Orwell v. Waters: An in-depth discussion of artistic forms and ensuant conversation

So since whenever a film adaptation comes out everyone streams to the theaters and then inevitably tells their coworkers, 'The book was better,' I'm led to believe that in most cases, at least, original works of art tend to be better received (or insert 'better,' 'longer-lasting,' 'more insightful,' et al.) than further interpretations of such. Examples: Shakespeare's original texts are still looked on more highly than any adaptation of such, be it O, 10 Things I Hate About You, or The Lion King. The Lord of the Rings, in textual form, is rather considered to be 'better' than the film versions. Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is seen as more impressive than the Dali interpretation. Hitchcock's The 39 Steps is regarded as infinitely more successful than any of the many remakes.

Ergo, question: As we, the Fanship of Pink Floyd, hold in high regard the album Animals (under 42 minutes in length, all told), what is our communal take on the novel from which it comes? George Orwell is regarded as something of a literary event (see: 'Shooting an Elephant,' 'A Hanging,' &c) and his work Animal Farm is no small achievement. How do we rate the book in comparison to the album? Have we even read the book? Has anyone been inspired to read it because of their having heard the record? Do we, as fans of Pink Floyd, have some sort of audience obligation to read something that was obviously of some significance to the band we so readily admire? What is the relationship between artist and artist, and what implications are there for audience, if any? Discuss.

Well, I believe the reason why so many (not all, mind you) believe that the original is so much better ('better received', etc) is because of its originality. But it is rarely the idea that is original, but the way in which it is executed: Burgess and his Nadsat, Tolkien's narrative, Hitchcock's manipulation of the camera, etc etc etc. Personally speaking, I do not think that one can compare the '77 album Animals to the book Animal Farm; there is no proof laid down by the producers of the album that states it is based on the book. Sure the idea is similar, but in order for one to say "I like the original better", the latter piece of creativity has to be solely based on the first.

Aside: I don't believe there to be an 'obligation' to which one must answer if he is a fan. But I think it is a band's duty to guide the impressionable audience towards good taste. Then again, this is all very controversial.

PS. Your format of writing questions made me remember high school English exams.

This is from this site's summary of the album-- And while it doesn't cite sources, I find it difficult to believe that Paulo or anyone else would assume that halfway through the album Rog did such and such, so I imagine it's from a credible source.

Somehow, I doubt that GtM was unaware of that.

No, I have never read Animal Farm, but I do know enough about it to know that Animals and Animal Farm, while similar in concept, the former is not wholely based upon the latter. Animal Farm, lest we forget while in general being about mankind, was more specifically about Russia (or rather the USSR). If Roger and Co. decided to base the album concept losely around Animal Farm they did a damn good job. Animals, for me, is one of the only Floyd albums where the lyrics are also very important to me.

I stand corrected.

I don't deem it credible; most information on the internet is easily skewed. In terms of proof, I meant a line or two in an interview or something of the sort. And even still, realizing 'halfway' that he can fit it to the theme does not mean it is based on it.

The problem is, Animals is not an adaptation of Orwell's novel. I mean, it's not like it is "Pink Floyd's Animal Farm". Orwell is an inspiration, but nothing more (and nothing less) because Roger actually takes his own direction, developing the same basic concept in a very different way. It's not a remake and any direct comparison between the book and the album would have no sense. Yet, that would be interesting and highly recommended for every fan reading and knowing Animal Farm, beacuse it is indeed the source of inspiration for Rog's lyrics.

I think the work stands on its own. I would recommend reading Animal Farm, but not because it would somehow give greater insight into PF's album, but simply because it's a good book.

Animals is a great piece of work, too - but it isn't about the same subject as Orwell's book. Animals can be interpreted as a commentary on the categories of people that can be observed around us, while Animal Farm is a political commentary - I think you could argue that Animals is just as inspired by the Beatles' Piggies as by Orwell.

While I blieve that Rog was inspired by Animal Farm (the similarities are just too much), based on would be to inaccurate a phrase to describe it.

Comparing the two is like apples and oranges, one is a very good book, though an easy read so there is no excuse for anyone not to read it, and the other is a musical peice put out by a rock band.

I read the book years before I discovered Pink Floyd, but I still prefer the album as the book isn't even Orwell's best peice.


PS Which one of Hitchcock's 39 Steps are you talking about in your original statement?

That was my whole point.

I understand fully the differences between the two works. However, inasmuch as each is attempting to explore the condition of humanity through the same set of conceits, I think you can compare them-- pieces do not need to be in the same medium nor communicate via similar narratives to be comparable.

And by the way, feel free to address any of the other questions I asked rather than just arguing against the nature of the first and ignoring the rest. I thought the others were a lot more interesting anyway, but to each his own.

Sorry Gerald, my fault.

Animal Farm was an interesting read, but I did not find it to be as enticing as 1984 or Coming Up for Air. Once again, the idea, probably existing prior to the publication of the novel, was presented in an interesting and controversial style.
The album Animals is one of my favourite records out there. I think it can be linked to Animal Farm, but I personally like listening to it with all political innuendos aside.


PS I also find Orwell's Marrakech very enjoyable.

They can be compared, of course, but I don't feel that they look at humanity in the same way. Yes, they use the same conceit, but the aspects of humanity they choose to look at are quite different. Having not read Animal Farm, I cannot compare them in any great depth (I have seen a rather crude animated adaptation, which I found highly enjoyable), so I shall say no more.

Let's pretend that I asked these far-more-interesting questions in addition to the one about comparison.