Does anybody else find it unnerving/slightly off that Woodlanders, the good guys, don't seem to even be the tiniest bit upset when they kill a vermin, with the exception of Brome, Abbots, and a couple others in-between? (I'm talking about post-Mattimeo, here.)
The "Oh, but they're in battle, blah..." thing doesn't really cut it when it all boils down.
Even when they aren't fighting, the Woodlanders have this attitude of "But they're just vermin!"
And it seems like an unfitting trait for some of these guys because they're so friendly throughout the majority of the book. I understand that the warrior characters (Martin, Ranguvar, bloodwrathy Badger Lords, similar.) would be like this because that's how they are, but for it to be pretty much all of the good guys?
Maybe I'm being too specific.
What I'm trying to say is, Woodlanders don't give a flying cow when they kill somebeast.
In other books I've read, a good character usually has this "You don't need to kill to win a battle" outlook and will only do it if it's absolutely neccecary. And then, when it does happen, they're shocked/phased by it.
When the Woodlanders don't care it always seems to make them less real to me.
And the only reason I'm not picking on vermin about this is that they're the bad guys.
But if I was, you'd notice that "normal" vermin, not the horde leaders or the super bad ones, will be kind of shocked/scared when they kill somebeast. Or in some situations, happy. But there's still an emotional reaction there whereas the Woodlanders seem completely poker-faced.
There was even an incident in Taggerung where a shrew or at least, what I think was a shrew. I forget his name. killed a stoat that Tagg had taken as an unarmed prisoner.
Talk about contradiction! I thought they were against that?
I just...I don't know...did any of you ever think about this?
Well, sometimes it can come from either the Vermin attacking the Abbey or attempting to and the Woodlanders track them down. Then, they know they are on a mission and killing is the way to complete it. However, all of the Redwallers know that vermin are bad from either being taught that or listening to account form a Skipper for example. Shrews for instance live in the wild and have to survive, so they adapt techniques, and they gotta know how to kill and fend off attackers. Long Patrol Hares are pretty self-explanatory.
In all, My guess is that they just know that vermin are dangerous and something that can harm them, and just knocking them out won't do the trick. Plus, if they kill someone they love earlier on, then they would really want to kill them (Take in Pearls of Lutra when the dormouse burned the Church down when some crows murdered the kid). But, maybe the Woddlanders are really just nicer vermin. Who knows?
Quote from: Gonff the Mousethief on June 01, 2016, 05:29:34 AM
Well, sometimes it can come from either the Vermin attacking the Abbey or attempting to and the Woodlanders track them down. Then, they know they are on a mission and killing is the way to complete it. However, all of the Redwallers know that vermin are bad from either being taught that or listening to account form a Skipper for example. Shrews for instance live in the wild and have to survive, so they adapt techniques, and they gotta know how to kill and fend off attackers. Long Patrol Hares are pretty self-explanatory.
In all, My guess is that they just know that vermin are dangerous and something that can harm them, and just knocking them out won't do the trick. Plus, if they kill someone they love earlier on, then they would really want to kill them (Take in Pearls of Lutra when the dormouse burned the Church down when some crows murdered the kid). But, maybe the Woddlanders are really just nicer vermin. Who knows?
In some places this is completely correct.
But wouldn't any emotionally healthy person be at least a *tiiiny* bit disturbed they just killed a guy?
Most heroes would only go that far if they absolutely needed to.
Or maybe not even, but at least they'd have emotion.
Some of these guys are so stoic about it and then once whoever it is is dead it's like nothing happened.
Everyone needs lessons from the Abbots and Brome, seriously.
It's one thing that has rubbed me wrong in the books after I started to reread the books. Before, I always thought "Well, they're the bad guys!", but after I was about thirteen or fourteen, I started thinking. . . There is little to justify the woodlanders' unprovoked hostility. Of course, it doesn't help that the vermin are all, with very few exceptions, bad. It's something you just need to take with the books.
One such case very recently was when I was reading Salamandastron, and Arula the mole was talking about Thura and Dingeye, saying "Yurr, they'm were bad 'uns" (or to that effect), despite the only "bad" thing they did at Redwall was an accident. Not sure how she came to that conclusion when there was only one bad thing they did; the rest they did was just silly stuff and harmless.
If Dingeye and Thura were squirrels and the same thing happened, she'd say, "It was an accident so I forgive them. They didn't mean it!" :P
You're so right.
It's actually fine with me that pretty much all vermin are villains, I like it actually, but it bothers me that sometimes the Woodlanders seem like the true villains in contrast. :-\
And it becomes more like this the later in the series you go.
I still love the books nonetheless, it's just an interesting subject. ;)
Quote from: Ashleg on June 01, 2016, 04:31:08 AM
Does anybody else find it unnerving/slightly off that Woodlanders, the good guys, don't seem to even be the tiniest bit upset when they kill a vermin... but for it to be pretty much all of the good guys?
From what I remember, "pretty much all of the good guys", or the majority of them that fight,
are warrior-types. Otters, shrews and hares all fit into this category. Many squirrels have a martial background as well. In fact, the main beasts I can really think of off the top of my head that
aren't like this are inhabitants of Redwall (or Noonvalers). Even so, there are several cases where Mr. Jacques goes into great detail showing some of these protagonists' first reaction to a kill. Tammo is the first one that comes to mind; after that, Flib, from
Sable Quean.
And as far as Redwallers go, claiming that they never get shocked or have any feeling related to their kills is simply incorrect. There's at least two of them in the series (I'm hard-pressed for names right now) that break down, talk to the deceased's bodies, and flee the battlefield. It's not at all infrequent, either, for one to have to be given the 'fighting to defend our friends and family' speech from some hardened vet when they're first getting started.
I think this is an issue that's blown out of proportion and taken out of context, and saying that the protagonists 'seem the true villains in contrast' is over the top.
Quote from: Skarzsand Arula the mole was talking about Thura and Dingeye, saying "Yurr, they'm were bad 'uns" (or to that effect), despite the only "bad" thing they did at Redwall was an accident.
From what I remember, nobody saw what happened except for the stoats. So, the Redwallers had no way of knowing that it was an accident. They gave Samkim the benefit of the doubt since he had grown up there, but I think it's a definite stretch to assume they would do the same for any random woodland creature that drops in. The Grumpy Watervole, for instance, didn't get that kind of a treatment.
Maybe they judged the stoats a little harshly, but put yourself in their shoes... you invite a scruffy-looking stranger off the streets over to stay the night at your house. A family member or friend happens to be out in the backyard target-shooting with a gun. When you wake up in the morning, someone in your family is lying dead in the backyard with a bullet hole in their chest, the stranger is gone, and the gun and several valuables are missing.
What are you going to think? If you claim that your
first thought would be "it was an accident", you're lying.
Dingeye and Thura didn't steal anything except some scones.
Anyway, yes this is one of the many things that bothers me about Redwall. It doesn't seem odd per se, it's just downright unrealistic. If you think someone attacked you and you killed them in self defense, you wouldn't react, you're either wrong or a sociopath. No matter where you come from or what your background is (Redwaller, shrew, Long Patrol hare) you're going to have some kind of reaction - most realistically a mental breakdown - after at least your first kill.
To counter James' point, miscellaneous background characters don't matter. We want to see reactions from the stone-faced protagonists.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on June 01, 2016, 02:04:07 PM
Dingeye and Thura didn't steal anything except some scones.
They stole Martin's sword.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on June 01, 2016, 02:04:07 PMTo counter James' point, miscellaneous background characters don't matter. We want to see reactions from the stone-faced protagonists.
Tammo was the
lead protagonist, and Flib was in the second tier of main characters -- not as much time as Buckler or his sidekick, maybe, but as much as anyone else. Besides, the main characters you mention
are frequently the warrior types, who've done it for some time.
If y'all like, I can go through my Redwall book collection, skipping
Redwall and
Mossflower since Ash said "post-
Mattimeo", pick out every time a protagonist is depicted as killing somebody, and categorize it. That would help give us some information about whether this is the case or not. My collection doesn't include every book, but if this trend is as widespread as some claim, it should be possible to pick some out at random and still find it at work.
Quote from: Ashleg on June 01, 2016, 04:31:08 AM
Does anybody else find it unnerving/slightly off that Woodlanders, the good guys, don't seem to even be the tiniest bit upset when they kill a vermin.
There is an explanation. And it comes from studying just how soldiers feel while fighting, you see there is a wild joy in destruction, the wicked power that you have to kill, and when that adrenaline rush kicks in most soldiers don't feel when they fight, they just act, and for the most part there is no compassion or overall concern for others, just excitement and survival instincts.
A pilot who fought in Vietnam once said something along the lines of, "I would napalm entire villages, burning huge portions of the jungle. I never regretted it, I loved it."
I think a great example of this delayed shock happens in Rakkety Tam during the crow scene when the LP rush through a pine grove. Following their exit from the trees all the young hares begin bragging about their accomplishments, and Tam along with one of the hare officers mention that in a while all the young recruits would cry themselves to sleep in remembrance of what happened.
In the same book there was another great example when a hedgehog smashes some vermin's head in, and the shock is very fast in coming. He sits down beside it and starts apologizing.
So yes there are some strange instances where characters seem very unaffected by killing vermin, the otter sue from High Rhulain comes to mind, but for the most part, I think that the shock of killing comes slowly, and that is why it seems that the woodlanders aren't overly affected by it, at least not a first.
Some of that also has to do with HOW the fight went on. A lot of the fights that Redwallers went through were from the wall top, shooting down at indistinct figures mostly in the ditch. Close-quarters combat is different on the mind than ranged combat. The danger is different, the fighting style is different. You can't see faces or give identity to just one more body in the masses. If you see a body that you killed, who was just alive a moment before, and see what you did, there will be a reaction as you feel a connection.
It's like going through a crowd and seeing some people get on a bus; you didn't know any of them, but if you hear that the bus was in an accident and the passengers died, while you will be saddened to hear of deaths, you aren't likely going to feel much because you didn't know them and only saw them for a short time. However, if you are in the bus, and the person you were just talking to dies, THEN you will feel something, because that close contact will create an identity of that person in your mind, and suddenly they aren't alive any more.
Quote from: James GryphonFrom what I remember, nobody saw what happened except for the stoats. So, the Redwallers had no way of knowing that it was an accident. They gave Samkim the benefit of the doubt since he had grown up there, but I think it's a definite stretch to assume they would do the same for any random woodland creature that drops in. The Grumpy Watervole, for instance, didn't get that kind of a treatment.
Maybe they judged the stoats a little harshly, but put yourself in their shoes... you invite a scruffy-looking stranger off the streets over to stay the night at your house. A family member or friend happens to be out in the backyard target-shooting with a gun. When you wake up in the morning, someone in your family is lying dead in the backyard with a bullet hole in their chest, the stranger is gone, and the gun and several valuables are missing.
I thought I had mentioned something about that.
Yeah, I do agree that they had no idea of knowing, and evidence suggests that they did do the deed, but, using Jet's words, it seems unrealistic to call them all-out "bad beasts". I will agree that the deceased was a close friend to all, so that would affect their judgement, and the vermin were foolish enough to take something as important as Martin's sword. Despite this, the only word I can use to describe the pair is "Fools", but not "bad ones". Because fools are what they were.
What about Veil?
He attempts and fails to poison somebody, and Bryony still believes he's good although in that moment, he was determined to be anything *but* good.
Not to mention that they labeled him as evil while he was a baby.
Then, later, in a fight with his dad, he does a heel-face-turn and dies for her.
And she goes home and tells everybody that "Veil was truly evil".
What?!
And nobeast back at the Abbey seemed too upset that this kid/teenager/(whatever Veil was) that they raised since he was an infant just died. It's not an instance of Woodlanders killing somebeast in a fight, but still, they hardly care.
As for what James said...
Yeah.
There are quite a few that seem surprised after their first time--and whenever that happens I'm probably sitting there looking like this: :'D
But after that?
They seem unaffected.
Even the Warriors, excluding Bloodwrathy ones, should have some kind of guilt, right? Because they get all upset when vermin kill their friends, but flip the tables and it doesn't matter.
Well, we did see what segregation, discrimination, lies and propaganda could do rather awfully here in the US. People had it really ingrained in their minds that blacks weren't real people, and would easily kill them, allow them to suffer, and not give a, what was it you said, a flying cow, about them.
Just look at the Jim Crow laws, that stuff was horrible. Good, respectable people came up with that sort of stuff, simply because they had been taught from birth that blacks were lesser beings.
So if segregation and race discrimination was potentially allowed to go on long enough then the woodlanders, so called goodbeasts, might not even consider the vermin type real animals with real lives, and *Cheesy moment* real feelings.
I mean they even call them vermin. That's an almost blatant Redwall version of the 'N' word.
So maybe Woodlanders have a messed up view of vermin, and I gotta say, vermin never really helped their case very much with all the attacks and villainy they do.
I bet they do it just to spite them. ):3
I've always had a bit of trouble with this one. It's not exactly surprising or even really bad that woodlanders "discriminate" against vermin. Vermin have an overwhelmingly poor record in their favor; they are almost completely the aggressors in all interactions. Furthermore, while the woodlanders often kill vermin, it is almost entirely due to actions taken by the vermin against the woodlanders. So far as I can recall, there is nowhere in the books where a woodlander meets a vermin and kills them outright with no provocation. In addition, there are many instances where in my view the vermin should have been killed but were allowed to go free (Wicky and Burgog from Triss come to mind).
In the great majority of circumstances, vermin do nothing other than raid, pillage, plunder, and kill. Furthermore, most of them don't show "real emotions" other than fear or anger and occasionally loyalty (Notable exceptions in Triss and a few other books, however) and even seem incapable of it. For example, Dingeye and Thura expressed no remorse for killing a Redwaller than a regret for the loss of their own more comfortable circumstances.
In addition, I think most people overestimate the psychological impact of killing. To kill another human may have some psychological impact, but when it is kill-or-be-killed or especially execution of justice it tends to be either muted, delayed or nonexistent. It is not necessarily or even usually a traumatic life-changing experience. Furthermore, Skippers and Guosim would be used to battle as a matter of survival and therefore conditioned. As a result, it would probably take no effect whatsoever.
I believe that most of the woodlanders treatment of vermin is justified or even somewhat too lenient. Simply put, the cost in life and freedom is too high to permit murderous vermin to roam freely.
I believe the shrew science you are talking about is in Salamandestron. And shrews are more brave and battle hardened than Abbey beasts. When abbey chaps kill, they get very emotional from what I have seen. One if the most tragic scenes was when the cellar hog in rakkety tam killed a stoat with a hammer, and broke down crying and apologizing to the slain beast's corpse.
Quote from: Bonaparte on June 07, 2016, 08:03:35 AM
I believe the shrew science you are talking about is in Salamandestron. And shrews are more brave and battle hardened than Abbey beasts. When abbey chaps kill, they get very emotional from what I have seen. One if the most tragic scenes was when the cellar hog in rakkety tam killed a stoat with a hammer, and broke down crying and apologizing to the slain beast's corpse.
Haven't read that one yet. Might be why......
Also, guys, keep in mind that Redwall is set in medieval times (if you want to compare it to human history). Death was commonplace back then and there wasn't a whole lot of value to a life. Seeing dead people and people getting killed was tragic in some circumstances, but pretty commonplace in a lot of places. I mean, public executions were huge town events that everyone came out to watch!
Sometimes it was the only time people had to celebrate too.
I love the Redwall series, but they're very black and white, I'd say. It's easy to tell who's evil and who's good. (As they are children's books.) Species have their own set formulas for personalities and Brian Jacques didn't often steer from these (and when he did, the results were fantastic iirc). Mice are a bit more versatile than the others, squirrels and otters are brave, hares tend to be sassy and well-mannered, shrews are passionate, etc. Vermin however are bloodthirsty, cowardly, and tough only in numbers. The exceptions are leaders of the hordes. That's why I love the idea of a more-rounded vermin character, a character who isn't 100% evil all the time. I had a roleplay about to start revolving around one of my vermin characters, perhaps I'll give it a try here. =)
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on June 01, 2016, 11:23:59 PM
Well, we did see what segregation, discrimination, lies and propaganda could do rather awfully here in the US. People had it really ingrained in their minds that blacks weren't real people, and would easily kill them, allow them to suffer, and not give a, what was it you said, a flying cow, about them.
Just look at the Jim Crow laws, that stuff was horrible. Good, respectable people came up with that sort of stuff, simply because they had been taught from birth that blacks were lesser beings.
So if segregation and race discrimination was potentially allowed to go on long enough then the woodlanders, so called goodbeasts, might not even consider the vermin type real animals with real lives, and *Cheesy moment* real feelings.
I mean they even call them vermin. That's an almost blatant Redwall version of the 'N' word.
So maybe Woodlanders have a messed up view of vermin, and I gotta say, vermin never really helped their case very much with all the attacks and villainy they do.
You're missing one very critical point here, instigation. Back when the slave trade was the big (horrible) thing that it was, how did it work? The traders would sale their courses, picking up people who had been taken from their homes against their will. In the case of Redwall, why do the woodlanders have preconceived notions that vermin are evil? Because the vermin are rising up against them. So where's the difference? It's in who started it, the slave trade was made possible by the kidnappers who went inland to obtain the slaves. A Redwall equivalent would be the woodlanders going out to purposefully kidnap and enslave the vermin, but we don't see that happening do we? Nay, quite the opposite, the view must be turned around to compensate. Let's say, for illustration, that the slaves represent the
woodlanders instead. The "slaves," wouldn't be to friendly with the "slavers," and probably wouldn't be too upset about killing one that was actively trying to take away their family.
It's really all about perspective, you have to understand both mindsets, the WHY behind everything (this is really the key to understanding just about everything). In this case, we see that the vermin consistently (almost to the point of always) seek to destroy, enslave, pillage, plunder, etc. all for personal gain, and with little regard to anybeast except them self. This contrasts very sharply with the woodlander's hospitable nature, more often than not wishing the best for all around them (let us remember Dingeye and Thura, two vermin who were allowed sanctuary in Redwall despite being vermin, they might've been good too, if it weren't for their incident with the bow). Does this always ring true? Of course not, we could go on about Tugga Bruster vs. Blaggut, but the point's been made. The vermin in the Redwall world represent all that is evil, and they've done practically nothing to fight this stereotype (enter Veil Sixclaw, given every opportunity to be different, but followed in the footsteps of vermin he never even knew).
How about Julian, Gingivire, Ashleg, and Groddil?
((No. Stop laughing. I didn't just say that for the sake of it. ;) ))
Julian and Gingivire, cats, both worked willingly against the other vermin in order to help the heroes.
Though Ashleg himself did some bad things ((stop--laughing!)) he realized in the end that Tsarmina was evil and fled the scene.
Groddil never did anything evil as far as I can remember, and in fact he came across as a good guy being forced to work for the wrong side.
He even celebrated in the end when Ungatt Trunn died.
There's also Flinky, the stoat who wanted his band to just settle down and mind their own business.
Then Blaggut and Grubbage come into play, not to mention that the ferret, Romsca, managed to form a bond with the Abbot before her death...
((And in Veil's case, it doesn't help that the Woodlanders named an infant secretlg after the words "evil" and "vile", does it? That, my friends, is not cool. Sawney Rath was a vermin who adopted a Woodlander and he went and made Tagg feel like a star all the time, even if they had different veiwpoints. No wonder they grew up to be how they were?))
How many vermin have you named? 8-9, how many are in the Redwall books? tens of thousands (maybe over a hundred thousand). The number of exceptions practically doesn't even exist in the light of how many vermin were hell bent on murder and plunder. Also, Groddil and Ashleg don't particularly count as they both exhibited a willingness to do evil, fleeing more for personal safety than anything else. Romsca's debatable, but I'll give it to you (I prefer the mindset that she did have a change of heart, the scene has significantly more depth that way). The first cat we ever saw was good (also notice the lack of wild before the mention), Gingivire's turn was unexpected, but his father wasn't particularly bad to begin with either. Tsarmina was the bad apple, also keep in mind that Redwall and Mossflower were both early in the series, from that point onward, cats were pretty much just straight evil. Veil is also a word used to describe something that's hidden, which Veil was certainly hidden from the vermin. Sawney Rath ordered the murder of Rillflag to obtain a child he tried to rear as a vermin, and also attempted to force him to skin a living beast (some star he was). Veil has no excuse to be evil (other than personal decision to follow the nature of vermin), and Tagg was good despite being hampered by his upbringing (active choice to follow the nature of woodlanders).
Nothing changes the clear cut fact that vermin are evil 99% of the time, so exercising caution is well advised! If man were to break into my home, and I was holding a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger, why? Because the likelihood of the stranger in my home wanting to do something other than harm or theft is almost non-existent. If he died as a result, the fault would lie with him for doing something he shouldn't have. The woodlanders have been far more gracious than that with the vermin they've come across, so questioning their moral compass based on the fact that they don't all feel remorse when trying to protect themselves and their families is beyond unfair.
Groddil never once wanted or tried to do anything evil. He was basically Trunn's slave.
Veil's morality makes no logical sense, and nor does Tagg's. The ideas of nature vs nurture are whacked in the Redwall series. Even if Veil was naturally "evil" and Tagg was naturally "good," their upbringings should trump those natures.
No, no, I know what Veil means, but don't you remember that poem they wrote about him?
And I wasn't saying that Sawney was good. I was saying that he treated Tagg great whilst in turn all the Redwallers except Bryony were quick to pin everything against Veil, so he became resentful against them.
The cats being from early on doesn't matter on where they stand, either. :P
Veil did save Bryony, so I'd say he did have a little turnaround there!
I still wouldn't allow the dibbuns to be around him unsupervised. (Not trying to say Groddil's bad, but he's less trust worthy than examples like Blaggut and Grubbage, hence why I don't count him as highly as I do some others)
But they didn't, and that's kind of the point (as well as one of the reasons why good and evil are so clear cut in the series). Their nature is so much a part of who they are that those who stray from it are few and far between, hence the discussion over the last couple of posts. One could make an argument about conscience in this case, for Veil, you can't really teach conscience. For Tagg, Martin was seen to be a guiding presence in his life, which could help to shorten the disparity between the two. This is more speculation than opinion, and the topic's certainly open to a certain amount of interpretation. But the fact remains that this is inline with the way the woodlanders act in relation to vermin (basically the point of this topic).
@Ashleg: Were they wrong to pin the things on the very beast who literally did all of the wrong things? The fact is they weren't wrong, and in the case of Tagg I repeat, Sawney tried to force him to skin another beast alive! He was manipulative in this despite the fact that he may have shown some sort of affection for the otter. Also, I would like to point out quickly that Sawney's reason for treating Tagg so highly was the status of the Taggerung, and that was it. I don't recall anything personal stemming from pure relationship so much as the importance of roles.
My point with the cats is that Jaques changed their stance after the first few books, meaning that the early cats (in written order) are hardly fair to count. Veil may have saved Bryony at the very very end, but his statement leaves his moral position kind of gray, and his life up to that point doesn't help his case.
Page 38 in Taggerung clearly showed that Sawney loved Tagg, whether it be due to his rank or not.
He tried to force Tagg to do that because, like I said, Sawney's not a good guy and I never thought he was.
He does express more good qualities, though, and he could've just as easily resented Tagg for being an otter despite also having the mark of the Taggerung. But I don't think that came up once.
How old was Veil supposed to be?
Early twenties by the time he was exiled, right?
If he was stealing stuff inside the Abbey whilst still a Dibbun and they always blamed him before anybeast else (like the book made it out to seem), then why the heck was it him? Because he was a ferret. Plenty Woodlander Dibbuns through the series do things like that but it isn't treated as "Oh, you're a squirrel so you must've been the one to steal it."
And as he got older, he kept it up because there was some kind of scorn there.
The attempted poisoning of that one character was really the only thing he did that was "evil". Otherwise, he seemed like an angsty teenager.
Sawney's actions were born of a desire to have the Taggerung in his control (hence the manipulation later on), any sort of loving facade he may have showed was simply because of the power that otter brought him. We know Sawney's character, and his character bars from believing that he has any capacity to actually love, despite how deceptive one of his actions might be. Why the heck was it him? Because it was him! He was guilty of the crimes he was accused of! The blame being set on him was entirely justified by his actions, and the difference between Veil and the dibbuns is that he was malicious. There's no excuse for his actions, and blaming it on the woodlanders who rightly accused him of being the thief that he most certainly was, is irresponsible. Malicious should be substituted for angsty, he tried to kill an inhabitant of Redwall Abbey, a vile, evil act that was punished far more graciously than it would have in Sawney's or Swartt's camp.
The generally accepted punishment for attempted murder is death; it is just to condemn murderers. It is illogical and, indeed, immoral to suggest that it is wrong to punish people for their actions. The laws of nature and nature's God require that people reckon with the consequences of their actions, regardless of their intentions or the mutability of their character. Justice requires it, and mercy cannot rob justice.
I feel like this is a court case, what the flyin' heck...
He later felt guilt for it, though, a trait many vermin wouldn't have expressed anything close to.
There's many people, I've read, who think that Veil was good as well.
He could've very easily teamed up against Bryony instead of saving her.
Did I ever say it was wrong to punish people for their actions? Heeeeck no! >.<
But I do believe that everyone deserves a second chance, and even though Veil threw away many chances, he died for his adoptive mother whom didn't seem very phased by it.
I haven't read Outcast in a long time; but my perception was that Veil should have been remembered as a bad person who's last act happened to be good.
In any case, this topic is about vermin and woodlanders in general, not about whether Veil was evil or good- I don't think we have enough information to decide that anyways.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on August 17, 2016, 07:47:54 PM
Veil's morality makes no logical sense, and nor does Tagg's. The ideas of nature vs nurture are whacked in the Redwall series. Even if Veil was naturally "evil" and Tagg was naturally "good," their upbringings should trump those natures.
I agree. In real life, that's more often than nought the case. However, it seems it was necessary to keep those lines between good and bad in the books pretty clear-cut.
It should be kept in mind, however, that these characters are not human; the effect being they are far more susceptible to the influence of nature than that of nurture. In addition, there are certainly instances where people from horrible circumstances rise far above them, and where people of high standing have fallen into a moral abyss. These are two exceptional characters, so it is not fair, perhaps, to judge them by "averages"- especially as I would say they are more typical than not of the Redwall universe.
Quote from: Skarzs on August 18, 2016, 06:51:29 AM
Quote from: Jet the binturong on August 17, 2016, 07:47:54 PM
Veil's morality makes no logical sense, and nor does Tagg's. The ideas of nature vs nurture are whacked in the Redwall series. Even if Veil was naturally "evil" and Tagg was naturally "good," their upbringings should trump those natures.
I agree. In real life, that's more often than nought the case. However, it seems it was necessary to keep those lines between good and bad in the books pretty clear-cut.
I don't feel like it was necessary, the books would have been far more interesting had Tagg been an antagonist and Veil been a protagonist.
The Taggerung is probably my second least favourite
Redwall book for its treatment of Tagg.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on August 18, 2016, 09:50:24 PM
Quote from: Skarzs on August 18, 2016, 06:51:29 AM
Quote from: Jet the binturong on August 17, 2016, 07:47:54 PM
Veil's morality makes no logical sense, and nor does Tagg's. The ideas of nature vs nurture are whacked in the Redwall series. Even if Veil was naturally "evil" and Tagg was naturally "good," their upbringings should trump those natures.
I agree. In real life, that's more often than nought the case. However, it seems it was necessary to keep those lines between good and bad in the books pretty clear-cut.
I don't feel like it was necessary, the books would have been far more interesting had Tagg been an antagonist and Veil been a protagonist. The Taggerung is probably my second least favourite Redwall book for its treatment of Tagg.
Indeed, if a black and white world was what Brian was going for than if he had made Tagg a villain it would've at least shown that bad things do happen and that sometimes even people you
do thing you can trust have a chance of not being as nice as they seem.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on August 18, 2016, 09:50:24 PM
Quote from: Skarzs on August 18, 2016, 06:51:29 AM
Quote from: Jet the binturong on August 17, 2016, 07:47:54 PM
Veil's morality makes no logical sense, and nor does Tagg's. The ideas of nature vs nurture are whacked in the Redwall series. Even if Veil was naturally "evil" and Tagg was naturally "good," their upbringings should trump those natures.
I agree. In real life, that's more often than nought the case. However, it seems it was necessary to keep those lines between good and bad in the books pretty clear-cut.
I don't feel like it was necessary, the books would have been far more interesting had Tagg been an antagonist and Veil been a protagonist. The Taggerung is probably my second least favourite Redwall book for its treatment of Tagg.
I meant necessary to the author. But yeah.
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on August 18, 2016, 08:51:06 PM
It should be kept in mind, however, that these characters are not human; the effect being they are far more susceptible to the influence of nature than that of nurture. In addition, there are certainly instances where people from horrible circumstances rise far above them, and where people of high standing have fallen into a moral abyss. These are two exceptional characters, so it is not fair, perhaps, to judge them by "averages"- especially as I would say they are more typical than not of the Redwall universe.
Nothing was hinted to in the books that anyone felt "the call of nature", so the influence of nature, from what we know, is minimal. Of course it's said that it's "in vermin's nature" to be the way they are, but honestly, that's a bit of a lame excuse. :P
Quote from: Skarzs on August 18, 2016, 10:12:51 PM
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on August 18, 2016, 08:51:06 PM
It should be kept in mind, however, that these characters are not human; the effect being they are far more susceptible to the influence of nature than that of nurture. In addition, there are certainly instances where people from horrible circumstances rise far above them, and where people of high standing have fallen into a moral abyss. These are two exceptional characters, so it is not fair, perhaps, to judge them by "averages"- especially as I would say they are more typical than not of the Redwall universe.
Nothing was hinted to in the books that anyone felt "the call of nature", so the influence of nature, from what we know, is minimal. Of course it's said that it's "in vermin's nature" to be the way they are, but honestly, that's a bit of a lame excuse. :P
And yet, the truth? "Instinct" may not be explicitly pointed out in the book, but as a rule vermin are always evil, and woodlanders are always good. The few outliers can be considered aberrations, they are statistically insignificant in any case. Yet,
Taggerung itself makes a pretty good case for the idea that, in Redwall, nature trumps nurture. Aside from that, there are few reasonable explanations for the plotline of the book. In Tagg's case especially, Brian seems to be following the regular course of the books, though I feel it would have been better and more reasonable if Veil had come out on the order of Blaggut, Grubbage, Romsca, or perhaps that scoundrel Yoofus Lightpaw. Something on the order of Orkwil Prink's exile and journey would have been appropriate, I think.
Might I make a pointed reminder that this conversation is about the masses of woodlanders who seem to care little for the vermin they've slain. Meanwhile, we've drifted off on anomalies that have next to nonexistent importance when compared to gigantic numbers against them (abnormalities are less than 20, beasts in the observable pool are tens of thousands). We've clearly established that the nature of Redwall characters is very clear cut into good and bad (with few exceptions), and that the bad is almost always (if not always) the first to act. On the principle of self defense, I doubt they would care a whole lot in the moment most of the time (I probably wouldn't either). It doesn't matter what our view of how their nature is set up is. The stories behind two random individuals don't matter. I've yet to see any sort of counter-argument related to the facts that actually have an impact (seeing as no one has quit talking about Tagg and Veil since my first post).
Pointed reminder taken. I'll go set up a new thread for this...
Quote from: Mari on August 02, 2016, 06:53:09 PM
I love the Redwall series, but they're very black and white, I'd say. It's easy to tell who's evil and who's good. (As they are children's books.) Species have their own set formulas for personalities and Brian Jacques didn't often steer from these (and when he did, the results were fantastic iirc). Mice are a bit more versatile than the others, squirrels and otters are brave, hares tend to be sassy and well-mannered, shrews are passionate, etc. Vermin however are bloodthirsty, cowardly, and tough only in numbers. The exceptions are leaders of the hordes. That's why I love the idea of a more-rounded vermin character, a character who isn't 100% evil all the time. I had a roleplay about to start revolving around one of my vermin characters, perhaps I'll give it a try here. =)
Some of my favorite characters are vermin that are good. The problem with vermins are they are all three of those things at once and if they are any other thing Brian kills them off especially leaders
My favorite characters always die, no joke.
Quote from: Ashleg on September 09, 2017, 01:55:01 AM
My favorite characters always die, no joke.
Sometimes the most interesting characters don't live very long
And that's a problem.
Quote from: Ashleg on September 09, 2017, 04:45:07 AM
And that's a problem.
Sometimes because you want to know more about them.
See.
You need to let the reader know a lot about them, make them their friend. . . And THEN kill them to make it ALL THE MORE DEVASTATING HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH.
Exactly!
Like how I'm going to rip out my readers' hearts.
Quote from: Ashleg on September 09, 2017, 01:55:01 AM
My favorite characters always die, no joke.
Same since I always tend to really like the fox characters and the fox characters /always/ die at some point. I've never liked that.
Seers, eh?
That interesting fox captain in... Triss? deserved better.
Plugg Firetail? Yeah.
He was in poor employment.
I think a lot of this can be explained by how Brian Jacques explained his choice of species for characters. It certainly looks like a lot of species-xenophobia though. He stated "The bad creatures are those which are traditionally bad in European folk lore and have come to be regarded as sly or mean or evil.The good creatures are mostly small and defenceless, with the exception of the badgers." As well as "The characters aren't evil because they're vermin, they're vermin because they're evil."
I think the takeaway here is that he intended the species to be a commentary on their behavior, not the other way around. Even though we know he didn't even keep to this strictly himself. As you have pointed out, Veil, Plugg, Romsca... I think it would have been a more powerful writing tool IF he didn't subvert it so much. By being inconsistent though, it also ended up making his stories and by proxy, the "Good" characters look very judgemental.
Thing is, out-of-universe justification doesn't apply to in-universe theorising. I know why Jacques chose which species to use, and I just don't care. In cases like these, Word of God doesn't really matter since it's not something that works in-universe. What happened in universe is that several entire species are just evil for no clear reason.
Part of that may be that he didn't read other authors' works, and the only ideas he got were ones he came up with himself.
If you do a little bit of study, you can see that Brian Jacques drew very heavily on traditional European folklore. After all, when he wrote Redwall he was literally a milkman. He had no more than an eighth grade education. The Redwall stories very much follow the traditional style, of folktales, legends, and epic poems. It is in effect a cultural commentary; everything he wrote was the heritage of his people. So no, he probably didn't read many complicated works. He was no literary critic. He wrote that which he knew. As much as we like causalism, the answer is simply so: some people are jerks for no reason at all, other than the fact that they can be (see Machiavelli), which he no doubt knew. And these he depicted generally as vermin, with pretty much no exception except for Blaggut (Veil and Romsca don't really count). *shrugs* Theorize all you like about why these are specific races, but keep in mind Redwall is really intended to be an allegory, not a universe with real laws, and you can only extend allegory so far.
You can write an allegory, but it is a universe with real laws.
Just...shifty ones and ones with plotholes, but if it had no laws it would make no sense.
See, one of those laws is vermin are bad and Woodlanders are good.
Quote from: Ashleg on June 01, 2016, 05:39:36 AM
In some places this is completely correct.
But wouldn't any emotionally healthy person be at least a *tiiiny* bit disturbed they just killed a guy?
Most heroes would only go that far if they absolutely needed to.
Or maybe not even, but at least they'd have emotion.
Some of these guys are so stoic about it and then once whoever it is is dead it's like nothing happened.
In their mind, they don't see killing vermin as killing "a guy". They see vermin as a different type, a type of evil that should not be sypathized. And to be honest, most fo the time they are correct. But there is one thing about the whole killing vermin thing. In Salamandastron, a shrew just kills a rat that the good guys have taken prisoner to find the way, and then nobody cares afterwards! He was promised freedom after he showed them the way and was killed and no-one cared. In Taggerung as well, Ribrow is promised freedom after he tells Tagg everything and then the pygmy shrews just kill him. I hated that and when that happens it actively gets me infuriated.
there are some characters who feel really guilty when they kill another - I remember Tammo in the long patrol had a sort of panic attack when he killed a stoat (I think) and felt very very guilty.
Another thing, remember that redwall takes place in no particular time period, but it is definitely around medieval times. Back in those times, people were a lot more chill with death. Also, animals in real life don't really care if they kill other animals.