stereotypes in burmese days

spoilers for the ending ahead...

i felt that what could have been quite a convincing case made on Orwell's part against the Empire was seriously undermined by the flatness of the characterizations in burmese days. practically all but the protagonist were stereotypical characters fleshed out by the narrative only in so far as they (the characters) affected Flory or any main plot forces.

men: Dr. Veraswamy (subservient, obsequious native who worships colonials that serves to play up Flory's anti-imperialism), Ellis (racist colonial that does the same), Mr. Lackersteen, Mr. Macgregor, Westfield (faceless white colonials who cling together socially to preserve their 'whiteness'), Verrall (quintessential embodiment of patriarchal ideals of 'maleness' against which Flory's deficiencies are enhanced), UPK (corrupt native), etc...

women: Ma Hla May (fawning, materialistic Oriental mistress), Elizabeth and Mrs. Lackersteen (typical memsahibs who prize marriage above all and frown upon natives)

That Flory wants to believe more in these characters, particularly Elizabeth - whom he idealises and romanticises as better than the rest, and a means of escape from his loneliness - points to his naivete and obvious deficiencies as an adequate spokesperson and representative of the text's anti-imperialist sentiments. further, the text portrays these characters as one-dimensional agents of their individual simplistic capitalist or racist agendas, manipulating and puppeteering them in favour of the narrative's consensus that anti-imperialism, or even any sort of ambivalence towards clear-cut colonizer/colonized, white/black binaries, must end in tragedy and failure. (as evidenced by Flory's suicide)