Boxer represents naive and uncritical loyalty to the new regime. He sees how life for the animals improves initially and is prepared to work as hard as he can to bring the ideals of the revolution to fruition. His intelligence is limited, however, and he is too trusting and naive, stupid even, to see the reality of corruption infecting the pigs' regime. On the other hand, his naivety also leads to him openly expressing his puzzlement over certain things and this is potentially dangerous for the pigs as it might lead to other more intelligent animals beginning to question what is happening. This, together with Boxer's enormous strength, is what makes him a threat to the pigs: they desperately need him for his enormous capacity for work and example but, if that strength were to be turned against them because he unwittingly alerted the rest of the animals to their corruption, then their regime would be finished.
As regards the second part of your question, I don't have much space left but I think I take your point about the climax. I have never liked the novel's ending and, now that you have mentioned it, I do think something better could have been fashioned out of Boxer's fate. In a sense he is the key character in the story, the tragic victim destroyed by his very loyalty, just as ordinary, hardworking people are so often destroyed by tyrannical governments.
No comments:
Post a Comment