Going back to what we were discussing in regards to Bonaparte being a necessary archetypal character... I do feel that every story needs someone like him in order to advance the plot. Especially in such a static location, where the characters are virtually isolated and the farm itself is the sum of the current setting. I don’t think anything would have changed on the farm without some kind of catalyst; roles were too well-established, and those with power (the adults) were too comfortable in their positions. Change is impossible without enough incentive, just like necessity is the mother of invention: without something to respond to and against, Lyndall would not have had a reason to become such a reactionary character. Also, the plot would not have developed at all and the potential for a rather boring story would actually turn into a rather boring story.

 I mean, even with Bonaparte around to shake things up, the characters themselves remain fairly static; Lyndall never really accomplishes much despite all her big ideals, and Em just stays this passive character built solely to react to the things that Lyndall does. This is one of those books where you can guess from the beginning that certain characters are going to die, and it really didn’t let me down. Since they lived in a world where the degree of change necessary to actually break the mold was impossible to achieve, there was only one way to end the story: by ending the characters.