Hope, Macherey: Animal Farm

In the excerpt from A Theory of Literary Production by Pierre Macherey, there is much discussion over the terms “implicit” and “explicit” and their relation to writing (Macherey, 15). Through-out the reading, I couldn’t help but think of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Many of Macherey’s statements, including, “…the visible is merely the hidden in a different guise,” relate directly to Animal Farm (Macherey, 17).

On the surface, Animal Farm would seem to be a story about an uprising of a bunch of pigs on an otherwise normal, human-run, traditional farm. Some people, who have no prior history or knowledge of the “Stalin era” in the Soviet Union, may relate to the book as a manner of fantasy. However, the book in today’s American society is seen as a satirical metaphor for the failure of communism. The book has no superficial and direct references to communism. The main characters are animals with names such as “Old Major,” “Snowball,” and “Boxer.” None of the animals or people in the book are directly named after the historical people they resemble (for example, there is no character with the name of “Hilter” or “Marx”).

The situation of the book can be related to the Soviet Union, not because of direct, or “explicit” language, but because of the “implicit” mirroring of ideas and concepts. The greedy pigs on the farm act in the same manner as totalitarian rulers. The poor horses are forced to do all of the laborious work for the pigs without benefits, just like the lower, “working class” people of the Soviet Union. The true meaning of the book is silent in the words of the book, but as Macherey suggests, it is that silence of Animal Farm, or what is not directly said, that gives the book its power and meaning (17).