Introduction

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is one of the most enduring political fables of the twentieth century, blending allegory, satire, and symbolism to critique totalitarianism. The novel depicts animals overthrowing human oppressors only to succumb to tyranny under their own leaders. This study explores how Orwell constructs characterization poetically, employing irony, symbolism, and minimalism to reflect both historical events and universal themes of power and betrayal. At first glance, the text may seem a simple fable about animals who overthrow their human oppressor, yet a deeper reading reveals that Orwell employs an intricate poetics of characterization to expose the mechanisms of totalitarianism and the moral degradation of revolutionary ideals. Each character in the novel serves not merely as an individual but as a symbolic and linguistic construct through which Orwell critiques social hierarchies, propaganda, and political hypocrisy.

The relevance of this research lies in its examination of literary strategies that continue to resonate in today’s world, where issues of propaganda, authoritarianism, and ideological manipulation remain urgent. While numerous studies have addressed its ideological symbolism, relatively few have examined how poetic characterization functions as a stylistic instrument. This paper investigates how Orwell transforms characters into linguistic and ethical archetypes, connecting his political message to universal psychological patterns. The study situates Orwell’s narrative within broader traditions of allegorical poetics, including parallels with Eastern moral literature.

Earlier scholarship has emphasized the political reading of Animal Farm as a satire on Soviet totalitarianism. Recent stylistic studies (Leech & Short, 2007; Toolan, 2014) suggest that Orwell’s lexical minimalism functions as a rhetorical tool that amplifies irony and moral tension. Comparative perspectives reveal affinities between Orwell’s method and Central Asian allegorical poetics (e.g., Alisher Navoiy’s Hayrat ul-abror), where animal figures and concise diction expose moral decay.

Ultimately, the paper argues that the poetics of characterization in Animal Farm is central to Orwell’s critique of totalitarian discourse and his broader vision of human freedom and moral responsibility. In doing so, the study not only reconsiders Orwell’s stylistic mastery but also underscores the enduring relevance of his narrative techniques to contemporary discussions on language, ideology, and power.

Methodology

The research applied a qualitative stylistic approach supported by corpus-assisted textual analysis. A digital word-frequency and collocation analysis was performed on a 29 000-word text of Animal Farm to identify      lexical distributions and verb types associated with major characters. Each primary figure – Napoleon, Snowball, Boxer, Squealer, and Clover – was examined for frequency of appearance, dominant verb category, and narrative function. Quantitative data were triangulated with literary interpretation and historical allegory.

This study employs a literary-critical and comparative approach, focusing on:

• Textual analysis of Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945).
• Identification of character archetypes (Napoleon, Snowball, Boxer, Squealer, sheep, dogs) and their symbolic functions.
• Examination of Orwell’s poetic devices: irony, allegory, symbolism, and minimalistic prose style.
• Contextualization within the historical-political background of Stalinist Russia and its allegorical representations.
  Secondary sources, including critical works on Orwell by Meyers (2000), Crick (1992), Bloom (2007), and others, provide scholarly support for interpreting the novel’s character construction.

Results

The corpus study shows that Napoleon, Snowball, Boxer, and Squealer dominate Animal Farm, comprising about seventy percent of all named-character references. This focus indicates that Orwell’s narrative energy centers on ideological contrast rather than psychological detail, turning characterization into a poetic vehicle for political meaning.

Napoleon and Snowball emerge as opposite archetypes. Napoleon’s speech decreases as his power grows, reflecting what Crick (1992) terms the “rhetoric of silence,” while Snowball’s language features active verbs such as plan and design. Napoleon’s imperatives – order and command – encode authoritarian control directly into syntax, transforming grammar into a tool of ideology.

Boxer represents the tragic epic of labor. With a lexicon of about forty words and two repeated mottos – I will work harder and Napoleon is always right – he becomes a poetic emblem of loyalty and exploitation. His linguistic simplicity mirrors his moral steadfastness and ultimate victimization.

Squealer, the sheep, and the dogs illustrate the mechanisms of power. Squealer embodies propaganda; the sheep reduce ideology to chant, and the dogs personify coercion when words fail. Together they expose how language becomes both weapon and ritual under tyranny.

Finally, Orwell’s stylistic minimalism – just twenty-nine thousand words – fuses simplicity with irony. His short Anglo-Saxon diction (work, equal, farm) creates moral clarity while sustaining double meanings. As Bloom (2007) notes, this “semantic ambivalence” lets truth and falsehood coexist, giving Orwell’s prose its enduring poetic force.

Discussion

Findings indicate that Orwell’s characterization functions on three integrated levels below:

Table 1.

This tri-layered model unites political specificity with poetic universality. When compared with Uzbek moral allegory, both traditions employ didactic simplicity to unveil moral corruption, reinforcing Orwell’s global relevance.

The analysis reveals that Orwell’s characterization is both narrative and symbolic. Characters are not merely fictional animals but allegorical carriers of historical critique and universal archetypes of human behavior. Orwell’s minimalism, irony, and allegory demonstrate how literature can distill political and philosophical truths into accessible yet profound narratives.

This poetic method allows Animal Farm to transcend its Soviet context, making it relevant globally as a study of manipulation, betrayal, and the cyclical nature of power. The novel resonates with modern concerns about propaganda, authoritarianism, and democratic fragility, offering timeless lessons for readers and scholars alike.

Conclusion. Orwell’s Animal Farm demonstrates how characterization can function as a poetic device, shaping narrative meaning while critiquing ideology. Through figures such as Napoleon, Snowball, Boxer, and Squealer, Orwell constructs a parable of power, corruption, and disillusionment. His minimalist prose, rich symbolism, and biting irony create a text that is both simple in form and profound in message.

This study shows that the poetics of characterization in Animal Farm represent a model for analyzing literature that negotiates between art and ideology. Future research might compare Orwell’s allegorical strategies with Uzbek or other national literatures, exploring how writers encode political critique within symbolic characters.

Orwell’s economy of style and symbolic condensation turn political history into poetic myth. Napoleon embodies totalitarian ambition, Snowball reflects idealistic intellect, Boxer personifies sacrificial labor, and Squealer reveals rhetoric’s decay into manipulation. Such characterization achieves what Williams (2015) calls the literature of conscience. Quantitative evidence from the text confirms that Orwell’s lexical precision magnifies ethical impact. Future studies may apply digital sentiment mapping to trace irony patterns or compare Orwell’s allegory with post-Soviet and Uzbek reformist literature.