Vocabulary

Julius Caesar

In the play Julius Cesar there are many different references to leadership and the qualities of a leader. Characters like Cesar, Brutus, and Cassius are compared to show good and bad qualities of leaders and how they can lead to the leader’s downfall. Some qualities I noticed in Cesar are that, like they said in the play, he is ambitious which can be good or bad depending on the circumstances. If he is ambitious for his people it could be good because he would focus on improving life for his people, but if he is ambitious for himself he could try to gain more power for himself and improve life for himself and the people around him, which would make him a tyrant like Cassius and Brutus predicted. One good quality Cesar had was that he was very good at persuading large groups of people, which can help convince a reluctant group of an idea.

One other character, who displayed qualities of good and bad leaders in the play, was Cassius. One negative quality about him is that he was very manipulative, which helped him convince Brutus and the other members of the group that assassinated Cesar to help him. A manipulative leader can convince people to do things that they otherwise would not, without them realizing that they are doing anything. One positive leadership trait that Cassius has is that he is very loyal, especially to Brutus.

The last main character in the play that showed leadership characteristics was Brutus. Brutus’s best leadership trait in the play was his selflessness and sympathy, which in a leader, help the leader focus on the need of his people and not himself. One bad leadership trait Brutus possessed was that he was very trusting, especially of Cassius. This made him very easy to manipulate in to assassinating Cesar. He was especially vulnerable to Cassius, who was very good at persuading stubborn people.

Animal Farm Readers Notebook

When we read animal farm by Gorge Orwell in class, it was actually the second time I've read the book and I already knew it was supposed to be a metaphor for the rise of the Soviet Union, so I think I was able to focus on what the characters and events represented instead of trying to follow the story line. For example, the battle of cowshed in the book when Jones tried to retake the farm represented the Russian revolution when after the czars had been overthrown, the White Army, who wanted to replace autocratic government ruled by the czar, fought the Red Army, who wanted to implement communism instead. In this war the White Army was defeated by the Red Army quickly, similar to the book where Orwell wrote "And so within five minutes of their invasion they were in ignominious retreat by the same way as they had come, with a flock of geese hissing after them and pecking at their calves all the way." I noticed similarities like these in many characters, events ,and ideas some of which were Napoleon who represented Stalin, Snowball who represented Lenin who contested Stalin for leadership over soviet Russia, Old Major who represented Marxist, the man who first conceived of communism, and animalism which represented Marxism. There is a metaphor for almost every important political figure, social class, event, and idea or figure from Soviet Russia in animal farm.
          In the book one of the only major characters I did not understand what they were a metaphor for was Boxer. Through most of the book I thought he represented the working class of Soviet Russia, until when in the text Benjamin said,"Alfred Simmonds, Horse Slaughterer and Glue Boiler, Willingdon. Dealer in Hides and Bone-Meal. Kennels Supplied. Do you not understand what that means? They are taking Boxer to the knacker's!" Later after this quote the pigs convince the animals that Boxer was only going hospital, but to the readers it is obvious that he was not. What confuses me about this part of the book is that if Boxer represented an entire social class, how could Napoleon have sold him? The scenario makes sense in the book, but I don't understand how entire social class could be "sold". One possibility could be that Boxer represented a political figure that organized labor in Soviet Russia that was executed by Stalin. Another thing that this event in the book could be a metaphor for is the Russian work camps, called gulags, that many Russian citizens who were believed to be rebellious were sent to. I think my second possible solution makes the most sense, except for the fact that the citizens sent to the gulags were either rebellious or believed to be rebellious, and that doesn't fit Boxers catch phrase "Napoleon is always right" and overall pro-Napoleon beliefs.