N a r r a t i v e9 7animals who take over their farm and try to run it themselves, with
disastrous results. As such, the novel is meant to be an allegory of
the collapse of socialist democracy in the early Soviet Union. Yet
the fact is that animals are incapable of running farms. It is hard to
sign cheques or ring up your suppliers when you have hoofs rather
than hands. It is true that this is not why the animals’ experiment
fails, but it has an unconscious influence on the reader’s response
to it. So the story is slanted from the outset. The way it sets up its
terms helps to prove its point. The allegory might also imply, no
doubt against its leftist author’s intentions, that working people are
too stupid to manage their own affairs. The title of the book, inci-
dentally, can be read as ironic. ‘Animal’ and ‘Farm’ go naturally
together. But they do not go together here.
The cards are similarly stacked in William Golding’s Lord of the
Flies, which shows a bunch of schoolboys on a desert island gradu-
ally reverting to barbarism. Among other things, this is supposed to
illustrate the case that civilisation is only skin- deep. As in Joseph
Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, we are all barbarians under the skin, a
view which effectively puts paid to any hope of social progress.
Scratch a schoolboy and you find a savage. Yet choosing children
for your characters helps to make the point rather too conveniently.
Children are only semi- socialised in any case. They are not yet
capable of such complex operations as running their own commu-
nities. In fact, some of them are not much more advanced in this
respect than Orwell’s pigs. It is not surprising that the social order
they try to build on the island rapidly breaks down. Lord of the Flies
thus makes things rather too easy for itself. The way it sets up its
case makes it more plausible than it might otherwise appear. It may
be that men and women are fallen, corrupted creatures, as Golding
himself believed; but you cannot prove the point by showing a