#124: Response to "Fairy Story" Remark

[Mr. Neary]

In class today we discussed the effectiveness of Orwell's choice of "A Fairy Story" as a subtitle.  Now you have gone home, enjoyed a brief respite, and read the preface to Animal Farm (specifically xvi-xxi).    Compare your original reaction to the subtitle to the critic's.  In your response, complete TWO of the following:

 

           A. React to the critic's argument (or some facet of it)

 

           B. Identify a similarity and/or a difference between your position and the critic's

 

           C. Comment on the critic's most astute observation

 

Keep your responses concise and thoughtful.

           

[Ashley Gubernick]

4:19 PM (less than a minute ago)

Originally I thought "A Fairy Story" was a terrible way to describe "Animal Farm," but after today's discussion and reading the critic's response I have come around slightly. After today's discussion I realized that while "A Fairy Story" is an inaccurate way to describe "Animal Farm," it is a reasonable choice of subtitle in order to reach the demographic that Orwell may have been hoping for. A "fairytale" about talking animals will reach a younger audience while the deeper meaning will affect an older audience (all of this was said in class). When I read the critic's response I found his reasoning true and well thought-out, but also a little far-fetched.  The critic claims, "the fairy-story that succeeds is in fact not a work of fiction at all."  This is where the critic lost me.  Most children, from what I understand, grow up watching fairytales as fiction.  Who is Orwell to redefine a fairytale (or fairy-story)?  This reasoning also contradicts what I said about Orwell picking the term "fairy-story" to reach out to a younger demographic.  Orwell can't attract a younger audience with the term "fairy-story" then propose that his fairytale is not fiction; the younger audience will be very confused.... like me.  To say a book with talking animals is not fiction at all is insane.  There is such a thing as historical fiction, which this could be considered.  And there is such a thing as science fiction, which arguably because this predicts the future "Animal Farm" could be put into that category.  But to say a book like "Animal Farm" is as fiction as the opening chapters as Genesis is too far-fetched.  Orwell's writing is supposed to be about the effects of Communism, but because of his poor choice, readers are focussing on the subtitle instead.

[Alexa Lee]

Before reading the preface I believed that the subtitle was appropriate.  Animal Farm contained the necessary elements of a fairy tale/story such as personification and fantastical elements such as animals plotting to overthrow humans and succeeding in their plan.  Additionally not all fairy tales involve romance nor end happily nor must be entirely fictional.  The critic's argument confirmed my beliefs about fiction "The fairy-story that succeeds is in fact not a work of fiction at all" with his example of Pinocchio. The critic also mentioned that Pinocchio is not a "didactic children's romance", which is very true and also supports my point about unnecessary romance in a fairy tale.  We had similar views in these aspects.  I felt that the critic's best observation was that he saw that despite the impossibility to "attach a moral to any familiar sense to Animal Farm, where wickedness ends in triumph and virtue is utterly crushed" that "it is just this sense of purposeless cruelty... that gives the clue to Orwell's purpose... for calling Animal Farm a fairy-story".  This is brilliant.  He shows in multiple fairy tales the arbitrary cruelties of life where because of ill fortune someone or many people die and one person succeeds.  I think what Mr. Woodhouse is trying to say is that Orwell called Animal Farm a fairy-story because there was that same purposeless cruelty in the Stalin totalitarian regime (eg. the Purges) as in the fairy tale life.  

[Melissa Lee]

At first, I thought the “Fairy Story” subtitle was not an accurate subtitle. Because fairytales revolve around fictional characters and tend to explicitly demonstrate certain motifs and themes, to me Animal Farm seemed to be too unique to be in a category that was seemingly comparable. As it incorporated historical elements symbolically and constantly I did believe it had certain fairytale aspects, but wasn’t a typical fairytale. And in the analysis, the initial questions put forward kind of agreed with some of the assumptions I made, like how it could be a fairy-story with neither magic nor a Prince Charming. However, there were important observations about Orwell, like how he himself stated he was sure of his political purpose within his writing. And yet, it was noted that the morals derived from his politics were morals nonetheless, even though they weren’t the expected ones. Also, the observation that “[fairy-story tellers] move by not seeking to move; almost, it seems, by seeking not to move” hinted at what I originally suspected differentiated a fairy story—the opinionated voice. But what I thought was interesting was the comment about the lack of emotion and development playing into the simplification of fairytale characters, apparent in Animal Farm. The author of the analysis described “rebelliousness against the truth revealed”, connecting this objective emotion to the historical context.

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

[Connor]

In class today I came to the conclusion that "a fairy story" was an appropriate subtitle due to a fairy story describing and idillic world that was impossible to attain in Animal Farm or the Soviet Union. I enjoyed the argument that the reason for the subtitle was for the lack of rounded characters. The critic explains that the characters in fairy tales and Animal Farm do not develop over time and are each present to serve a purpose of the plot. The critic then explains that Animal Farm does not use three dimensional humans, but "fixed stereotypes, puppets, silhouettes----or animals". I thought that the explained reasoning behind making the characters animals not only fit well into the farm allegory, but also exemplified the lack of dynamism present in animals. I think that my interpretation and the critic's had similarity in the sense of deprivation of humanity. I think that it is human nature to be disillusioned with the status quo. Removing the human element leaves static characters (animals) and a world without change (a utopia). 

[Steven Wood]

I thought the critical response to Orwell's subtitle was fantastic and well written connecting many points together to create a bullet-proof argument.  Reading this response only solidified my belief that Orwell meant what he said.  I believe his most powerful statement was saying Orwell was obviously a man of great intellect and he most definitely did not use words lightly.  Every word Orwell picks means something;therefore, the subtitle he used had some meaning and was a thought out description not a hasty decision to write "fairy story" as the subtitle.  This point I agree with the critic.  Additionally as the author I believe that he would know best how to subtitle his works.  Another astute observation made by the critic was his/her interpretation of marality and how it is used in fairy tales which explained the lack of a moral or happy ending.

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

[James Lofton]

After reading the preface, I must acknowledge that the critical
analysis of Animal Farm, particularly the subtitle, is very in depth.
One particular part of the author's arguments that interested me was
the analysis that fairy-stories are written without morality. This
lack of morality can be applied in many ways to the Soviet Union which
the book critiques. One of the many stereotypes of communist Russia
was that it was a place of extreme desolation and emptiness, not just
because of the climate, but because of the social construct. As a
result, the lack of emotion in the Soviet Union can be compared to the
lack of emotion expressed in many fairy-tales as the author depicts.
As a whole, I agree with what the analysis stated. Though the preface
goes into much more depth and background than i did when i analyzed
the "fairy-story" subtitle, it makes perfect sense when the author
says that Orwell was not a writer to use words irrationally. An author
who wrote a book as in depth, and forward thinking as Animal Farm,
would not throw away the integrity of his book with a silly subtitle.
Orwell is considered one of the best thinkers of recent history... I'm
sure he thought out every word in the book, even the ones on the
cover.

On Apr 18, 2:36 pm, "Mr. Neary" <tjne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In class today we discussed the effectiveness of Orwell's choice of "A
> Fairy Story" as a subtitle.  Now you have gone home, enjoyed a brief

> respite, and read the preface to *Animal Farm* (specifically xvi-xxi).
> Compare your original reaction to the subtitle to the critic's.  *In your
> response, complete TWO of the following*:

[Lizzy Hilt]

I enjoyed reading this preface because it gave some very insightful points that I had not thought of in class while constructing my response. During class I had made the decision that “A Fair-Story” was not an appropriate subtitle but throughout the discussion, my mind was quickly changed. I believe the critic addressed the point very accurately with the observation of oversimplified symbols. He stated they cause the book be interpreted with such passion people become excited in finding out the truth, without this intention. They can be interpreted in a magnitude of ways with different people reacting to different events. In my opinion, this is the most critical part of fairytales. Even though, at first, Animal Farm does not come across as a fairytale, the critic also addressed that Orwell said the fairy-story had a political purpose. This was intriguing because the critic said that this implied that there was a moral, just like in fairytales. Overall, the discussion in class and this preface changed my original opinion that the fairy-story was a not accurate.

[Cat Mosier-Mills]

I found this argument to be very profound, and much more concise in my understanding of Orwell's decision to limit a story like Animal Farm into a "fairy-story" category. Mainly, the author argues that calling it a "fairy story" isn't just some shallow, silly label Orwell had in mind; in fact, fairy stories are very complex, as they lack most ethicalness and morality (going beyond lack of morals.) I think this is an excellent interpretation; I always looked at fairy tales as moral lessons on how to behave, as I included in my response, but then I realize they involve lots of actions without consequence, actions without guilt; and very hary situations (wolf and Snow White, for example) that aren't guided by "ethical merit", or worlds that are governed by superficial rules (ugly vs. beautiful). Therefore, my response was entirely different from the author's, as I failed to grasp just how complex fairy stories are, and how we often miss their lack of morality when we dismiss them as shallow.

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

[Leigh]

Personally, I think the subtitle is appropriate because the author has the right to name his book whatever he wants. That being said, I can see why some people have issues with the title. The title is meant to draw attention perhaps because of its irony. Like the critic said, "the fairy-story that succeeds is in fact not a work of fiction at all." I think this observation is particularly accurate because even though the story is based on actual events, they seem to farfetched to be reality. Orwell adds to this fantasy-like plot with the use of talking animals. Like the critic, I believe these fictional aspects symbolize the impossibility of such a society. Clearly Orwell couldn't write a book that literally criticized the Soviet Union, but through the use of not so subtle symbolism he made it clear what his views were.

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

[Rachel Hochberger]

One similarity I found between my opinion and the critic’s was how at first thought, Animal Farm and fairy-story didn’t seem to go together at all. Originally, I thought of fairy tales in a similar way to this author’s description- a maiden in distress, a hero, or some sort of divine consolation- all missing from Animal Farm. But he goes on to say that many fairy tales contain much more than this, which I also began to agree with. He explains that fairy stories are actually written “not merely without a moral but without a morality,” and that the common perception of a fairy tale is often a misperception- they’re often something often much deeper and darker. They diverge from the common themes of fairness, lessons learned and a happy ending. He uses Little Red Riding Hood as one example- a little girl wants only to visit her grandmother and is eaten by a wolf- to show how fairy tales often provide a happy façade for a real-life lesson that we will often encounter in our lives, and how Animal Farm fits comfortably into that category.

           

[Allie Martin]

One similarity between my argument and the critic's was that we both thought Orwell purposely used the words fairy story. He was not the kind of person to just say something with out really thinking about it. I also liked how the critic focused on how there was not happy ending, making it less of a fairy tale. He also pointed out how the humans were overthrown at first, but in the end everything worked for them. I also liked his opinion of how Animal Farm was too deep and meaningful to be a fairy tale.

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

[Colin Castro]

I found the critic's argument interesting. It provoked me to further
consider the fairy tales I know, and how they can be simply observed
as messages or morals bound into a simple package of a story. But, it
was interesting how the critic examined Orwell's moral, and how he
felt Animal Farm was a story of saddening wickedness and cruelty.
However, when looking past that the critic felt Orwell was saying life
is simply how it is. I also found his connection to the political
moral that uses simplified symbols to create a strong sense of truth.
By the conclusion of the story, I strongly disliked Napoleon and this
story further engrained my feelings of Stalin's brutality and
aggression. The critic and I came to similar conclusions in the sense
that Orwell's masterfully written allegory is almost perfectly
described as a "fairy story", because of its simplicity and lack of
dynamic characters. Orwell's carefully extended metaphor does read
rather simple, but unsurprsingly our discussions find this metaphor
appear much more deep, and intricate than the simple plot, and
characters make it seem.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Mr. Neary <tjn...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Maureen McDermott]

A. I still do agree that "fairytale" was a good choice for Orwell to call his book, although after listening in class today and reading this selection my reasoning is slightly different. Reading this argument made me realize that I was using the word fairytale a little too lightly, and, as the author said, "fable" may have been more a long the lines of what I was talking about since a fable is something that encompasses that whole metaphorical meaning that is not on the surface. I do, however, see and appreciate the irony Orwell was using by calling Animal Farm a fairytale. And I kinda feel like, more than anything, it was almost used to mock Communism and also to play in this sort of fantastical element to it to show that it's something that will never be able to successfully happen. 

B. In the end I agree with some of the critics reasons for labeling it a proper fairytale, and disagree with some. He talks at one point about how the characters fulfill many of the stereotypes that fairytale characters are given and fit the archetype of your average fairytale, and I agree with this point. You have the bad guys, their opposition, the bystanders, and many of the traditional roles of characters in fairytales. In making that same point, though, the critic also says how he things that characters aren't rounded, have no dimension, and didn't really evolve over time, which is a point I couldn't disagree more with. One of the things I was impressed with while initially reading this book was how developed the characters were, and how accurately they portrayed the many depths of a communistic society, especially considering how short the book was. I thought Orwell did a fantastic job developing the characters and giving so much thought into how their every moves would be perceived. So I thought the characters were extremely well rounded and developed, contrary to the belief of this critic

C. I think the critics most astute observation was when he talked about the world in which a fairytale takes place, and that it is a world without any regard towards ethical merit, and a world that is beyond good or evil. The implementation of Communism into Animal Farm, and the horrendous thing that is becomes seems to be something that exists beyond this world, something that should be incomprehensible to most likeminded human beings. And yet, somehow, it still occurs not only in this book, but also in history, and the world just let it happen. I just thought that point was really interesting and thought provoking, and it was something I wasn't really thinking about in class today.

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

[Drew Vollmer]

When this question was first raised, I personally agreed with the
subtitle "A Fairy Story", those I was still doubtful. This preface on
the other hand, came off as quite zealous in agreeing with the
subtitle. By using such connections as "Genesis" or "Pinocchio", the
author is able to not only support his argument with concrete details,
but those that most people can relate to. This passion and
insightfulness is probably a factor of time, seeing as us students had
simply a matter of minutes to argue our point. But I digress. What I
found to be the greatest argument in this piece was regarding the
message of fairy tales in general. After comparing the piece to
Pinocchio, mentions that all fairy tales follow a similar message:
"Life is like that- take it or leave it" (xxi). While most obviously,
one may argue that because "Animal Farm" has a severe lacking of fairy
godmothers and damsels in distress, it can not be labeled "A Fairy
Story". Why, not even the message necessarily agrees with the typical
fairy tale. Rather, it is the nature of the message that puts the
story under such a classification. Aesop's fables follow a similar
format in their morals, suggesting that this is the nature of life and
it isn't going to change. Naturally the reader responds thinking "I
know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned" (xxi). Such is the
nature of fairy tales. It leaves little room for questioning, but much
for accepting. Although it may be cynical or rather pessimistic in
some cases, fairy tales all show such a pattern in their message.
Thus, Animal Farm fits appropriately amongst the other "Fairy
Stories".

On Apr 18, 2:36 pm, "Mr. Neary" <tjne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In class today we discussed the effectiveness of Orwell's choice of "A
> Fairy Story" as a subtitle.  Now you have gone home, enjoyed a brief

> respite, and read the preface to *Animal Farm* (specifically xvi-xxi).
> Compare your original reaction to the subtitle to the critic's.  *In your
> response, complete TWO of the following*:

[Shefain Islam]

A. I read the critic's argument at least three to not just understand but relish it. The critic brought out ideas that I would never think of like the fact that fairy tales aren't meant for happily ever afters but rather to show the cruelty of the world (as he said "Take it or leave it"). When rethinking this argument, I quickly reexamined my library of fairy tales in my head and was able to validate his point with every single fairy tale I could remember. Since we read fairy tales while we are young, we often only see the charming prince, the beautiful princess, and the happily ever after because our minds are so basic at that point that we only pick up on the simple symbols themselves....not what the symbols stand for. I found this idea very intriguing in the critic's argument.
B. The critic did mention my argument (that the basic and fundamental elements of a classic fairy tale are missing) but completely twisted it to work towards his angle. He argued that fairy tales also have their senseless cruelty like Animal Farm. An example of this is all the princes that try to save the princess but sadly fail. We never remember these characters and the unfairness they went through. In Animal Farm, we also see this repetition of injustice in life simply because of luck and destiny.

C. In my opinion, I loved the critic's comment about how no one remembers the other princes in fairy tales because if you think about it, it's very true that no one remembers that random prince that got eaten by the dragon. However, the character still exists and adds a reality and darkness to fairy tales. I also agreed with the critic when he said that fairy tales are not works of fiction but are rather "transcriptions" of reality (dark and light moments alike) using simple symbols. As we read reread fairy tales we finally begin to understand that their is something beyond a magical kingdom with a prince and a princess.

[Sarah M]

B. One similarity between my position and the critics was the
observation that fairy tales do not include rounded characters.
Instead of creating developed, three-dimensional human beings, a fairy
tale simply creates caricatures of a value that the caricature must
represent (beauty, innocence, evil, etc). This is also how George
Orwell created characters in animal farm. The animals all represent
flat stereotypes of their allegorical counterparts in Soviet Russia.
They go through the events of the novel with no significant change or
arc; the hardworking keep working and the corrupt stay corrupt. These
fixed ideals parallel those of a fairy tale, because in both
situations, the characters are just caricatures for ideas, void of
emotion.
C. One very astute observation the critic made was when he drew the
parallel between both a fairy story's and Animal Farm's lack of human
emotion. Their is no moral justice or fairness present in both
situations; quite the opposite, because many are heartlessly
slaughtered in a very casual way. But the reason that Orwell describes
such a purposeless cruelty is to highlight the lack of sense or
morality in the fairy story. People live and die not based on right or
wrong, but beauty, timing, and author's whim.

[Zoe Bermudez]

Initially I thought the subtitle of "Fairy Tale" seemed a little
inaccurate and I didn't really agree with it. I guess, I really didn't
analyze the message that Orwell was trying to send out. Now, after our
class discussion and reading the critic's view on it, I've been
convinced that "Fairy Tale" is a perfect subtitle. I thought the
critic made a very good point that stood out to me. He said that
Orwell made Animal Farm a 'transcription of a view of life into terms
of highly simplified symbols' that leaves us with 'a feeling of
rebelliousness against the truth revealed'. I loved the way he
described it, and with me, it really clicks and I find some truth in
that statement.

[Addy]

A. I think that this argument is very well constructed. The critic takes Orwells word that it is a fairy story, and tries to prove it to himself as much as anyone else. He isnt trying to oppose Orwell, which would turn people away from his argument, but he tries to work with it, and makes a very good argument. I think the way he went about critiquing the work very well. I really enjoyed reading what he had to say, and agreed with most everything.

C. I think that his most astute observation is when he says, "The fairy-story that succeed is in fact not a work of fiction at all...It is a transcription of a view of life into terms of highly simplified symbols; and when it succeeds in its literary purpose, it leaces us with a deep indefinable feeling of truth." I think that this is a brillant way to sum up his argument and I really think that it is a great work of writing. It just ties every thing together.

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

[Alex Freedman]

On Apr 18, 2:36 pm, "Mr. Neary" <tjne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In class today we discussed the effectiveness of Orwell's choice of "A
> Fairy Story" as a subtitle.  Now you have gone home, enjoyed a brief

> respite, and read the preface to *Animal Farm* (specifically xvi-xxi).
> Compare your original reaction to the subtitle to the critic's.  *In your
> response, complete TWO of the following*:
>
A difference between my position and the critics is that the critic
does not believe that even on a basic level "Animal Farm" can be
considered a fairy tale. I believe that on a basic level, the talking
animals and unrealistic plot is quite whimsical and fairytale-like.
However, we do both agree that looking into the deeper meaning of the
book that it innnapropriately subtitled a fairy story because the plot
and ending are not fairytale like at all. I believe the critics most
astute observation is comparing Orwell to poets. I agree with the
arguement that his words are verse and each individual word has almost
double meanings. Orwell's prose does the job of telling the story of
the Russian revolution by disgusing is as a "fairy story". Orwell knew
what he was doing when he subtitled this story, and through discussion
(even writing this post) my opinion has changed. Orwells tongue-and-
cheek subtitle represents his goal as a poet, author and historian and
acurately describes his novel.

[Quincy Shuda]

When we originally talked about the subtitle, “A Fairy-Story,” I thought that it was completely unfitting for the story Animal Farm. After discussing it in class, I did start to see the connections and how it could be accurate in certain ways. When I read the preface, I found similarities and difference to my original thoughts. The closest similarity our ideas had was one of the ideas written in the beginning of the passage, that the basic elements of a fairy tale are not present in the story. There is no magic, no happy ending besides for the villains, no Prince Charming, no damsels in distress, and no sentimental interest. I agree with the author that at least some of those elements should be present for it to be called a “Fairy-Story.” But looking at a deeper meaning, Orwell obviously did have a reason for that subtitle. A difference I saw between my original argument and the author’s of the preface was that he argued that fairy tales CAN have morals and deeper meanings like Orwell’s did. The fact that there is such purposeless cruelty creates a setting that is unlike anything that could exist in the real world, which makes it fantastical. This was an idea I didn’t think of before but does make sense. I think that the most astute point was that fairy tales to succeed because they try to move people, which is basically what Orwell did in the story. He just simplified a situation to make it more understandable, which is what a fairy tale does. This point stood out to me because when I used to read fairy tales, as a child, I wasn’t searching for a moral, I just read the stories and knew I enjoyed them. This is exactly what is being said in the preface and it makes for very captivating writing.

[Josh Klag]

I did not originally think of "Animal Farm" as a fairy tale, but when I saw that Orwell applied such a label, i immediately saw the reasoning. However, the critic outlines a deeper meaning to the subtitle, one that I never would have thought of. He cites the tones of inevitability and unfortunate circumstances present in fairy tales, as well as their sterile, unemotional nature. He also discusses the truth of fairy tales, and states that they view facets of life using simple symbols. I agree with the critic's arguments, and see truth in the majority of his arguments. The majority of the animals on the farm are in an unfortunate situation, as the revolution is solely in the hands of a select few. And of course, the book portrays and analyzes Marxism and its application in the Soviet Union, using animals as simple representatives of people, events, and concepts. 

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

[Ben Cohen]

I thought that the subtitle was appropriate. My reasoning is that
fairy tales cannot be defined exactly, but some key characteristics
can be identified. I believe the two most important characteristics
are a fantasy component and a moral or lesson learned. "Animal Farm"
includes both of these. Orwell does a great job on shining a light on
the tyrannous rule of Stalin while doing it indirectly through non-
existent characters. The difference between the critic's argument and
mine is our definitions of fairy tale. The critic believes the author
must include a prince charming and a happy ending, but I believe fairy
tales just have to stretch the reader's imagination while teaching
them something abut life. The one observation of the critic that I
agree with is about the simplicity of the characters. Orwell somewhat
oversimplifies the characters, which lessens the imagination aspect of
the fairy tale.

On Apr 18, 2:36 pm, "Mr. Neary" <tjne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In class today we discussed the effectiveness of Orwell's choice of "A
> Fairy Story" as a subtitle.  Now you have gone home, enjoyed a brief

> respite, and read the preface to *Animal Farm* (specifically xvi-xxi).
> Compare your original reaction to the subtitle to the critic's.  *In your
> response, complete TWO of the following*:

[Jeremy Rhome]

Although some truth presents itself by subtitling Animal Farm as "A Fairy Story" overall I think that this conveys some inaccuracy.  First and foremost, talking animals dominate the plot of this story, immediately many think of this as a fairy tale, but one has to look into what the animals represent.  Orwell clearly alluded to communism and Russia through both the characters and the plot.  Only in the most literal sense is this story a fairy tale.  By examining Orwell's intended figurative meaning one could actually classify Animal Farm as realistic fiction.  

In the introduction to the Animal Farm, the critic expressed some of the same sentiment as me.  He first stated that strictly speaking, Orwell created a fairy tale simply because of the events that happen, in short, animals take over a farm.  However, the critic continues by saying that this lacks an essential part of a fairy  tale because the characters do not live happily ever after at the plots conclusion.  The critic claimed that this story a fairy tale because of "purposeless cruelty" and the usual suspension of disbelief necessary for interpretation of a fairy tale.  The critic seemed to understand both arguments about the title but in end he acknowledged George Orwell's decision to subtitle this book a fairy tale.

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:36:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Neary wrote:

[Kaleigh Link]

A) I agree with Woodhouse, if Orwell used a fairystory as the
subtitle, then it had to be for some important reason with an
underlying meaning; if Woodhouse is writing he preface as someone who
knows Orwells work then W. knows that O. wouldn't have made that the
subtitle if there wasn't some clever meaning behind it.

B) I felt that when Orwell called it a fairy story as an adept way of
not making Stalin think that the book is about the Soviet Union; even
though some of Stalins men were onto Orwell, they couldn't have pinned
anything on him because the book is very sneaky with wording and
sybolism. I took Woodhouse's preface as an agreement to my thoughts.

On Apr 18, 2:36 pm, "Mr. Neary" <tjne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In class today we discussed the effectiveness of Orwell's choice of "A
> Fairy Story" as a subtitle.  Now you have gone home, enjoyed a brief

> respite, and read the preface to *Animal Farm* (specifically xvi-xxi).
> Compare your original reaction to the subtitle to the critic's.  *In your
> response, complete TWO of the following*: