Animal Farm Summative Essay Example for Free

Animal Farm summational EssayAnimal Farm is an allegorical novel by George Orwell. It is considered to be an allegory because the farm and the discordant controversies within it are representing Russias condition before and aft(prenominal) its overthrow of the tyrannical tsar. The novel explores more than just political conflicts it shows the lengths human nature and gluttony can go, how surplus of power can destruct the truest of morality, how greed is present in every governing system, and no book, rule, or law can blot out avarice. It also cleverly observes how humans alter their kinships and mask their true feelings towards others for their own security, and this course of action is spare in the consanguinity between catnap and Mr. Pilkington.Napoleon plays a greater role in the backwash of the rebellion, rather than evoking the rebellion itself, and Mr. Pilkington does non play a great role in the novel until after the rebellion. Napoleon, from the very beginnin g, is made out to be an antagonist as he indulges in all sorts of peculiar activity, and constantly engages in arguments with Snowball, his partner in looking after the current liberal Animal Farm. The heptad Commandments are against everything man stands for, including Pilkington of Foxwood, and even if they do not have a direct relationship with for each one other in the beginning, Mr. Pilkington and Napoleon are enemies, because, as Old Major had once said, Man is the only when real enemy we have. Remove Man from the scene and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished forevermore (4).Napoleon and Snowball have a very idealistic view of Animal Farm, but Napoleons attitude towards everything is noticed to be changed after the overthrow of Snowball. His hatred towards the other farmers had already started to stammer when their rations fell short, but it is perceived that Napoleon started favoring Mr. Pilkington as he was against Frederick of Pinchfield, where Snowbal l was rumored to have resided. But their relationship is much standardized a seesaw as Napoleon goes through a phase of indecisiveness as to whether or not trust Mr. Pilkington as he had declined him any help during the Battle of the Windmill. For instance, when he had sent the pigeons to ask for help, Mr. Pilkington only replied with, Servesyou right.As the novel progresses, the educations are slowly altered, and this shows that Napoleons mind is slowly changing, his attitude towards the commandments are changing, and his attitude towards the humans are changing as well. For instance, the commandment No animal shall sleep in a bed, is altered to No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets, for Napoleons own luxury, and this not only shows that Napoleon has a new outlook on life, but also a new outlook on humans not only that, but he alters all commandments, showing he is becoming more and more like a human every day, until finally, the day comes when he stands on his hind legs, indulges himself in alcohol, and is seen to be playing poker with Mr. Pilkington. The most important chapter concerning Napoleons relationship with Mr. Pilkington would be the last chapter of the novel when the pas de deux are chatting and laughing, when they both draw aces in a game of poker. This signifies the looming power struggle between the two. two Napoleon and Pilkington are striving to be the stronger party and will stoop to any level to egress the winner.At the beginning of the novel Napoleon treats Pilkington with heavy disdain, and tries to form an isolated community of self-sufficient animals. As the novel progresses Napoleon engages in trade with Pilkingtons farm, and conspires with him to frame Snowball and make him appear a traitor. His relationship with Pilkington is purely selfish and both of them after the same end, to be the stronger of the two farms. To conclude, in Napoleons pursuit of creating his idealistic socialist utopia, he ended up turning into the ev il he practise out to banish, and turning into what all the animals dreaded turning into a human, just like Pilkington, which is why it was impracticable to tell which was which(89).