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.
