Reviews tagging 'Blood'

Állatfarm by George Orwell

68 reviews

vibingjaren's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark tense fast-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? Yes
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.25

It was an okay book. I had to read it for a class, but it did have me interested at some parts. Wish the ending was more exciting, but the ending makes sense for the story. Boxer deserved better.

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

moudi's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark inspiring sad tense fast-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? N/A
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A

3.25

القراءة الثانية ومختلفة للرواية ، ففي المرة الأولى كنت أنظر إلى أنها تجسيد للسوفيت خاصة فترة حكم ستالين مما جعل العمل متوقع وجعل انتباهي أضعف ، لذلك أنصح القارئ أن يسمح لاورويل أن يرسم على ورقة بيضاء دون توقع منك ، ولا تقارن رسمته إلا حين ينتهي فلا تقف لتبحث مثلا هل فعلا أقام جلسة اعدامات بعد إجبار المتهمين على الكذب .. لأنك ستقيم المشهد بمعيار المصداقية لا بمعيار الخيال الأدبي، و أنصح أيضا أن تقرأ بلغتها الإنجليزية فاورويل لا يملك قلم شاعري وصفي يدخل مفردات و تراكيب مختلفة ورفيعة لهذا ليست صعبة ولا معقدة. 
<b><blockquote>The pigs did not actually work but directed and supervised the others. With their superior knowledge, it was natural that they should assume the leadership. </blockquote></b>

النقد المنحاز منذ العنوان !
<b><blockquote>None of the other animals on the farm could get further than the letter A. It was also found that the stupider animals, such as the sheep, hens, and ducks, were unable to learn the Seven Commandments by heart. After much thought, Snowball declared that the Seven Commandments could, in effect, be reduced to a single maxim, namely: " Four legs good, two legs bad." This, he said, contained the essential principle of Animalism.</blockquote></b>
هل رأيت حيوانات تدير مزرعة ؟ الترميز للشعب بالحيوان كانت خطوة حادة فالمؤلف منذ البداية يرى هرطقة الفكرة ، يكتب اورويل تحت خطة مسبقة يرسم محطاتها و ينتقي ما يسلط الضوء عليه وكيف يتحرك ، تأتي بعض التعليقات بأن المؤلف منحاز وأعتقد صحة ذلك لكونه قد جعل الفصل بين الحكام و المحكوم أمراً طبيعي .. كالفاصل بين الإنسان و الحيوان على اعتبار أن المزرعة دولة، يؤكد هذا تصورات المزارعين المجاورين حين سمعوا خبر تمرد الحيوانات فقالوا جازمين ستصبح غابة . 

ربط الشيوعية بالاتحاد السوفيتي 
<b><blockquote>"We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night, we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if We Pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades" cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, "surely there is no one among .you who wants to see Jones come back?" 
Now, if there was one thing that the animals were completely certain of, it was that they did not want Jones back.</blockquote></b>
لا تحتاج لعظيم معرفة فقراءة مقال في ويكيبيديا يكفي لتدرك أن اورويل بدأ حديثه بأفكار المنظومة الشيوعية لينتهي بها بالنهاية السوفيتية مؤكداً حتمية المسار في طريق الشيوعية، وهذا الربط جاء كفرصة لذم حكومة ستالين و فضح زيفها وخيانتها لكنه لم يكن موضوعياً ، فقد كان بالإمكان وضع نهاية تساءل بموضوعية الفكر الشيوعي .. ماذا كان سيحدث لو التزمت الحيوانات بالوصايا السبع؟ لو استمرت الديمقراطية؟ ، ليس بعيداً القول بأن الرواية مزايدة سياسية لأنها قطعا ليست نقدا موضوعياً.

وضع الدواء مع الداء 
<b><blockquote>The animals listened first to Napoleon, then to Snowball, and could not make up their minds which was right; indeed, they always found themselves in agreement with the one who was speaking at the moment.</blockquote></b>
يضع اورويل في الرواية بذور الشر منذ البداية إشارة لكون الفكرة من أساسها مسمومة ، فهناك في الوصايا الأصلية - قبل تحريف الخنازير لها-  نرى عنصرية و رجعية و تطرف ، وصايا لم تكتب وموضوعها راحة الحيوان  بل عداءاً للبشر ، كذلك قيمة الذاكرة في ردع الأكاذيب السياسية ودور الترفية و الاحتفالات التي تشتت انتباه الشعب 

الشخصيات ترمز لأشخاص و معاني
<b><blockquote>"What is that gun firing for?" said Boxer.
 "To celebrate our victory!" cried Squealer. 
"What victory?" said Boxer. His knees were bleeding. He had lost a shoe and split his hoof, and a dozen pellets had lodged themselves in his hind leg.
 "What victory, comrade? Have we not driven the enemy off our soil,the sacred soil of Animal Farm?"
"But they have destroyed the windmill. And we had worked on it for two years!"
"What matter? We will build another windmill. We will build six windmills
if we feel like it. You do not appreciate, comrade, the mighty thing that we
have done. The enemy was in occupation of this very ground that we stand upon. And now, thanks to the leadership of Comrade Napoleon, we have won every inch of it back again!" "Then we have won back what we had before," said Boxer.
"That is our victory," said Squealer.</blockquote></b>
تميز الشخصيات كان واضحاً ، فكما أن نابليون هو ستالين يمكنك أن ترى بأن الغراب يمثل الكنيسة التي تنفي السعادة الحيوانية في الحياة و يخبرهم بأن جبال السكر في السماء فقط ، وحده الحمار بنيامين جعلني اتفكر.. هل أراده التاريخ؟ ما معنى أن ينطق التاريخ مرتين فقط؟ 

كتابة اورويل ليست أدبية
<b><blockquote>"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUALBUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" </blockquote></b> 
اورويل لا يملك قلم أدبي.. الرجل لا يتذوق المعاني و الحروف ولا يستمتع في الوصف الحسي ولا الشاعري ، اسلوبه مباشر و جاف يعتمد في تأثيره على الأحداث و الحوارات . 


Expand filter menu Content Warnings

rachaelcwilson's review against another edition

Go to review page

tense fast-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? A mix
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.75


Expand filter menu Content Warnings

rory_john14's review against another edition

Go to review page

medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot
  • Strong character development? It's complicated
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

2.5


Expand filter menu Content Warnings

komiification's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark informative tense fast-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? A mix
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

I read this years ago when I was in school, and even still it gives me fucking chills.

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

michaelion's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark funny informative fast-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

2.75

Um okay girl I guess. You really tried it tho. You'll never be Back at the Barnyard!

This book only works if you think the masses as a whole are stupid and inherently lazy and individualistic and people are inherently violent and evil. Yaaawn boring! Also Orwell never heard of show don't tell. It's no wonder this shit is read in every high school across the country. The devil may work hard but the CIA works harder.

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

nitar8's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark sad tense fast-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? A mix
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? Yes
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

4.0


Expand filter menu Content Warnings

magimiel's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark reflective fast-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? A mix
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? Yes
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0


Expand filter menu Content Warnings

grereads's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging reflective slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? N/A
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.25

The story itself was interesting and a good metaphor. That being said, Orwell's simple style really didn't do it for me. I know it's a choice motivated by the desire for everyone to be able to comprehend his works, but I like books with more beautiful complex writing. It took me so long to finish this because it just felt too boring at times. No other complaints.0

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

quotablehedgehog's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark informative reflective sad medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? N/A
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.5


Expand filter menu Content Warnings