Introduction to Stylistics 1

A brief history of Stylistics
Stylistics explores how readers interact with the language of (mainly literary) texts in
order to explain how we understand, and are affected by texts when we read them.
The development of Stylistics, given that it combines the use of linguistic analysis
with what we know about the psychological processes involved in reading, depended
(at least in part) on the study of Linguistics and Psychology (both largely twentiethcentury phenomena) becoming reasonably established. Stylistics, then, is a subdiscipline which grew up in the second half of the twentieth century: Its beginnings in
Anglo-American criticism are usually traced back to the publication of the books
listed below. Three of them are collections of articles, some of which had been
presented as conference papers or published in journals a little earlier:
Fowler, Roger (ed.) (1966) Essays on Style in Language. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Freeman, Donald C. (ed.) (1971) Linguistics and Literary Style.New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Leech, Geoffrey N, (1969) A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London:
Sebeok, Thomas A. (1960) Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Perhaps the most influential article is that by Roman Jakobson in Sebeok (1960: 35077). It is called 'Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics' because it was a
contribution to a conference which Sebeok (1960) published as a collection of papers.
It is pretty difficult, so we wouldn't recommend nipping off to read it until you've
done a bit more stylistics, but, as we shall see below, Jakobson is an important figure
who connects together various strands in the development of Stylistics.
Stylistics can be seen as a logical extension of moves within literary criticism early in
the twentieth century to concentrate on studying texts rather than authors. Nineteenthcentury literary criticism concentrated on the author, and in Britain the text-based
criticism of the two critics I. A. Richards and William Empson, his pupil, rejected that
approach in order to concentrate on the literary texts themselves, and how readers
were affected by those texts. This approach is often called Practical Criticism, and it
is matched by a similar critical movement in the USA, associated with Cleanth
Brooks, René Wellek, Austin Warren and others, called New Criticism. New
Criticism was based almost exclusively on the description of literary works as
independent aesthetic objects, but Practical Criticism tended to pay more attention to
the psychological aspects involved in a reader interacting with a work. However,
these two critical movements shared two important features: (i) an emphasis on the
language of the text rather than its author and (ii) an assumption that what criticism
needed was accounts of important works of literature based on the intuitional reading
outcomes of trained and aesthetically sensitive critics. These critics did not analyze
the language of texts very much, but, rather, paid very close attention to the language
of the texts when they read them and then described how they understood them and
were affected by them. Nearly a hundred years later, this approach is still very
influential in schools and universities in the western world, and gives rise to the kind
of critical essay where writers make a claim about what a text means, or how it affects
them, and then quote (and perhaps discuss) a textual sample to illustrate the view
argued for. This could perhaps be called the 'Claim and Quote' approach to literary
In general terms, stylisticians believe that the 'Claim and Quote' strategy is inadequate
in arguing for a particular view of a text, because, like the slip 'twixt cup and lip, there
are often logical gaps between the claim and the quotation intended to support it. In
other words, stylisticians think that intuition is not enough and that we should analyze
the text in detail and take careful account of what we know about how people read
when arguing for particular views of texts. But the Stylistics approach in Western
Europe and North America clearly grows out of the earlier critical approaches
associated with Practical Criticism and New Criticism. Stylisticians also use the same
kind of approach on non-literary texts.
There is another important strand of influence in the development of Stylistics (the
one which Roman Jakobson was involved in) which comes from Eastern Europe. In
the early years of the twentieth century, the members of the Formalist Linguistic
Circle in Moscow (usually called the Russian Formalists), like I. A. Richards, also
rejected undue concentration on the author in literary criticism in favor of an approach
which favored the analysis of the language of the text in relation to psychological
effects of that linguistic structure. The group contained linguists, literary critics and
psychologists, and they (and the Prague Structuralists: see the paragraph below) began
to develop what became a very influential aspect of textual study in later Stylistics,
called foregrounding theory. This view suggested that some parts of texts had more
effect on readers than others in terms of interpretation, because the textual parts were
linguistically deviant or specially patterned in some way, thus making them
psychologically salient (or 'foregrounded') for readers. The Russian Formalists were,
in effect, the first stylisticians. But their work was not understood in the west because
of the effects of the Russian Revolution in 1917. After the revolution, formalism fell
out of favor and, in any case, academic communication between what became the
Soviet Union and Western Europe and North America virtually ceased.
Roman Jakobson became one of the most influential linguists of the twentieth
century, and the reason for his considerable influence on Stylistics, in addition to his
own academic brilliance, was because he linked various schools of Linguistics
together. He left Moscow at the time of the Russian Revolution and moved to Prague,
where he became a member of the Prague Structuralist circle, who were also very
interested in the linguistic structure of texts and how they affected readers. Then,
when Czechoslovakia also became communist, he moved to the USA. Rather like a
beneficial virus, he carried the approach which later became called Stylistics with
him, and helped those who wanted to develop Practical and New Criticism in more
precise analytical directions.
The introduction and chapter 2 of J. Douthwaite (2000) Towards a Linguistic Theory
of Foregrounding (Edizioni dell'Orso: Turin) has a more detailed history of stylistics
and the concept of foregrounding, a concept which is a cornerstone of stylistic
We've included two additional links for you.
The first, gives you a little background as to why Stylistics is called Stylistics. The
second link invites you to think about whether Stylistics is 'Formalist'
Stylistics can be by and large described as the study of style of language usage in
different contexts, either linguistic, or situational. Yet, it seems that due to the
complex history and variety of investigated issues of this study it is difficult to state
precisely what stylistics is, and to mark clear boundaries between it and other
branches of linguistics which deal with text analysis.
What has been the primary interest of stylistics for years is the analysis of the type,
fluctuation, or the reason for choosing a given style as in any language a single
thought can be expressed in a number of ways depending on connotations, or desired
result that the message is to produce. Therefore, stylistics is concerned with the
examination of grammar, lexis, semantics, as well as phonological properties and
discursive devices. It might seem that the same issues are investigated
by sociolinguistics, and indeed that is the case, however sociolinguistics analyses the
above mentioned issues seen as dependant on the social class, gender, age, etc, while
stylistics is more interested in the significance of function that the style fulfills.
Moreover, stylistics examines oral and written texts in order to determine crucial
characteristic linguistic properties, structures and patterns influencing perception of
the texts. Thus, it can be said that this branch of linguistics is related to discourse
analysis, in particular critical discourse analysis, and pragmatics. Owing to the fact
that at the beginning of the development of this study the major part of the stylistic
investigation was concerned with the analysis of literary texts it is sometimes
called literary linguistics, or literary stylistics. Nowadays, however, linguists study
various kinds of texts, such as manuals, recipes, as well as novels and advertisements.
It is vital to add here that none of the text types is discriminated and thought to be
more important than others. In addition to that, in the recent years so called ‘mediadiscourses’ such as films, news reports, song lyrics and political speeches have all
been within the scope of interest of stylistics.
Each text scrutinized by stylistics can be viewed from different angles and as
fulfilling at least a few functions. Thus, it is said that texts have interpersonal
function, ideational function and textual function. When describing a function several
issues are taken into consideration. Therefore, interpersonal function is all about the
relationship that the text is establishing with its recipients, the use of either personal
or impersonal pronouns is analyzed, as well as the use of speech acts, together with
the tone and mood of the statement. When describing the ideational function
linguists are concerned with the means of representing the reality by the text, the way
the participants are represented, as well as the arrangement of information in clauses
and sentences. The textual function is the reference of sentences forwards and
backwards which makes the text cohesive and coherent, but also other discursive
devices such as ellipsis, repetition, anaphora are studied. In addition to that the
effectiveness of chosen stylistic properties of the texts are analyzed in order to
determine their suitability to the perceived function, or contribution to overall
Linguists dealing with a sub-branch of stylistics called pedagogical stylistics support
the view that this field of study helps learners to develop better foreign language
competence. What is more, it is thought that being acquainted with stylistics makes
student more aware of certain features of language and to implement the knowledge
in their language production on all levels: phonological, grammatical, lexical and
discursive. Also empirical findings support the view that stylistics helps students
improve their reading and writing skills.
Finch G. 1998. How to study linguistics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brown K. (Editor) 2005. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics – 2nd Edition.
Oxford: Elsevier.
A branch of applied linguistics concerned with the study of style in-texts, especially
(but not exclusively) in literary works.
According to Katie Wales in A Dictionary of Stylistics, 2nd ed. (Pearson, 2001), "The
goal of most stylistics is not simply to describe the formal features of texts for their
own sake, but in order to show their functional significance for the interpretation of
the text; or in order to relate literary effects to linguistic 'causes' where these are felt to
be relevant."
There are various overlapping sub disciplines of stylistics, including literary stylistics,
interpretive stylistics, evaluative stylistics, corpus stylistics, discourse stylistics,
feminist stylistics, computational stylistics, and cognitive stylistics.
"The preferred object of study in stylistics is literature, whether that be
institutionally sanctioned "Literature' as high art or more popular 'non canonical'
forms of writing. The traditional connection between stylistics and literature brings
with it two important caveats, though. The first is that creativity and innovation in
language use should not be seen as the exclusive preserve of literary writing. Many
forms of discourse (advertising, journalism, popular music--even
casual conversation) often display a high degree of stylistic dexterity, such that it
would be wrong to view dexterity in language use as exclusive to canonical
literature. The second caveat is that the techniques of stylistic analysis are as much
about deriving insights about linguistic structure and function as they are about
understanding literary texts."
(Paul Simpson, Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. Routledge, 2004)
Rhetoric, Close Reading, and Stylistics
"Stylistics is, in a sense, the modern version of the ancient discipline known
as 'rhetoric, 'which taught its students how to structure an argument, how to make
effective use of figures of speech, and generally how to pattern and vary a speech or a
piece of writing so as to produce the maximum impact. . . .
"Stylistic analysis attempts to provide a commentary which is objective and scientific,
based on concrete quantifiable data, and applied in a systematic way. . . . The specific
differences between conventional close reading and stylistics include the following:
Close reading emphasizes differences between literary language and
that of the general speech community . . .. Stylistics, by contrast,
emphasizes connections between literary language and everyday language. . . .
Stylistics uses specialized technical terms and concepts which derive
from the science of linguistics, terms like 'transitivity,' 'under-lexicalization,'
'collocation,' and 'cohesion' . . ..
Stylistics makes greater claims to scientific objectivity than does close
reading, stressing that its methods and procedures can be learned and applied
by all. Hence, its aim is partly the 'demystification' of both literature and
(Peter Barry, Beginning Theory, 2nd ed. Manchester Univ. Press, 2002)
Aims of Stylistic Analysis
"Stylistic analysis, unlike more traditional forms of practical criticism, is not
interested primarily in coming up with new and startling interpretations of the texts it
examines. Rather, its main aim is to explicate how our understanding of a text is
achieved, by examining in detail the linguistic organization of the text and how a
reader needs to interact with that linguistic organization to make sense of it. Often,
such a detailed examination of a text does reveal new aspects of interpretation or help
us to see more clearly how a text achieves what it does. But the main purpose of
stylistics is to show how interpretation is achieved, and hence provide support for a
particular view of the work under discussion. . . . [T]he 'news' comes from knowing
explicitly something that you had only understood intuitively, and from understanding
in detail how the author has constructed the text so that it works on us in the way that
it does."
(Mick Short, "Understanding Conversational Undercurrents in 'The Ebony Tower' by
John Fowles." Twentieth-Century Fiction: From Text to Context, edited by Peter
Verdonk and Jean Jacques Weber. Routledge, 1995)
Cognitive Stylistics
"Cognitive stylistics combines the kind of explicit, rigorous and detailed linguistic
analysis of literary texts that is typical of the stylistics tradition with a systematic and
theoretically informed consideration of the cognitive structures and processes that
underlie the production and reception of language. . . .
"What is new about cognitive stylistics is the way in which linguistic analysis is
systematically based on theories that relate linguistic choices to cognitive structures
and processes. This provides more systematic and explicit accounts of the relationship
between texts on the one hand and responses and interpretations on the other."
(Elena Semino and Jonathan Culpeper, Foreword to Cognitive Stylistics: Language
and Cognition in Text Analysis. John Benjamins, 2002)
Stylistics (literature)
Stylistics is the study and interpretation of texts from a linguistic perspective. As a
discipline it links literary criticism and linguistics, but has no autonomous domain of
its own. The preferred object of stylistic studies is literature, but not exclusively "high
literature" but also other forms of written texts such as text from the domains of
advertising, pop culture, politics or religion.
Stylistics also attempts to establish principles capable of explaining the particular
choices made by individuals and social groups in their use of language, such as
socialization, the production and reception of meaning, critical discourse analysis and
literary criticism.
Other features of stylistics include the use of dialogue, including regional accents and
people’s dialects, descriptive language, the use of grammar, such as the active voice
or passive voice, the distribution of sentence lengths, the use of particular language
registers, etc. In addition, stylistics is a distinctive term that may be used to determine
the connections between the form and effects within a particular variety of language.
Therefore, stylistics looks at what is ‘going on’ within the language; what the
linguistic associations are that the style of language reveals.
Early twentieth century
The analysis of literary style goes back to Classical rhetoric, but modern stylistics has
its roots in Russian Formalism, and the related Prague School, in the early twentieth
In 1909, Charles Bally's Traité de stylistique française had proposed stylistics as a
distinct academic discipline to complement Saussurean linguistics. For Bally,
Saussure's linguistics by itself couldn't fully describe the language of personal
expression. Bally's program fitted well with the aims of the Prague School.
Building on the ideas of the Russian Formalists, the Prague School developed the
concept of foregrounding, whereby poetic language stands out from the background
of non-literary language by means of deviation (from the norms of everyday
language) or parallelism. According to the Prague School, the background language
isn't fixed, and the relationship between poetic and everyday language is always
Late twentieth century
Roman Jakobson had been an active member of the Russian Formalists and the
Prague School, before immigrating to America in the 1940s. He brought together
Russian Formalism and American New Criticism in his Closing Statement at a
conference on stylistics at Indiana University in 1958. Published as Linguistics and
Poetics in 1960, Jakobson's lecture is often credited with being the first coherent
formulation of stylistics, and his argument was that the study of poetic language
should be a sub-branch of linguistics. The poetic function was one of six general
functions of language he described in the lecture.
Michael Halliday is an important figure in the development of British stylistics. His
1971 study Linguistic Function and Literary Style: An Inquiry into the Language of
William Golding's 'The Inheritors' is a key essay. One of Halliday's contributions has
been the use of the term register to explain the connections between language and its
context. For Halliday register is distinct from dialect. Dialect refers to the habitual
language of a particular user in a specific geographical or social context. Register
describes the choices made by the user, choices which depend on three variables: field
("what the participants... are actually engaged in doing", for instance, discussing a
specific subject or topic), tenor (who is taking part in the exchange) and mode (the use
to which the language is being put).
Fowler comments that different fields produce different language, most obviously at
the level of vocabulary (Fowler. 1996, 192) The linguist David Crystal points out that
Halliday’s ‘tenor’ stands as a roughly equivalent term for ‘style’, which is a more
specific alternative used by linguists to avoid ambiguity. (Crystal. 1985, 292)
Halliday’s third category, mode, is what he refers to as the symbolic organisation of
the situation. Downes recognises two distinct aspects within the category of mode and
suggests that not only does it describe the relation to the medium: written, spoken, and
so on, but also describes the genre of the text. (Downes. 1998, 316) Halliday refers to
genre as pre-coded language, language that has not simply been used before, but that
predetermines the selection of textual meanings. The linguist William Downes makes
the point that the principal characteristic of register, no matter how peculiar or
diverse, is that it is obvious and immediately recognisable. (Downes. 1998, 309)
Literary stylistics
In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, Crystal observes that, in practice, most
stylistic analysis has attempted to deal with the complex and ‘valued’ language within
literature, i.e. ‘literary stylistics’. He goes on to say that in such examination the scope
is sometimes narrowed to concentrate on the more striking features of literary
language, for instance, its ‘deviant’ and abnormal features, rather than the broader
structures that are found in whole texts or discourses. For example, the compact
language of poetry is more likely to reveal the secrets of its construction to the
stylistician than is the language of plays and novels. (Crystal. 1987, 71).
As well as conventional styles of language there are the unconventional – the most
obvious of which is poetry. In Practical Stylistics, HG Widdowson examines the
traditional form of the epitaph, as found on headstones in a cemetery. For example:
His memory is dear today
As in the hour he passed away.
(Ernest C. Draper ‘Ern’. Died 4.1.38)
(Widdowson. 1992, 6)
Widdowson makes the point that such sentiments are usually not very interesting and
suggests that they may even be dismissed as ‘crude verbal carvings’ and crude verbal
disturbance (Widdowson, 3). Nevertheless, Widdowson recognizes that they are a
very real attempt to convey feelings of human loss and preserve affectionate
recollections of a beloved friend or family member. However, what may be seen as
poetic in this language is not so much in the formulaic phraseology but in where it
appears. The verse may be given undue reverence precisely because of the sombre
situation in which it is placed. Widdowson suggests that, unlike words set in stone in
a graveyard, poetry is unorthodox language that vibrates with inter-textual
implications. (Widdowson. 1992, 4)
Two problems with a stylistic analysis of poetry are noted by PM Wetherill in
Literary Text: An Examination of Critical Methods. The first is that there may be an
over-preoccupation with one particular feature that may well minimize the
significance of others that are equally important. (Wetherill. 1974, 133) The second is
that any attempt to see a text as simply a collection of stylistic elements will tend to
ignore other ways whereby meaning is produced. (Wetherill. 1974, 133)
In ‘Poetic Effects’ from Literary Pragmatics, the linguist Adrian Pilkington analyses
the idea of ‘implicature’, as instigated in the previous work of Dan Sperber and
Deirdre Wilson. Implicature may be divided into two categories: ‘strong’ and ‘weak’
implicature, yet between the two extremes there are a variety of other alternatives.
The strongest implicature is what is emphatically implied by the speaker or writer,
while weaker implicatures are the wider possibilities of meaning that the hearer or
reader may conclude.
Pilkington’s ‘poetic effects’, as he terms the concept, are those that achieve most
relevance through a wide array of weak implicatures and not those meanings that are
simply ‘read in’ by the hearer or reader. Yet the distinguishing instant at which weak
implicatures and the hearer or reader’s conjecture of meaning diverge remains highly
subjective. As Pilkington says: ‘there is no clear cut-off point between assumptions
which the speaker certainly endorses and assumptions derived purely on the hearer’s
responsibility.’ (Pilkington. 1991, 53) In addition, the stylistic qualities of poetry can
be seen as an accompaniment to Pilkington’s poetic effects in understanding a poem's
Widdowson points out that in Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem "The Rime of the
Ancient Mariner" (1798), the mystery of the Mariner’s abrupt appearance is sustained
by an idiosyncratic use of tense. (Widdowson. 1992, 40) For instance, the Mariner
‘holds’ the wedding-guest with his ‘skinny hand’ in the present tense, but releases it
in the past tense ('...his hands dropt he.'); only to hold him again, this time with his
‘glittering eye’, in the present. (Widdowson. 1992, 41)
The point of poetry
Widdowson notices that when the content of poetry is summarised, it often refers to
very general and unimpressive observations, such as ‘nature is beautiful; love is great;
life is lonely; time passes’, and so on. (Widdowson. 1992, 9) But to say:
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore,
So do our minutes hasten to their end ...
William Shakespeare, ‘60’.
Or, indeed:
Love, all alike, no season knows nor clime,
Nor hours, days months, which are the rags of time ...
John Donne, ‘The Sun Rising’, Poems (1633)
This language gives us[who?] a new perspective on familiar themes and allows us to
look at them without the personal or social conditioning that we unconsciously
associate with them. (Widdowson. 1992, 9) So, although we[who?] may still use the
same exhausted words and vague terms like ‘love’, ‘heart’ and ‘soul’ to refer to
human experience, to place these words in a new and refreshing context allows the
poet the ability to represent humanity and communicate honestly. This, in part, is
stylistics, and this, according to Widdowson, is the point of poetry (Widdowson.
1992, 76).
Animal Farm as an Allegory
Animal Farm is an allegory through which George Orwell demonstrates the psychological
foundation of revolution, its processes and the irony of displacement of an oppressive
regime by the new revolutionary order. This essay will explain the key terms of this
statement, and then clarify the statements accuracy on describing Animal Farm in relation
to its allegory, the Russian Revolution, using examples from the text.
There are several key terms involved in the statement that must be explained before the
statements accuracy can be ascertained. Animal Farm is firstly described as an allegory; a
novel of multiple levels of meaning. On the first level, Orwell describes a very moving
account of a farmyard battle between neglected animals and unjust, greedy humans.
Delving down further into the meaning of the book, the animals and events serve as
symbols. This second stage describes the animals on a new level, and it can be seen that
the animals and events have certain parallels in Stalinist Russia. Even the minor
of the
story symbolize
Russian history.
Another key term mentioned, irony, describes the disjunction between what the audience
would expect, and what really happens. Orwell uses a certain type of irony.
The rhetorical strategy of extending a metaphor through an entire narrative so that
objects, persons, and actions in the text are equated with meanings that lie outside the
text, adjective: allegorical.
Allegory in George Orwell's Animal Farm
"One problem with allegories is in fact the difficulty of determining what counts as
source and what as target. For instance, Animal Farm is a text about a farm, which
may be taken as an explicit model for thinking about a more abstract, implicit target
that has to do with totalitarian politics. Or is Animal Farm a text about a farm which,
as an explicit target, is structured by our knowledge of a prior cultural text about
totalitarian politics which acts as an implicit source? The fact that totalitarian politics
is abstract and the farm is concrete favors the first analysis, but the fact that the
global topic of the story of the text is the life at this farm favors the latter. It is
precisely one of the distinguishing characteristics of allegory that the direction of the
relation between the domains may be read in two ways."
(Gerard Steen, Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage: A Methodological Analysis
of Theory and Research. John Benjamins, 2007)
Animal Farm - Comparison of characters to the Russian
by George J. Lamont
Animal Farm
Comparison of characters to Russian Revolution
Animal Farm
Mr. Jones
irresponsible to his animals (lets
them starve)
sometimes cruel - beats them with
sometimes kind - mixes milk in
animal mash
Russian Revolution
Czar Nicholas II
a poor leader at best, compared to
western kings
cruel - sometimes brutal with
Sometimes kind - hired students as
spies to make $
Old Major
Karl Marx
taught Animalism
workers do the work, rich keep the $,
animals revolt
dies before revolution
no owners, no rich, but no poor
workers get a better life, all animals
everyone owns the farm
young, smart, good speaker, idealistic
really wants to make life better for all
one of leaders of revolution
chased away into exile by Napoleon's
invented Communism
"workers of the world unite", take
over gov't
dies before Russian Revolution
all people equal
gov't owns everything, people own
Leon Trotsky
other leader of "October Revolution"
pure communist, followed Marx
wanted to improve life for all in
chased away by Lenin's KGB (Lenin's
secret police)
not a good speaker, not as clever like
cruel, brutal, selfish, devious, corrupt
his ambition is for power, killed
used dogs, moses, and Squealor to
control animals
big mouth, talks a lot
convinces animals to believe and
follow Napoleon
Changes and manipulates the
The Dogs
a private army that used fear to force
animals to work
killed or intimidated any opponent of
another part of Napoleon's strategy
to control animals
Moses the Raven
tells animals about Sugar Candy
mountain - Heaven
animals can go there if they work
Snowball and Major were against him
they though Heaven was a lie to
make animals work
Napoleon let him stay because he
taught animals to
work and not complain
Joseph Stalin
not a good speaker, not educated like
same as Napoleon, didn't follow
Marx's ideas
cared for power, killed all that
opposed him
used KGB, allowed church, and
Propaganda department of Lenin's
worked for Stalin to support his
used any lie to convince the people
to follow Stalin
benefited from the fact that
education was controlled
KGB - Secret Police
not really police, but forced support
for Stalin
used force, often killed entire families
for disobedience
totally loyal, part of Lenin's power,
even over army
Marx said "Opiate of the people" a lie
used to make people not complain
and do their work
Religion was tolerated because
people would work
Stalin knew religion would stop
violent revolutions
Vain, selfish people in Russia and world
was vain - loved her beauty and self
didn't think about the animal farm
went with anyone who gave her what
some people didn't care about
only though about themselves
she wanted
strong, hard working horse, believes
in Animal Farm
"Napoleon is always right", "I must
work harder"
gives his all, is betrayed by Napoleon,
who sells him
old, wise donkey who is suspicious of
thinks "nothing ever changes", is
his suspicions are true, about Boxer
and sign changes
Overall details about revolution
it was supposed to make life better
for all
life was worse at the end
The leaders became the same as, or
worse than,
the other farmers (humans) they
rebelled against
people believed Stalin because he
was "Communist"
many stayed loyal after it was
obvious Stalin a tyrant
betrayed by Stalin who ignored and
killed them
Skeptical people in Russia and outside
went to other countries that offered
more for them
Dedicated, but tricked communist
weren't sure revolution would
change anything
realized that a crazy leader can call
himself communist
knew that communism wouldn't
work with power
hungry leaders
Overall details of Russian Revolution
supposed to fix problems from Czar
life was even worse long after
Stalin made Czar look like a nice guy