Intro Please; Excerpt of...C. M. Woodhouse; The Times Literary Supplement, London, August 6, 1954

Why it was called a fairy story;
"...In fact Orwell was a deep lover of words who never consciously misused them. If he said he had written a fairy-srory with a political purpose, we cannot lightly suppose he spoke lightly. A political purpose suggests some kind of moral, and that suggests rather the fable, the medium of Aesop or la Fontaine or even Thurber. There have been fairy-stories purporting to have morals before now: Rimsky-Korsakov called Le Coq d'Or "a fairy-tale with a moral," though no one except possibly the Russian Imperial Censor (who objected to the original version of the opera as subversive) has ever been able to detect what it was. There is something freakish about the idea, anyway, which makes it seem unlikely to stir the emotions of the common reader; and it is impossible to attach a moral to any familiar sense to Animal Farm, where wickedness ends in triumph and virtue is utterly crushed. There is perhaps a moral for farmers: don't take to drink and let your animals get out of hand; but even so the villains will be comforted to find that everything comes out all right for them in the end. For the downtrodden animals there is nothing but misery, cruelty, and injustice; and in place of a moral there is only the tragic chorus of the donkey Benjamin, who held that "life would go on as it had always gone on--that is, badly." This is not like the kind of moral that tells us to look before we leap or not to count our boobies before they are hatched. For the animals never had a chance to choose, and if they had it would have made no difference.
It is just the sense of purposeless cruelty, though, that gives the clue to Orwell's purpose, as well as to his deadly serious reason for calling Animal Farm a fairy-story. The point about fairy-stories is that they are written not merely without a moral but without a morality. They take place in a world beyond good and evil, where people (or animals) suffer or prosper for reasons unconnected with ethical merit--for being ugly or beautiful respectively, for instance, or for even more unsatisfactory reasons. A little girl sets out to do a good deed for her grandmother and gets gobbled up by a wolf; a young rogue escapes the gallows (and gets an old Jew hanged instead) by his talent on the fiddle; dozens of young princes die horrible deaths trying to get through the thorn-hedge that surrounds the Sleeping Beauty, just because they had the bad luck to be born before her hundred-year curse expired; and one young prince, no better or worse, no handsomer or uglier than the rest gets through merely because he has the good luck to arrive just as the hundred years are up; and so on and so on. Even when Grimm's stepmothers are called "wicked," it is well to remember that in German their Bosheit is viciousness and bad temper, not moral guilt. For all this is related by the fairy-story tellers without approval or disapproval, without a glimmer of subjective feeling, as though their pens were dipped in surgical spirit to sterilize the microbes of emotion. They never seek to criticize or moralize, to protest or plead or persuade; and if they have an emotional impact on the reader, as the greatest of them do, that is not intrinsic to the stories. They would indeed only weaken that impact to achieve it. They move by not seeking to move; almost, it seems, by seeking not to move.".
C. M. Woodhouse

aka ~~~ end quote.
Thank you for your insights Mr. Woodhouse

I have said throughout the blogsphere that my posts are sometimes, if not, mosttimes just for my reference(and in our era, blogshperically~publicly so), and merely for my journal and with that I will now add that they are entering the league of fairy-story. If you are so moved, please join me.

I would like to clarify; this excerpt spoke mountains to me about six months or a year ago. Just as Don Miguel Ruiz did.
Namesta!