Beatrice and Virgil question

At the time when he says it, there is little to no evidence that Henry (the taxidermist) is the "stinking old Nazi collaborator" that Henry L'Hôte labels him to be. (His subsequent actions somewhat validate it (especially setting his store on fire), but when L'Hôte has this revelation, it seems to come out of nowhere.) I believe the implication is that the boy of the play was actually the taxidermist during that period in Nazi Germany, committing heinous acts at the pond--but, again, there is little reason to believe that this is necessarily so. L'Hôte does go out of his way to mention that the taxidermist is in his 80's, meaning it's somewhat implausible that the taxidermist was the "sixteen or seventeen years old" boy in the story about the pond, unless "Beatrice and Virgil" takes place about a decade earlier than it was written/published.

Good question. I just finished the book and that's what has been haunting me the most. But the problem with the Taxidermist being The Boy in the play is that a few pages before Henry's revelation, following Beatrice's description of her torture, Henry explicitly notes how the description of the "head torturer" matches the physical characteristics of the Taxidermist. Then Henry shrugs it off thinking, "Perhaps it was a coincidence."
So if the Taxidermist is supposed to be represented by one specific character in his play, I would have to think its the "head torturer."

However, I'm still confused about the symbolism in the play and how the Taxidermist was allegedly "casting himself as the great defender of the innocent."

But regardless, I thought that plot twist at the end was effective and appropriate, especially because it demonstrated the way so many German's must have felt: believing so firmly in Hitler's vision and then suddenly coming to the realization that he is actually a monster! I'm not sure if that was Martel's primary purpose for it--these are just some thoughts.

It was a total surprise for me that the writer concluded that the taxidermist was a Nazi. Sure, the descirptions of the pond and the torture were much more lively than the others but it doesn't prove anything.

But than why stab him at once and even set the house on fire ?

It's been a while since I really can't grasp the end of a book. *remains puzzled*

I thought initially the taxidermist was the boy, but given the story about the boy who slaughtered the animals and then his family and is forgiven, I think he was a Nazi, and the play was asking for forgiveness. I don't understand the stabbing and burning except he is a bad man or a crazy man or both.

I think the stabbing and arson are easily explained.

He didn't want to be exposed. Nazi collaborators are STILL sought out. And once Henry made it out of the shop, the "play" was over. He committed suicide.

I, too, am an extreme animal lover. The extensive hunting and killing sickened me. The reason for taxidermy I, also, found compelling (though still hate the taking of trophies. For museums, okay, I accept that. We wouldn't know what a dodo even looks like except for a poorly stuffed one in a museum... And there's disagreement on that!)

The parallels between the slaughter of the animals, and the Jews,mwho were considered as animals, is clear.

I just finished the book and am terribly, horribly, sad. But I agree with the author that the time for writing in such a way about the Horrors is now.

After all, the Horrors keep happening... To other religious groups. Have any of you looked up the play he was in with the theatre group? I did, and thought it fitting...