Introduction
I have always gone through phases of enjoying reading and not enjoying it. When I was in middle school I loved to read. At that time, I was reading for fun. I would read in my free time and actually have fun with it. The stories I read were for the plot and such. Joining this class has taught me how important it really is to close read. This semester my group and I close read our books, and this brings a new purpose to the book. It gives the story more to think about making it feel more meaningful.
The book I selected, Animal Farm written by George Orwell, was my reading groups first chosen book. First we dissected James Baldwin’s novel Giovanni’s Room in preparation for doing these blogs and close readings on our own. Being the first of our four books, I was a bit nervous. I had to do the first blog, but once I started close reading and writing everything began to make sense. I have always been a fan of dystopian society novels and this one was no different. We focused on a different reading method for each blog. The first reading method was the reading for, the second was close reading for the genre, the third was close reading for intertextuality, and the fourth was rhetoric of narrative. We brought all four of theses reading methods together in order to completely dissect the true essence of George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm and we really got to the roots of it and what it stood for.
Blog 1: Reading For
Our groups first book was Animal Farm written by George Orwell, which happened to be my book. Since this was my book, I was in charge of writing blog one. Blog one is like the skeleton for the rest of the blogs. The blogs tend to build off each other, so this brought on a lot of pressure. It is quite an interesting novel to delve into as the first one. The novel is about farm animals who want their freedom from the human race. They want to establish a society that can allow the farm animals to live a life of freedom and happiness. The pigs on the farm take over as the leaders, especially Napoleon who takes the role as the dictator. The animals on Manor Farm are personified as they talk and are described with human functions. They even begin to resemble certain humans from history. The animal farm begins to symbolize the Soviet Union as their leader, Napoleon, begins to symbolize Joseph Stalin as he forms a communist society.
As I began the novel, I was unsure what to prepare for. I knew it was about an animal farm planning to rise up and rebel against the humans. I could not wrap my head around how Orwell could write this novel about talking animals on a farm without it sounding like a children’s story. At first I questioned this. I read animals talking and my mind immediately goes to the assumption of a children’s story. Orwell certainly proved me wrong. He took the concept of personifying animals and giving it a message. As I read on, it became very clear that the animals were not just talking animals, they became symbolic. Orwell turned these talking farm animals and began to challenge the readers minds with the symbolism within it. Not only did they become symbols of the Soviet Union and Stalin, but they also began to symbolize what happens to people when power and rebellion overcome them and take over.
In McKee’s “Structure and Meaning” he describes the premise as “the idea that inspires the writer’s desire to create a story” (McKee 112). While reading the novel, the premise became very clear to me. The premise we came up with for the narrative is “What would happen when the paradise that you fought for ends up taking a turn for the worst causing a destruction of a society?” I tossed around a few different premises for the narrative and reworded it many times. This ended up being the premise that fit the narrative the best. The word “paradise” is what really brings the entire premise together. This word is so important because the animals were not just fighting for their freedom, they were fighting for their paradise lifestyles that they envisioned and wished for.
Their paradise truly began to fall apart when a new leader naturally took position. This leader ended up being the pigs, specifically Napoleon who became the animal farm dictator. When a new society is formed it is only natural that someone will end up taking the role as the leader. It is human nature, which is what the animals on the farm begin to represent. The dogs and sheep began taking the role as guards in a way as explained in the novel in chapter seven, “Nevertheless, towards the end of January it became obvious that it would be necessary to procure some more grain somewhere. In these days, Napoleon rarely appeared in public, but spent all his time in the farmhouse, which was guarded at each door by fierce-looking dogs” (Orwell 75). At this point, I began to realize the paradise that they wished for could not become a reality. Initially everyone had the same idea for paradise. They all had the idea of freedom for the animals. They all wanted to be away from being under the humans. But the question is do they all have the same end goals? Do they all have the same ideas of how to get this so-called paradise? I was beginning to realize that this was Napoleon’s paradise and everyone else was just a pawn in it.
Once I realized that the pigs of the farm symbolized dictatorship, I delve deeper into this idea. Thinking about this, I began to wonder more about the ideals and rules in place on the farm. From the beginning, the animals had said in their Seven Commandments, “Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy,” and then they also said, “Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend” (Orwell 24). This was then repeated numerous times throughout. This is what Animalism was supposed to represent. Then at the end of the novel something interesting occurs. By the end of the novel the animals see Squealer the pig walking on his two hind legs! This shocks everyone as they then see the rest of the pigs doing it, including Napoleon as the pigs then chant, “Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!” (Orwell 134). At this point I realized that this freedom that the animals wanted only happened for Napoleon and his followers. The rest of the animals were being poorly fed and walking on four legs. The pigs were walking tall on two legs, above the other animals, and not abiding to the original ideas of the Animal Farm. I really understood here that power changed the pigs for the worst, and it helped me come up with my controlling and counter ideas.
My next goal was to find the controlling and counter ideas. McKee describes the controlling idea as, “A Controlling Idea may be expressed in a single sentence to describe how and why life undergoes change from one condition of existence at the beginning to another at the end” (McKee 115). My group and I then came up with our controlling idea as “Sole power leads to corruption of people, their suffering, destruction of a society, and slavery.” Our narrative graph shows the controlling and counter idea from chapter one through three, which did not fit by the end of the novel. This leads the counter idea to be “Freedom achieved by rebellion could lead to paradise when everyone abides to the rules.” This is what goes against the controlling idea, but it is not what wins in the end. The animals were not able to have the paradise that they wanted because the rebellion led to a dictatorship. Things did not go as planned because the power of being in control went to Napoleon’s head and the plans of paradise and freedom were shattered.
As the Animal Farm soon realizes, there is a very thin line between taking control and an abuse of power. The animals blindly follow Napoleon’s control and it leads to the downfall of the Animal Farm. Thinking back on history, there are many dictators that Napoleon the pig reminds me of. One of the main ones being Joseph Stalin. It seems as though Napoleon embodies Joseph Stalin and the Animal Farm itself begins to embody the Soviet Union at the time. The farm went into this rebellion with the idea that they will have freedom and be in control of their own lives. That is not what happened. The power overcame Napoleon as in the end of the novel, the animals watching him with the humans could not tell who was a pig and who was a human. It was all one big jumble of people who looked so similar. Napoleon became the thing he most hated and wanted to get rid of.
Blog 2: Close Reading for Genre
Close reading is a skill that certainly takes time to master. I believe before I started the class, I never truly understood how to close read. I thought I did, but this class helped me really understand how to close read and why it is so vital. I found Animal Farm very interesting to close read. It was interesting because with this book, you really have to read between the lines. There are numerous symbols and themes, too many to count. Throughout the novel the phrase “Four legs are good, two legs bad” (Orwell 34) is constantly repeated over and over because it is one of the commandments. It is an important one to focus on because when the pigs break this commandment it emphasizes how the pigs are becoming humans in a way. One of the pigs in the beginning had a dream about the humans mistreating the animals so they planned to rebel and rise against the humans. The goal was for this rebellion to resort in equality and freedom. The question is, how long can they all remain equal until someone takes charge and changes the rules?
In Silverman’s piece “The Subject of Semiotics” he discusses three codes that help you to understand the genre and how to read the text. Animal Farm shows a lot of evidence of the semic code. Silverman defines the code in his text as he says, “The semic code represents the major device for thematizing persons, objects, or places” (Silverman 251). Texts such as Animal Farm and others like it show a great deal of symbolism and such. It is showing you what is happening instead of just telling you. This novel is like a dystopian society, while the animals think they are creating a utopian society and are incorrect. Novels such as these tend to show many examples of symbolism and hidden meanings. One of the biggest examples of this is in chapter nine as said, “In April, Animal Farm was proclaimed a Republic, and it became necessary to elect a President. There was only one candidate, Napoleon, who was elected unanimously” (Orwell 116). This makes you think about the chain of events that led to Napoleon being “unanimously” elected.
The fact that Napoleon was unanimously elected is quite interesting. Over the course of the novel the other animals have been following him and whatever he said. Whenever someone broke a commandment there was a consequence. The interesting thing is that the pigs, mainly Napoleon, broke every commandment at a different point in the novel. Why are they blindly following this leader who breaks the commandments they came up with? Throughout the novel each of the seven commandments were broken by the pigs and they just changed the laws after. Why were the rest of the animals so okay with that? They believed everything Napoleon was saying because they just did not know any better. To them, Napoleon represented their paradise. He was their freedom from the humans, so they just followed him. They slowly began to see that Napoleon was like a dictator, but he their symbol of freedom and what they thought was going to be equality for the animals. This connects back to the semic code. In the novel there is a trend of symbols such as Napoleon, and when you read it using the semic code it brings new elements to the text. Reading with the semic code makes you realize the constant symbolism of four legs meaning animals and two legs meaning people. Initially they see two legs as evil, and in the end, we see Napoleon walking on two legs, and they cannot tell him apart from the humans. Napoleon resembles Stalin throughout the novel and it becomes evident when he begins walking on two legs. Does this symbolize human beings as becoming corrupt? Does it show that when people are given power, they become evil walk on two legs leaving their purity behind? These are the questions that the semic code raises from the text.
This is a very interesting topic given everything happening in our world. The animals on the farm are starting this revolution because they want equality for all animals, even though they have no clue the damage to come later. In Chelsea’s blog, she explains how this revolution is similar to the Black Lives Matter movements during the summer. They were protests fighting for equality. In the start the four-legged animals were like the oppressed so they started the revolution. All of the animals were equal until Napoleon took charge. He took charge and began walking on two legs rather than four, as he believed he was higher than the rest. Everyone needs to remain on equal playing fields so no one takes charge and makes others feel as though they are below them. It is an interesting novel to analyze given the BLM protests just a few months ago. (Chelsea’s Blog).
Just as expressed in blog one, the pigs were becoming more like humans. The difference between walking on two legs versus four legs is a huge part of the semic code. Initially they all agreed two legs were bad. Once Napoleon got a taste of power, he could not let it go. He became the thing that they all despised, the humans. He walked on two feet and declared that to be better than two feet. He went back on his word. It seems that walking on two legs symbolizes having power. But does it symbolize bad power? I think that Napoleon thinks walking on two legs makes him above everyone else. When he does this, he turns into a dictator. He turns into Joseph Stalin. He treated his fellow animals horribly, which is what they wanted to get away from. In the end, the animals could not tell the pigs apart from the humans. The power corrupted them and turned them into something completely unrecognizable.
Blog 3: Close Reading for Intertextuality
As we have established, the way George Orwell wrote Animal Farm reminds readers of a very specific thing. The Animal Farm resembles the Soviet Union as Napoleon very closely resembles Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union leader who brought on Communism. Was this Orwell’s intention? I think it was. I believe that Orwell wrote this novel as a political satire to show his audience what power can do to people. It is very interesting that a pig named Napoleon is set to resemble Joseph Stalin. Very satirical in my opinion.
Reading Ally’s blog made me think of something quite interesting. In Ally’s blog she explains how Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto closely parallels what the goals of the Animal Farm were. (Ally’s Blog). It has been mentioned numerous times already that Napoleon resembles Stalin and the Animal Farm resembles the Soviet Union. It is interesting because they resemble each other a lot more than just those. This novel and the elements in it perfectly parallel the ideas of The Communist Manifesto and Marxism. The novel shows evidence of what Silverman describes as the cultural code.
In Silverman’s text, he describes many different codes used that help to further understand and analyze a text. One of those codes is called the cultural code. In his text he explains the code as he says, “The cultural code provides the means whereby the ‘information’ contained in the authoritative texts of a given symbolic order finds its way into the novels, poems, and films which perpetuate that order” (Silverman 274). As I read that, I realized it sounded like it fit perfectly for these two texts. Animal Farm parallels The Communist Manifesto in more ways than one. It is as if Orwell read the manifesto and used elements from it into his novel. It follows the same patterns and are very symbolic of each other. They are also similar in the fact that they both end in corruption leading to their downfall.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto and it was published in 1848. This manifesto outlines what they see as best for their nation. They believe in Communism and Marxism being embraced. Of course, that came to downfall proving not to work. One of the main points that the text makes is about the Bourgeois and the Proletarians. In the text they say, “Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other – Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (Marx 3). Marx explains that the bourgeois are those in the middle class. They have money. Then the proletarians are those in the lower working class. When you look at this line initially, you think that the bourgeois are the humans, and the proletarians are the animals because they work to give the humans what they need. That may be what they resemble at first, but not later.
In the beginning of the novel, Major the pig gives a speech to the rest of the animals to inspire a revolution. He explains a dream he had where the humans were horrible to the animals and that they need to rise up. In his speech he says, “Now, comrades, what is the nature of this life of ours? Let us face it: our lives are miserable, laborious, and short. We are born, we are given just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us who are capable of it are forced to work to the last atom of our strength; and the very instant that our usefulness has come to an end we are slaughtered with hideous cruelty” (Orwell 7). This is the beginning of the novel. At the start it was obvious that the humans were the bourgeois, and the animals were the proletarians. It is interesting that I chose this example from the novel to use considering the point I am making is not about the humans. Why would I prove the animals to be lower class and humans to be higher?
While in the beginning the humans represented the bourgeois, that did not last for long. Eventually the revolution happened, and the animals took over. Napoleon became the leader. With that, all the pigs became higher class. The pigs and the other animals right by Napoleon’s side became the new bourgeois and the rest of the animals stayed the proletarians. The Animal Farm followed the rules of their new system called Animalism. This system parallels the ideals of Communism, which is what is outlined in The Communist Manifesto. The goal of Animalism was to create equality to all the animals. No more would they have to report to the humans and be their slaves. When a new social system is formed, it is very fragile. Animalism was very fragile which led to its downfall.
This novel is full of symbols and different representations. As you close read through the book you notice more and more things that seem similar. The ideals of Animalism and the events that occur throughout the novel very closely parallel the events of the Soviet Union and what Karl Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto. They completely parallel each other as Animal Farm has a similar formula to the ideals of the manifesto. The cultural code is present through the novel as the two texts relate. What makes this more interesting is that the manifesto, Stalin, and the Soviet Union are real things, making the novel quite the political satire.
Blog 4: Rhetoric of Narrative
When most people think of the term audience, they immediately think of the audience as those who are reading the book, watching the movie, the real people. Most only think of that when they think of the audience. In reality, there are many different layers to the audience. Most of the time the audience chooses to read something because it appeals to them. For example, myself and this novel. I wanted my group to read George Orwell’s Animal Farm because this is the exact type of novel that interests me. It is a story about a dystopian society, while they believe they are creating a utopian society and are not correct. It is a political satire as well. These are the type of novels that appeal to me. Thinking back on the books I have read in the past, it makes sense. The books I like have a type of pattern, just like everyone. The question is why is this true? Maybe the author of the book creates a formula for a certain type of reader because they know who their audience will be.
In Rabinowitz’s text “Truth in Fiction” he goes into detail about the three different audiences that actually exist. These three audiences work together in creating the true audience for the book and who it appeals to. It exploits what the type of reader is that reads it. The first audience he describes is the actual audience which he explains in the texts when he says, “This consists of the flesh-and-blood people who read the book” (Rabinowitz 126). The actual audience is the physical reader of this novel. In this sense, I am the actual audience for this novel as well as the rest of my group. This audience is in a more literal sense compared to the other audiences described.
The second audience is referred to as the authorial, or the hypothetical audience. In the text Rabinowitz explains this one as well, “Second, the author of a novel designs his work rhetorically for a specific hypothetical audience. Like a philosopher, historian, or journalist, he cannot write without making certain assumptions about his readers’ beliefs, knowledge, and familiarity with conventions” (Rabinowitz 126). This is a very interesting audience to understand because it is more of a hypothetical one. The author, in this sense Orwell, has a plan in mind. While he was writing the novel, he wrote with the plan of a certain type of audience. For Animal Farm the authorial audience could be historians or those who like an escape from reality. This is my type of genre. I love novels about dystopian societies that cause a downfall resulting in a rebellion. I suppose it is because it is like an escape from reality. It is also interesting because it gives me a sense of history, but symbolizing. It is not direct history, it parallels history. The authorial audience that I think Orwell had in mind while writing Animal Farm was those who can appreciate history, but more of those who want an escape from reality to see an alternate society leading to a downfall and rebellion.
The third audience is called the narrative audience. As Rabinowitz explains this audience, he describes it by saying, “Since the novel is generally an imitation of some nonfictional form (usually history, including biography and autobiography), the narrator of the novel (implicit or explicit) is generally an imitation of an author” (Rabinowitz 127). The narrative audience may be the most complex audience to fully understand. This audience does not live in our world, it is the audience in the novel. It sounds very confusing because it makes you question if the audience is in real life or in the novel. It is a complex concept, but I think it is quite interesting because of how complex it is. The narrative audience in this novel could be the animals. In order to get in the mind of the narrative audience, you have to imagine the narrator of the novel as real and as if you are in the novel. In chapter one of the novel, a pig named Major begins to make a speech. He starts the speech when he says, “Comrades, you have heard already about the strange dream that I had last night. But I will come to the dream later” (Orwell 6). In this moment I realized I had to get in the mind of the characters. I had to get in the mindset of being one of the animals at Major’s speech and insert myself into the novel as a character. This is how I can get a better sense of the characters thoughts as well as get in the mind of the narrative audience. I believe the narrator was writing for the animals of the farm to maybe warn them that this paradise was not what they believed. It seems as though the narrator saw that Napoleon was turning into a dictator because the rest of the Animal Farm saw. I think that the narrative audience is the naive animals that the narrator was warning that Napoleon was becoming a dictator. This narrative audience concept could go in many directions, but this is where I see it as someone who is a fan of the genre and getting into the mind of the novel and the characters within it.
I found Animal Farm to be quite an interesting novel to dissect and close read. With this novel, you cannot simply just read it. You must read closely and get into the mind of Orwell. While reading this, I would stop myself a lot. I would ask myself why? Why would Orwell choose to make the Animal Farm like the Soviet Union? Why does Napoleon parallel Stalin? Why does Animalism mimic Marxism? Why is the pig who parallels Stalin named Napoleon? Why do the ideals of Animalism and their Seven Commandments look so similar to The Communist Manifesto? I found all of these questions to push my reading of the novel. Asking these questions to myself helped me to become a better reader for this novel. I did not simply just accept these concepts and move on. Once I realized these things, it helped me to connect the book together. It helped me to realize that while it parallels the Soviet Union, it is also a perfect representation of a political satire. I found that Orwell wrote this as a political satire because paradise and freedom are not always what they are believed to be. Nations and societies come crashing down. When someone takes the role as leader, they disregard everything they initially believed in because the smallest taste of power makes you crave it more. Everything Orwell did in this novel he did on purpose, he knew exactly what he was doing with every element of the novel. Orwell proved to his audience just how fragile human beings are because once Napoleon became more powerful, he was walking on two legs and let his fellow animals stay on four, as if they were below him. Orwell wrote this novel with the intention to get his readers thinking about humanity and how quickly people are ready to disregard their initial beliefs for power, and he knew his intended audience would think this way.
Reflection
Going into this class, I was unsure what to expect. Once I learned we would be reading five different novels, writing blogs on all of them, as well as writing comments, I began to dread it honestly. My initial reaction was that it would be way too much work. I felt overwhelmed and worried. This worry increased once I learned I would have to write the first blog. I was so worried about doing it wrong and not knowing what I was doing. That is when I realized something. It is totally okay to make mistakes. That is the point of the group blogs and working together. When there was something I did not pick up on or was confused about my group helped me. I realized it is okay to not understand the cultural and symbolic codes. It is okay to not get the premise exactly right on the first try. How Writer’s Read has honestly helped me with my writing as well as my reading in more ways than I ever knew.
Before I started this course, I got into the habit of reading just to finish the book. I lost interest in reading when it became about writing essays that bored me and it was not fun anymore. I used to read for purpose, then I lost that. This class helped me learn how to actually read again. It brought back my interesting in reading for a purpose. When reading the novels for this class this semester, I did not read just to finish an assignment. I was reading to dissect the novel. I was reading to find patterns and reasons for writing. I was looking for elements of the texts and figuring out why the author did what they did. This class helped me learn how to take reading to the next level, and I now understand that this gives reading the text more interest because you are reading for a purpose.
This class helped me to gain a better understanding of the Writing Arts Core Values. The value that came to me in particular was Core Value III which states, “Writing Arts students will demonstrate the ability to critically read complex and sophisticated texts in a variety of subjects” (Core Value III). Throughout the course we read five books. All different genres, different writing styles, all completely different in many ways. I have advanced my skills in this value from the course because I have learned to take different types of readings and analyze them in different ways. It was difficult going through many novels, but this value helped me through it and helped me to dissect them. This value is what drove this course. Without understanding this value, this semester would have been impossible. Throughout this class I have learned to take a text and read it critically and I am now able to analyze it in many ways. With this value, I now can look at a reading and critically analyze it and actually go through and give it purpose. Instead of just reading and understanding a text, I can now read it and ask myself why the author did this. This value has given me the ability to read a novel and apply it into a conversation of why that is and how it was written. It is what drove this course.
Starting this course, I did not know what to expect. I was prepared to be completely overwhelmed and I was prepared to dread all of the work and readings. Now being done with this class I realized I was completely wrong. I am leaving this class with a new appreciation of reading. I now remember what it is like to read for a purpose again. This class has brought meaning to reading for me again. This course has helped me grow a lot as a writer and a reader. Since mine was the first book and I was the first blog, I tried to understand every code and everything quickly. I did not fully understand all of the elements of the course right off the bat. It took time. Now that I have finished, I feel confident in applying the blogs to the readings. I actually enjoyed writing this final annotated bibliography. It helped me realize things about the novel I did not the first time around. This course has impacted me in many ways. I will take these skills with me to my future in writing and reading and make sure to apply them. I am much more grateful for this course than I initially thought I would be, and I learned a lot that I never even thought about.
Animal Farm Blogs
Blog 1 – Wrote Blog
Blog 2 – Hi Chelsea! I love how you extended on the idea of the animals on their two feet symbolizing their rise in power. In my blog I mentioned how the pigs going on two feet showed how they were changing into seeming more human. I love how you took it a step further and said that the two feet symbolizes power. When I look at it I see the connection perfectly. As the pigs continued to rise in power, they said the phrase “Four legs are good, two legs bad” much less. Then the animals eventually saw the pigs on two legs and the phrase completely changed. I think this sums up what the novel means perfectly. It shows that a rise in power can change your values and change everything about you. The transition of walking on two legs rather than four symbolizes the pigs rising in power and changing who they are.
Blog 3 – I find it very interesting how you express the pigs and the animal farm as a whole mimics Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. I find this a very important thing to focus on because it brings so much depth to the reading. As I was reading it myself, I quickly saw that Napoleon embodied Joseph Stalin and the animal farm symbolized the Soviet Union. You prove very well how Napoleon’s rise to power brought out a dictatorship in him. The semic code is really brought out in this blog because of how much you focus on the direct symbolism. I think that once you realize when reading who Napoleon and what the farm symbolizes, you give a whole new meaning to the reading which you really expressed in your blog.
Blog 4 – Heather, I think you wrote this blog beautifully! Blog 4 is so challenging! You took the challenge and did great with it. I think the way you made the whole thing relate back to the symbolism was great. I love how you said that communism was basically “animalism”. Your blog helped me realize how much this book does relate to communism. Of course I had that idea, but the way you explained it brought so much light to it. And you are right, the reader is open minded. They need an open mind to relate the pigs to communists and such. I think you took the challenge in a great direction! The reader of this book is challenged to open their mind and see all the possibilities of who these animals are.
Never Let Me Go Blogs
Blog 1 – This blog was fascinating! I think it was a great opener to the blogs to come for this novel! I think you did a great job at explaining the premise. It is very interesting how you explained “unknowingly” because you are right. The clones just donate organs to the other people without knowing the real truth. I found it interesting how you related it to what is going on currently in our society. I love that you mentioned the black lives marches, it honestly really challenged my thinking! I saw this in a way I hadn’t before. I was so impressed with that part. I do wish you added more about it. You did bring it up in the end again which was good. I just wish there was a bit more about the novels connection to the black lives march. Besides that, I think this was amazing!
Blog 2 – Ally, this blog was written great! I think this is a perfect representation of what Blog 2 should look like. I really like how you explained how the novel is basically broken up into three parts, because that was my thought as well. I think that explaining that the novel is broken up into three parts further emphasizes the hermeneutic code. The hermeneutic code is all about the mystery and such, which this novel has a lot of. Each part has a different way of explaining the hermeneutic code, as each section has different mysteries to it. I think you did an amazing job at explaining how the hermeneutic code is expressed in this novel, as the whole novel revolves around unanswered questions.
Blog 3 – Heather, amazing job with this blog! I had never read the book Unwind, but I do think you did a great job at explaining it to those who had never heard of it. Now that you described it, I am actually interested in reading it. I wonder if Unwind revolves around the hermeneutic code as Never Let Me Go does. That could be something you could add in. It could be a good way of connecting this blog to the one before it. Maybe explaining the hermeneutic code of Unwind could add more as to why Unwind is similar to Never Let Me Go. Anyways, amazing job with this blog I really enjoyed it!
Blog 4 – Wrote Blog
The Picture of Dorian Gray Blogs
Blog 1 – Ally, this blog is phenomenal! This is an amazing representation of how a Blog 1 should look like. My favorite part of this blog is how you explained Dorian’s downfall. You did great at showing how someone can go from high rankings to cruelty. You did amazing at showing how quickly a reputation can change for someone who used to be thought of as high ranked. Something interesting that this makes me think of is how hard it is to build up a reputation but it is so quick to ruin it. I think that is a brilliant way of describing what happened here. I think this blog was great! Amazing job.
Blog 2 – Heather, great job with Blog 2! I really think you took this blog in a great direction. I found it interesting how you kind of introduced Blog 3 in a way. You said that Dorian Gray reminds you of The Great Gatsby, and I could not agree more. I think introducing the connection of the two novels deepens the blog. It gives it more depth than if you just stuck with discussing the hermeneutic code. I think you did a really great job with the blog and I really love how you introduced Blog 3, considering I was Blog 3. I struggled to think of how to write the blog until reading this. You helped me write my blog so much because yours was so brilliant! Great job.
Blog 3 – Wrote Blog
Blog 4 – Chelsea, great blog! I think this blog is very well put together and very well written. This was a great wrap up of Dorian Gray. You did great wrapping up the book and basically summarizing all of the past blogs in a way. One think I think you should add is to add more about Rabinowitz. I think if you add a quote from Rabinowitz it could really strengthen your arguments and make your whole blog just stronger. I did really enjoy the questions you brought up, they were things I thought as well. In all, I think you did a great job with this blog.
To the Lighthouse Blogs
Blog 1 – Heather, amazing Blog 1 for this book! I think you brought up amazing points for this book to be carried out in the rest of the blogs. As I was Blog 2, I focused very closely on what you wrote, and I carried off yours a lot in mine. My favorite points you made was about Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey. I think you made some great points about them. You mentioned how they are like opposite of each other. They both have different views on the idea of their mortality. Mr. Ramsey wants to preserve his life while Mrs. Ramsey wants to live her live. I also loved the premise you created. It made a huge impact on how I wrote my blog. I think you did a great job.
Blog 2 – Wrote Blog
Blog 3 – Chelsea, fantastic job with this blog in my opinion! I had never seen A Walk to Remember, but I think you did a great job at describing it. The way you explained it, I can definitely see the connection between To The Lighthouse and A Walk To Remember. Something you could have done to further your argument could have been to add a quote from the movie or something. Also, I think it could help to add quotes describing what the semic code is for emphasis. Anyways, I think this blog was done so well!
Blog 4 – Ally, I think you took this blog in a different direction and I love it! I love how you described the audience and identity. I never thought about it that way. It is very interesting that you said the audience tends to identify with either Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey. I really find that fascinating. I think it would be interesting to add that whichever character you identify with creates a different audience. Those identifying with Mr. Ramsey may read the novel different than those who identify with Mrs. Ramsey. It would also be interesting if you added which you identify with and how it could cause you to read it different. I think you did amazing with this blog and it could definitely be expanded on! Great last blog!
Work Cited
Orwell, George. Animal Farm. Berkley, 2020.
Silverman, Kaja. The Subject of Semiotics. New York: Oxford UP, 1983.
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrick. The Communist Manifesto. 1848. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/course/mscp.pdf