Animal Farm was required reading in my high school (ages 16-17), which was the perfect age to introduce its layered concepts. It inspired us look at history and government in a whole new way.
Such interesting observations, Annie. While the book was first and foremost about communism, it was also a spot on metaphor for importance of a republic over pure democracy due to the flawed nature of man.
While the U.S. government was hammering out in the early 1780s, the framers published The Federalist Papers to convince the public that a republic over a pure democracy was critical. The problem with a pure democracy, James Madison argued in Federalist Paper 10, was that a pure democracy allowed an avenue for takeover by a flawed faction, similar to the one Orwell described 150 year later. Only the checks and stops of a republic with its separation and (state) representational powers could keep the public well- informed and armed against attempts at “cakes and circuses” chicanery.
Mom I had to google exactly what a republic was. Despite my familiarity with the word, I have a dearth of knowledge when it comes to political models.
I associate the word most closely with a banana. I see the reason for this is because in Britain we have some sort of highly complicated compromise of a political structure. Can you be a republic if you have a constitutional monarchy? We have a house of elected representatives and a house of lords. It sort of sums up the way we do everything. Rather than create a new system that works, we stick together all that is in place with blu tack and give it another name. Somehow it all still works in its dysfunctional way.
Or, you google it, @ AnnieS, and here it is in part.
And I quote from Google and AI; not MY explanation, as I don’t try to boost myself up.
AI Overview
The statement @Supermom posted contains several historical inaccuracies and anachronisms
. The U.S. government was not being “hammered out” in the early 1780s, but rather the mid-1780s. The Federalist Papers were not published to prevent a “takeover by a flawed faction,” but instead to convince New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. The comparison to Orwell’s ideas is anachronistic, and the term “cakes and circuses” has roots in Ancient Rome, not 18th-century America.
The phrase “cakes and circuses” was a term used by the ancient Roman poet Juvenal and has no relation to the founding of the U.S…
Rather easy to look up, Google works for everyone.
@RightNow The work on the Articles of Confederation, which acted as the first constitution and laid the groundwork for the Constitution itself was drafted and enacted in late 1777. That core knowledge is taught in every high school and survey-level college and university history course.
The Federalist Papers were actually written to convince a gun-shy infant nation that the Articles of Confederation were wholly inadequate and that only a stronger federal government (and its powers of taxation, forming a defense, etc.) would save the fledgling nation. Under the Articles, the country was at grave risk of failing by the 1780s. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were primarily campaigning for the mutual benefits of a strong federal government married with representational government lest the United States just devolve into “States.”
However, you are missing my point in this discussion, which is the framers’ concerns about the potential for a runaway government given the nature of the human condition, which Orwell so terrifyingly exemplified in Animal Farm. As Dex observed, at the heart of every decision in the design of the U.S. government was that even with the best of intentions, there is always a tyrant or as Dex noted, an alpha in the making, wringing his hands for control. Annie’s comments got me thinking about how Orwell so chillingly anthropomorphized the dangers of communism and and carried forward the Constitutional framers an early citizens’ most deep-seated fears.
Have you read Federalist Paper 10? Madison along with other framers, knew well that a republic could be the one obstacle preventing a runaway government (socialist, communist, autocracy, stratocracy, etc). Superb arguments.
Etymology is fascinating .
Referring again to the thread, “cakes and circuses” Annie used this interesting metaphor, which we both understand to represent the appeasement of the masses. It is a well-understood warning and an unfortunately too-well-used weapon.
I have learned a new word today! I’m trying to remember the word I usually use to describe the same thing. It might be “personification”. But I can see anthropomorphism is more appropriate in the case of Animal Farm. I guess it would also apply in the story of the three little pigs. Whereas personification is a figurative application. Here endeth today’s lesson!
Haha, yes, I get it with the banana! Likewise, every aspect of our government has been a compromise. It mostly works well her too, except voters ever exclaim their disdain for Congress while ever electing the same people back to office (no term limits). It’s a labor of love, but it feels more like labor than love these days.
I confess limited understanding of the workings of your constitutional monarchy, except that it can’t technically be a republic because, by definition, your head of government is not directly elected and you maintain a monarch that is neither representationally nor directly elected - despite his or her powers being limited to Crown Consent.
While you all have a monarch as head of state and a prime minister as head of government, the U.S. head of state and head of government exist in the single role of the President. While the President is directly elected, and often has no experience in the legislative branch (our Congress, your Parliament) as far as I know, your Prime Minister comes from Parliament.
Every qualified citizen has the power to run for the presidency. I like that notion a lot because at the end of the day we are the government. A good number of Presidents have had no prior experience in government, particularly Congress.
I must admit I thought that Animal Farm, 1984, Catch 22 and the Lord of the Rings trilogy had been read by everybody of our generation by the time they were 25(ish).
There was also a period when Gunter Grass’ The Tin Drum, Kurt Vonnegut’s SlaughterHouse Five and Luke Rheinhart’s The Diceman had been read by everyone and anyone.
Perhaps it was just me and my circle but I thought it much wider than that.
I think the original is “bread and circuses”, but these days people have higher expectations! My understanding is that the “cake” element includes holidays and a netflix subscription.
I thought Vonnegut’s “breakfast of champions” was the book to read. To be honest he gave me indigestion.
Catch 22 lies half read in a cupboard somewhere. Lord of the Rings - I managed up to the middle of book 2. Then watched the film trilogy.
I’ve not heard of the Diceman and the Tin Drum until today. I think it may be a girl/boy thing. Some books were very popular in the male domain. I ended up reading quite a few books like this because of Mr early love of my life shared them with me. Steppenwolf (Hesse) was one, Michael Moorcock books were part of that as was Vonnegut. We were always in the bookshop on a Saturday afternoon.
I never finished Catch 22 either, but once I discovered Vidal’s and James Michner’s books, I read them like candy.
I do remember that we were passing around a copy of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and The Exorcist because we knew our parents didn’t want us to read either. I should have listened to them .
That reminded me of when I was at school and someone brought in a copy of Lady Chatterley’s Lover that was passed around during a Maths lesson with all the ‘relevant’ pages turned down. I read it again later when studying for my degree and wondered what all the fuss was about!
Someone lent me Lord of the Rings because they wanted to me to share their enthusiasm.I read the first page and that was that.I did keep it for a few days so they wouldn’t be disappointed.
I read Lord of the Rings in a very fat paperback as I travelled overland from the UK to Australia. It wiled away the time on long bus journeys. I have never seen any of the films nor reread the book since.
My only complaint is that Frodo’s trip took something like 600 pages to get there and about 40 to return home.
Like most people, I prefer a hard copy to an e-book, especially when you want to flick back a few pages to refresh your memory or re-read something. But an e-book has its advantages, which are pretty obvious.
However, there are times when you download a book without really taking any notice of the size of it. You know you’re in trouble when it takes a few days of reading before the percentage of book read increases by 1. This has happened a few times, such as The Ragged Trouser’d Philanthopist, and Middlemarch.
I think one of the worse authors for “wasting” a load of middle pages is Stephen King.
.
.