"The third person narrator, instead of being omniscient, is like a constantly running surveillance tape"
-Andrew Vachss
The book Animal Farm is a political fable that is written entirely in third person narrative. In my opinion, this was both a positive thing for the progression of the plot and the development of characters as well as a negative thing.
As the quote above alludes to, by being presented the story by a narrator with an overarching point of view, I, the reader, get to see and know everything that happens within the world of the story, including everything all of the characters are thinking and feeling. The result is passages like: "Old Major (so he was always called, though the name under which he was exhibited was Willingdon Beauty) was so highly regarded on the farm that everyone was quite ready to lose an hour of sleep in order to hear what he had to say" (Orwell Animal Farm 1). Such reading provides the reader with what is occurring within the plot while including interesting facts that couldn't be shared through first person narrative. However, it also causes a very factual feel to a story and at times causes it to be dry and boring. Therefore, I believe Animal Farm would have been better if it was written in first person narrative, preferably from the perspective of one of the common animals, like Clover or Benjamin.
Had this exciting story been written from one of their perspectives, I would have been able to dive into the inner workings of their minds and developed a closer connection to one of the story's many protagonists. The feelings of pathos caused by first person narrative would have occurred within me as I developed intimacy for the character and cared for their well being. For example, if the book was written from Boxer's perspective, I would have truly seen the strenuous lifestyle that this mighty animal lived. However, I would have also witnessed his death and removal from his personal, sad perspective which, honestly, would have been awful. It was difficult enough to read about from the view of the omniscient narrator! "There lay Boxer, between the shafts of the cart, his neck stretched out, unable to even raise his head. His eyes were glazed, his sides matted with sweat. A thin stream of blood had trickled out of his mouth" (Orwell 79-80).
Another advantage of the book being rewritten in first person narrative is that the book and its plot would have had a much more mysterious feel to it. Since the character that we would be watching the plot from would only be limited to what he/she sees or hears, the reader wouldn't know every single detail within the plot. This would result in a more active reader as he/she would infer events within the plot according to the information that they have while also using this insight to foreshadow. If I were to follow the perspective of one of the characters in Animal Farm, like a lowly, unintelligent common animal, the lack of insight that that particular character has would make the story much more exciting as basically every event would be unexpected and the plot would become unpredictable.
Since George Orwell's classic was meant to inform, not entertain, the audience about the political downfalls of the east, I understand why Animal Farm was written from an 'all-knowing' perspective. Orwell wanted to inform the world about how corruption can ruin any chance at a happy, healthy and smooth running Utopia. Thus, it was important to give the readers the facts of this animal fable in order to clearly send his message. However, this engaging story of greed, corruption and oppression would have been much more engaging, meaningful, exciting and mysterious if written from the outlook of one the characters living their dream of freedom in nightmarish conditions.
*A special thanks to Cree Toner and her post on narration for her classic novel. It, along with the mustache that she had today, provided this post with inspiration and direction. *



