Non-talking creatures

[The Skarzs]

So, this may possibly encompass a large range of discussion on all the animals that don't talk or have any real intelligence other than instinct in the series, but I thought I'd start it anyways because of a particular subject that I was curious about.

So, we know that crabs were supposed to be pretty big in the series, as evident by what happened in Mossflower, and in Mariel of Redwall, with the lobster, and it kind of makes sense when comparing the sizes of those crustaceans to mice. However, other animals like insects and spiders weren't so large, despite them being pretty large compared to something like a mouse or shrew.
Why would Brian choose only a couple creatures to be intelligence-less (for lack of a better word) and pretty large while others never changed in size?

[Jetthebinturong]

Well the easy answer is that it suits his purposes.

The slightly less easy answer is that animals such as crabs, lobsters and pike are quite frightening by themselves, whereas insects and birds are not. In that sense, it is believable that he might make the scary creatures out to be more monstrous and large. Like Skrabblag the scorpion.

[James Gryphon]

Well, Redwall is meant to be a mostly nice world to be in, and I don't think anybody would be too thrilled about living with giant bugs all over the place (people tend to think they're bad enough as it is, even at a small size). If we go by the illustrations, I do think they're slightly larger relative to the Redwallers than they are to us, albeit not enough to significantly change anything. Redwall's size scale has always been tremendously inconsistent, though, starting as early as the first book, and I've come to believe that we have to accept that the Redwall world is its own thing; there's only so much we can assume applies from our own, and the relative sizes of creatures is not a part of that.

Some examples of major size differences from our world in the first two books

Cluny and his tail are impossibly massive and strong for a brown rat. In one scene, he grapples and chokes Sela, a red fox. This wouldn't seem so bad, maybe, except that in the same book, Matthias accidentally falls into cat Julian Gingivere's mouth. There's no way those two events, and these characters' other interactions, can possibly be reconciled with what we know of our world.

In Mossflower, Cludd, a weasel, is depicted as being a reasonable match for the original Skipper of Otters. In reality, a weasel is about the size of a kitten, and an otter is closer to a badger. Also, the otters clear the way when Stormfin (who, incidentally, while being cast in a heroic light in the book, is apparently an indiscriminate killer) is let loose. While the size of pikes certainly vary (the largest one caught in Europe was something like 60 pounds), otters are generally larger, and a whole holt probably wouldn't have too much to fear in any case. Yet Gloomer (a water rat) is a credible monster, and a threat to every regular character in the book.

[close]

[NileJoy]

"The creatures in my stories are as big or small as your imagination wants them to be" Brian Jacques

[The Skarzs]

^ That's something I expected to hear. Brian certainly wanted to leave quite a bit up to the imagination of the readers, and I guess that's where most of the sizing comes from except when otherwise stated.

[CaptainRocktree]

I like this size comparison a lot, Its not perfect.. But it does a pretty good job.

Spoiler

[close]

[Gonff the Mousethief]

Yeah, that's about how I picture it, but with the Mice bigger and Rats smaller.

[James Gryphon]

Well, that's not just any rat, it's Cluny. A normal rat would probably be halfway in between.

The main thing that sticks out to me, I guess, is how small the badgers are. I have to say I imagine them at something like twice that size (big enough to easily carry a mouse in one paw).

[Blaggut]

Let's consider badgers often lift hares and such up with one paw without any struggle or even consent by the grabbed.

[Ashleg]

Let's consider badgers often lift hares and such up with one paw without any struggle or even consent by the grabbed.

Always slightly bothered me. 

I like this size comparison a lot, Its not perfect.. But it does a pretty good job.

Spoiler

[close]

I think if they took the hares and otters down a notch it would be more accurate in comparison with the Badger.

[James Gryphon]

If we go by the Pearls of Lutra cover, hares and otters are a lot larger than mice; the current height shown there is a fair estimate.

As far as the badgers go, I've personally always pictured them, such as Boar, towering over their enemies like colossi, or giants among little children. I guess there's more to it than just height, though. You can still tell from the illustration that they're much bulkier, and presumably far stronger, than the others. The hare, for instance, is relatively petite. I think the badger could still lift one of the others without much hassle.

[LT Sandpaw]

As far as size comparisons go I always saw badgers as very powerful, but not that much larger then everyone else. Generally taller and bulkier, but not overly massive. I always liked this comparison myself.

Spoiler

[close]

[CaptainRocktree]

As far as size comparisons go I always saw badgers as very powerful, but not that much larger then everyone else. Generally taller and bulkier, but not overly massive. I always liked this comparison myself.

Spoiler

[close]

Yeah, Thats a really good comparison. I always thought of Badgers as extremely strong. But only a little bit bigger then Hares or Otters.