and in the Owsla; Hazel is respected because he was the only one who seemed to have any idea as to what to do; Woundwort, even, built his way up through strength and violence, and he makes Efrafa an incredibly efficient and well-organised warren, if at the cost of the happiness of its inhabitants. This leads to an interesting point – General Woundwort’s status as a hero is incredibly questionable.  Despite both being dictators, Woundwort and Napoleon are totally different in that Woundwort doesn’t propagate his own heroism.  This could be because Woundwort built himself up, and went on to build up Efrafa, while Napoleon uses manipulation to get into his place with relative ease.

This then leads to the question: what makes a hero? The definition that people mainly think of is an ideal person who exhibits bravery, intelligence in difficult situations and strength; they are usually seen as “perfect”.  El-ahrairah is probably the only character that displays this at all, and he is the protagonist of legends – yet a lot of the characters in “Watership Down” (including Woundwort, in his way) show features and behaviours hinting at heroism, and even more characteristics showing them to be flawed. In “Animal Farm”, characters only show small elements of these characteristics, such as Boxer’s hard work, and the hens’ rebellion.  It could, then, be said that the main difference in the portrayal of heroes in the two novels is that, in “Animal Farm”, heroes are only those who do their small part to help others, and those appreciated as heroes are those who do nothing to help anyone but themselves; in “Watership Down”, true heroes aren’t real, but their ideas can be used in real life – not only this, but that even those with heroic intentions can cause problems, both on a small scale (such as when Hazel manipulated Pipkin to steal does) and on a larger one (such as Woundwort’s efforts to create a perfect warren).  As a result, the portrayal of heroes in “Animal Farm” is starker, and considerably more cynical – in “Watership Down”, a whole spectrum is displayed.