Lesson video

Hello everyone.

It's lovely to see you here today.

My name's Dr.

Clayton and I'm here to guide you through Learning Journey today.

So today session's called Narrative Voice and the concepts of truth and complicity in "Animal Farm." We're going to be looking at whether we actually think the narrator, is telling us the truth about the pig's behaviour, and how we might see them as being involved in the pig's morally wrong behaviour.

We're also going to be thinking about why Orwell might have written the narrator in this way and that might relate to Orwell's ideas about the press and news reports.

So if you're ready, grab your pen, laptop, whatever you use for this lesson and let's get started.

So, by the end of the lesson, you'll be able to explore the relationship between the narrative voice and the concepts of truth and complicity in Orwell's "Animal Farm." So we have five words today we're going to be using as our keywords.

They'll be identified in bold throughout the learning material, and I'll try to pull that to you as well so you can see them being used in context.

So our first keyword is explicitly, which means in clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

We're going to be thinking about whether the narrator tells us about the pig's actions and behaviour in a clear and detailed manner.

Our second key word is neutrality, which means the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict or disagreement.

We're going to be thinking of how we might see the narrator of "Animal Farm" as not being neutral, when it comes to presenting the other animals and the pigs.

Our third key is complicity, which means the fact of condition of being involved with others in activities unlawful or morally wrong.

We're going to be thinking about how we might see the narrator as being involved in the pig's actions because of the way we might see the narrator as withholding the truth and portraying the pigs in a positive light.

Our fourth key is omniscient narrator, which means a narrative voice that knows everything about the characters and the events in the story.

We're going to be thinking about how this might connect to the idea of complicity in the narrative voice.

Our final key word is exploitation, which means the actual fact of treating someone unfairly not to benefit from their work.

We're going to be thinking about the pig's exploitation of the other animals and how the narrator reports the exploitation to us.

So, I'll just give you a moment to write down those key words and their definitions.

So pause the video, write them down now.

Fantastic.

Let's get started with the lesson.

So, we have two learning cycles in our lessons today.

For our first learning cycle, we're going to think about the way the narrator reports the events of "Animal Farm" to us, and whether we think we're actually being told the truth about the pig's actions and their behaviour.

For our second learning cycle, we're going to be thinking about how we might see the narrator's language and emissions as being complicit in the pig oppression of the animals.

Now, when we read Orwell's "Animal Farm," we notice there's a contrast between the language of the narrator and the pig's language.

So for example, the narrator says, "Mr. Jones of the Manor Farm "had locked the hen-houses for the night.

"But was too drunk to remember to shut the potholes." In contrast, snowball the pig says, "A bird's wing, comrades," he said, "Is an organ of propulsion and not of manipulation.

"It should therefore be regarded as a leg.

"The distinguishing mark of a man is the hand "the instrument with which he does all of his mischief." Here we might say the narrator's language is ordinary and easily understood 'cause the language is very easily accessible and the construction of it is easy to follow.

However, we might see the pig's language as manipulative and persuasive.

We can see the pigs putting forward arguments to the animals.

We can see how their language is more complex and less easily understood.

The idea of a wing being an organ of propulsion, not manipulation is a complex way for the pigs to show that birds have four legs rather than two.

Snowball has simply said that birds wings are associated with movement and therefore more like a leg.

But he chose to use sophisticated language not to persuade the animals.

Now, the narrative voice reports the events of the novel to us.

So associate the narrative voice for telling us the truth, 'cause reporting to us what's happening.

Therefore, we might interpret the difference in language as all suggest and the truth is spoken in plain language.

In contrast, the pig's manipulative rhetoric.

However, we are going to interrogate the notion that the narrative voice can be associated with the truth throughout this learning cycle.

So, what I'd like us to do is think about whether the narrative voice telling us the truth about what happens in the novel.

So with three quotations from the novel we have, "It was noticed the milk had disappeared." Now this is the moment when Napoleon tells the animals not to worry about the milk, to go about their work, but when they return from the harvest, the milk is gone.

"A lantern, a paintbrush, "and an overturn pot of white paint." Now this is the moment that animals find Squeal on the floor by the commandments with the paint.

"From somewhere or other, "the pigs acquired the money to buy themselves "another case of whiskey." Now this is the moment after Boxer's death.

So what I'd like you to do is make notes in the following questions about the quotations.

So what is implied? What's the gesture that's happened? And what does the narrative voice actually tell us? So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, some great work there.

Let's talk through the individual quotations and what you might have said.

So, it was noticed the milk had disappeared.

Now here, it's just the pigs have drunk the milk while the other animals have worked.

However, the narrative voice never explicitly tells us this.

Now explicit is one of our keywords means in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

So the narrative voice doesn't clearly tell us the pigs have drunk the milk.

"A lantern a paintbrush, "and an overturn pot of white paint." So here, the implication is the pigs been physically altering the commandments by painting in alterations.

However, again, the narrative voice doesn't actually tell us this has happened.

"From somewhere or other, "the pigs acquired the money to buy themselves "another case of whiskey." Now here, the awful implication is the pigs are profited from Boxer's death and use the money to buy alcohol.

However, again, the narrative voice doesn't actually tell us this is what's happened.

So now for a quick check for understanding, what I'd like you to do, is tell me whether the following statement is true or false.

So is it true or false? The narrator explicitly reveals the pig's suppressive actions to the reader.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

The correct answer is false.

Now I'd like you to tell me why it's false.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, you might have said, while the narrator implies the pigs of committed manipulative and oppressive actions, it's never explicitly stated.

So very well done if you got those right.

Now, let's take a few moments to think about the nature of the narrative voice in "Animal Farm" and what the implications might be.

So the narrator of Orwell's "Animal Farm" is an omniscient third person narrator.

This narrative perspective is whether narrator's not a character within the story, they're observing, the action taking place.

An omniscient narrator is one who is all-knowing they have greater insight into narrative events, context and the character's motives, unspoken thoughts and experiences than an individual character does.

Importantly, the narrative voice is something that Orwell has created, it's not Orwell himself.

Orwell is not telling us a story.

So now have a quick check for understanding.

What I'd like you to do is tell me whether the following statement is true or false.

So is it true or false? The narrative voice is Orwell himself.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Now the correct answer is false.

Now I'd like you to tell me why it's false.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

You might have said, the narrative voice is something Orwell has created, it's not Orwell himself.

So very well done if you got those right.

So, now let's think about the significance of the omniscient narrator in terms of the truth.

So what I'd like you to think about is why might Orwell's choice for omniscient narrator be significant in terms of the narrator's knowledge of the truth of the pig's actions? Think about the fact omniscient narrator is aware of everything that happens in the story.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, some great ideas there I'm gonna read what people's Laura said.

"As an omniscient narrator, "we would expect the narrator has full knowledge "over the pigs actions.

"However, the narrator does not share that knowledge "with the reader.

"It's arguably concealing the truth." So what I'd like to think about is whether or not you agree with Laura.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Now this idea of the narrator arguably concealing the truth from us as the reader happens throughout the novel.

So we can suggest a deliberate choice on Orwell's part.

So, now for a quick check for understanding.

So we would expect an omniscient narrator to have which of the following, A, limited knowledge of the character's actions and thoughts.

B, complete knowledge of the character's actions and thoughts.

Or C, knowledge of one character's actions or thoughts.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Now Omniscient means all knowing.

So the correct answer is B, complete knowledge of the character's actions and thoughts.

So very well done if you got that right.

Fantastic work everyone.

Now the first task of the lesson, we're going to think about why Orwell might have written the narrator in this way.

Why has he chosen to write an Omniscient narrator that conceals the truth from the reader? Now, in his original preface to "Animal Farm," Orwell wrote about the fact he felt of "Animal Farm" was too political to be published.

He expressed the idea that criticisms of Soviet Union are being kept at the British press and the British press has in almost all cases sided with the faction favoured by the Russians.

So, in order to connect those statements to the narrator, I'd like you to answer the following questions.

So question one, do you think the narrator of "Animal Farm" represents the British press? Does it favour the pigs by withholding information? Use evidence from the text to support your answer.

Question two, we think of the news telling us the truth about events that happen in the world.

What might this mean for those ideas? So pause the video, answer the questions now.

Welcome back everyone, some great work there.

Now we're going to talk through the ideas of one of Oak people, Sophia, then I'd like you to think about whether or not you agree with Sophia.

So question one, do you think the narrator of "Animal Farm" represents the British press? Do they favour the pigs by withholding information? Use evidence from the text to support your answer.

And Sophia said, "I think the narrator of "Animal Farm" "does represent the British press "because Orwell presents a narrative voice "withholding information about the pigs oppressive actions.

"Specifically saying the money for the alcohol "came from somewhere or other favours the pigs.

"Since it offers a deliberately vague explanation "as opposed to horrifying implication "that the pigs have sent Boxer to his death, "in order to profit from it." So, pause the video, think about whether or not you agree with Sophia.

Welcome back everyone.

Now I think there's such an important nuance to Orwell's writing.

We typically focus our attention on the characters of "Animal Farm" and how they represent the Russian Revolution.

We might also look at the narrator and think about how they represent how the Russian revolution was reported to the rest of the world.

So question two, what might this mean for our ideas about the news and truth? And Sophia said, "I think the fact the narrative voice "of "Animal Farm" conceals information from the reader "while reporting the events "could suggest we cannot see the news objectively true.

"Moreover, the fact that the narrator "appears to favour the pigs by withholding information "implies the way we receive information "from the news and reports, "is designed to influence our perception of events "in order to benefit one faction." So, pause the video, think about whether or not you agree with Sophia.

Welcome back everyone.

Now I think there's such an important idea and not just in relation to "Animal Farm." We always have to remember that news outlets are owned and accountable to someone.

It's highly likely that person has an agenda.

They want us to think about events that happen around the world in a particular way, 'cause it suits them.

So whenever you read a piece of news, think about where it's come from, how they might be trying to influence the way you think about that event.

Amazing work everyone.

And out of the second learning cycle, we're going to think about how we might see the narrator as complicit in the pig suppression of the other animals.

Now as well as withholding information about the pigs, we might argue the narrative voice isn't neutral in its presentation of the pigs.

Now, neutral is one of our key words, means the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict or disagreement.

So the narrators arguably supporting the pigs over the other animals.

Now this lack of neutrality might be seen as complicit in the pig's suppression.

So narrators involved in the pig's suppression of the other animals.

So, in order to think about this complicity, what I'd like you to do is think about the following excerpt.

"Somehow, it seems as though the farm had grown richer "without making the animals themselves any richer, "except of course for the pigs and the dogs.

"Perhaps this was partly because "there were so many pigs and so many dogs.

"It was not that these creatures did not work "after their fashion." And what I'd like you to do, is think about how we might see the narrator as complicit in the pig's exploitative behaviour and oppression of the other animals.

Now exploitative is one of our keywords.

It means the action fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.

So how can we see the narrator is being involved in the pig's unfair treatment of the animals here? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone's fantastic ideas there.

Now one of our Oak peoples Lucas said, "I think we can see the narrator "as complicit in the pig's suppression "since the narrator appears to be justifying "the pig's actions.

"By saying they're richer because there are so many of them "and they work after their fashion.

"The narrator is avoiding the truth.

"The pigs are richer "because they're exploiting the other animals.

"This justification of the exploitation "makes them complicit in the pig suppression." So, what I'd like you to do is think about whether or not you agree with Lucas' ideas.

Why or why not? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Now I think we can definitely see this idea the narrators involved in the unfair treatment of the animals by justifying the pig's actions.

The narrator suggest the pig's actions are right and reasonable.

And this just the narrator is siding with the pigs over the other animals.

So, now a quick check for understanding.

What I'd like you to do is tell me whether the following statement is true or false.

Is it true or false? The narrative voice appears to attempt to justify the pig's exploitive actions.

Pause the video take a few moments to think about it.

Now the correct answer is true.

Now I'd like you to tell me why it's true.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

You might have said, the narrative voice informs us that the pigs and dogs are richer because of the justification that there are so many pigs and so many dogs rather than explain their exploitations.

So very well done if you've got those right.

Now arguably, Orwell demonstrates the pig suppression of the animals through their human-like behaviour.

'Cause it demonstrates how the pigs have completely turned their backs against the principles of animalism and they see the other animals as different and beneath them.

Now the narrative voice describes their walking on two legs as with perfect balance and majestically upright.

So what I'd like you to do, is think about how we might interpret this language as favouring the pigs rather than showing neutrality.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Some fantastic ideas there.

One of Oak people's Izzy said, "Despite the fact that it arguably symbolises "the pig oppression, the adjectives perfect and majestically "convey a sense of admiration "for the pig's ability to walk on hind legs.

"It implies that the narrative voice "views the pigs positively rather than neutrally." So what I'd like you to do is think about whether or not you agree with Izzy.

Why or why not.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Now I think the adjectives that Orwell's chosen here definitely suggest the narrator is proud of the pig's achievement rather than condemning it.

They could have used words, there's unsettlingly upright or with uncanny balance to convey it as something unnatural or something wrong, but they didn't.

So we can see it as a deliberate choice to present the narrators admiration for the pigs.

So now for a quick check for understanding.

What I'd like you to do, is tell me which interpretation of the phrase with perfect balance, is most effective in relation to the narrative voice and neutrality.

Is it A, the adjective perfect implies a sense of admiration for the pigs.

Or B, the phrase with perfect balance offers a neutral image to the reader.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

The correct answer is A, the adjective perfect implies a sense of admiration for the pigs.

Now you just tell me why it's A.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

You might have said, the adjective of perfect conveys a sense of admiration.

That's just a lack of neutrality.

So very well done if you got those right.

Fantastic work everyone.

Now the final task of the lesson.

So what I'd like you to do, is draw everything from this learning cycle together and ask the following questions using evidence from the text.

So question one, to what extent can we see the narrative voice as complicit in the pig suppression of the other animals? Question two, why might Orwell have made the narrative voice complicit? And question three, how's the narrative voice relate to ideas of truth and how news events are reported? So pause the video, write your answers now.

Welcome back everyone.

Some fantastic work there.

Now we're going to think about one of Oak peoples, Alex and how he answered the questions.

So question one, to what extent can we see the narrative voice as complicit in the pig's suppression of the other animals? And Alex said, "Either we can see "the narrative voice complicit "because not only does it withhold information "about the pig's oppressive actions, "it arguably justifies endorse their actions.

"By calling Napoleon's human-like behaviour, majestic, "the narrative voice arguably lending its approval "to the moment.

"We understand the complete oppression of the animals "by the pigs." So, pause the video, think about whether or not you agree with Alex.

Welcome back everyone.

Now Alex chose the quotation majestic from the text to think about how the narrator portrays the pigs in a positive light.

We also might have thought, about how the narrator justifies the pig's explosive actions or how they conceal the truth as other evidence, how we might see the narrative voice complicit in the pig's oppression.

So question two, why might Orwell have made the narrative voice complicit? And Alex said, "I think Orwell might have made "the narrative voice complicit "in order to comment on how the British press "reported events that were happening in the Soviet Union.

""Animal Farm" arguably represents "the events of the Russian Revolution "and the way the narrative voice "withholds information about the pigs "and seemingly paints them in a favourable light "is representative of how Orwell believed "the British Press acted." So pause the video, think about whether or not you agree with Alex.

Welcome back everyone.

Now Alex chose to zoom in on the contextual idea of the Russian Revolution.

Now Orwell believed the British press paints the events to positive light.

We also might have thought more generally how Orwell might have even suggested that news reports favour those in power rather than those without power.

So question three, how's the narrative voice relate to ideas of truth and how news events are reported? And Alex said, "I think the narrative voice "relates to ideas of truth.

"And our news events are reported because the fact that it withholds information "enhances the idea, we cannot trust records "or reports of events.

"The way the narrative voice arguably favours the pigs "highlights the notion of bias within these reports "and suggests that those in power "influence how events are perceived "by the public and by history." So pause the video, think whether or not you agree with Alex.

Welcome back everyone.

Now I think there's such an important point for us to think about.

You might have heard the saying, "History is written by the victors." I think we always have to bear that in mind when we're reading accounts for historical events.

How do we know that what we are reading is the truth? Would be very careful accepting things on face value.

'Cause there are always elements of influence coming through that might affect how those events are being reported.

You all did amazingly well today, everyone.

Here's a summary of what we covered.

One interpretation of the narrative voice might suggest that Orwell is using it to say that the truth is spoken in ordinary language.

However, arguably the narrative voice withholds information on the pig's behaviour rather than explicitly saying the truth.

Furthermore, we might see the narrative voice as justifying the pig's actions and therefore being complicit in their oppression.

I really hope you enjoyed the lesson everyone.

I hope to see you for another lesson soon.

Goodbye.