This isn't to discuss Veil Sixclaw, the Outcast, but rather his caretaker, Bryony, and her really off-the-wall decision at the end of the book.
I wrote something of a parody-faux-summary of their part of
Outcast, and I wanted to have a topic to put it in. ;)
Quote from: Outcast of Redwall
BELLA OF BROCKHALL (to ABBESS MERIAM): This ferret babe we found out in the ditch, who I have named Veil, will grow up to be evil because he's a ferret.
<BRYONY, a mouse, enters the room>
Bryony: Aw, a baby ferret! Isn't he adorable?
<VEIL SIXCLAW bites Bryony's finger>
Bella: He's bitten you, Bryony.
Bryony: Well, he was just hungry. I know he's really good.
<seasons pass>
<Veil steals FRIAR BUNFOLD'S honeypot>
Bunfold: He stole my honeypot!
Bryony: No he didn't! You're just treating him unfairly.
<Veil poisons a hedgehog, MYRTLE>
Bella: Veil, we must kick you out of Redwall forever. You turned out to be evil, just like I thought you would, and we can't have that here.
Bryony: Veil didn't really mean it... it's not fair!
<Veil vows to kill everyone in Redwall>
Bryony: I know he's really good, deep down inside!
<Bryony starts tracking Veil. Her mole friend, TOGGET, comes along>
<Veil hurts an elderly dormouse and steals everything he has>
Togget: (in molespeech) Bryony, Veil's a really bad beast.
Bryony: No, Togget, don't say that! Veil is just a misguided soul. I'll change him.
<Veil traps Bryony and Togget and leaves them to die>
Bryony: He can't really be this bad.
<Veil finds his father, a dangerous WARLORD, SWARTT SIXCLAW. Swartt couldn't care less about his son. Meanwhile, a BADGER LORD, SUNFLASH THE MACE, who is Swartt's arch-enemy, frees Bryony and Togget, and is then knocked out by Swartt. Swartt ties up Sunflash and is going to torture him.>
Swartt Sixclaw: At last, after many seasons of vainly trying, I've finally captured Sunflash the Mace! What a glorious achievement!
<Bryony sneaks up and starts cutting Sunflash's bonds.>
Swartt Sixclaw: What's this, a mouse? Die, mouse!
Veil: Bryony, run!
<Veil jumps in the way of Swartt Sixclaw's spear and gets killed>
<much later...>
Bella: I'm so sorry, Bryony. It seems Veil proved himself after all.
Bryony: Nope, I just decided that all that time, I was wrong. Veil really was evil. Sacrificing his life didn't mean a thing. Thanks for showing me the way, Bella.
---
To summarize the summary... Bryony stubbornly refuses to believe that Veil is really evil, in spite of all of the insurmountable evidence for it that's right in front of her.
Then, after he
finally does something good, for possibly the first time in his life, which would seem to support her theory that he really might not've been pure evil incarnate after all, she changes her tune.
I don't doubt that Veil was a villain for at least 99% of his life, but for Bryony to suddenly and drastically change her tact on that doesn't seem to make sense... it seems that if he does something good, that should provide evidence that he might want to do good, and if he does evil, that he wants to do evil... but in Bryony's world, those two things seem to provide evidence of the
opposite, with her being firmly convinced of Veil's evil only after and seemingly even
because of his first good deed.
Doesn't that seem a little strange?
That's a pretty good summary. It's been a while since I've read the book so thanks for that.
It is a little far-fetched that Bryony would think that way. If anything, she should come to the realization that there is no pure good or pure evil (not that he was pure evil all along).
Well, I'd say myself that there is pure good and pure evil -- but that Veil doesn't possess either. ;)
Veil is by far the only actually puzzling figure in the whole series in the case of being grey. I'd say he wasn't. He was a villain, the only good thing he ever did (even if most of what he did wasn't necessarily bad(though multi-murdering and poisoning states pretty fairly against that)) was saving Bryony. She said she wasn't sure Veil would have done that if he knew he would be killed.
Not sure what to make of this last part I'm going to post:
Then there's his last words, "Go away, let me sleep." He echoed what he said earlier to Bryony in contempt.
He's fascinating, but this topic isn't about him.
Quote from: Taggerung_of_Redwall on July 06, 2011, 12:18:10 AM
Then there's his last words, "Go away, let me sleep." He echoed what he said earlier to Bryony in contempt.
I never thought about it much, generally assuming that he said it in a tired or wearied manner (not maliciously), but this could help explain Bryony's behavior.
The only problem is that even so, that remark alone doesn't mean that he still didn't do a good deed. It just means that he didn't plan to sacrifice his life -- not that he didn't intend to save her, which he clearly did by telling her to run away.
Frankly, looking at it from Veil's perspective, I would be annoyed too -- this mouse who I've wanted to just leave me alone comes up and gets herself in mortal peril, so I have to save her life, and get killed in the process of doing so. I imagine that'd be kind of frustrating for anyone, and some harsh words might not be unexpected. ;)
I never meant Veil said those words maliciosuly. I think the book stated it as in a wearied manner.
Well, I was thinking that by:
Quote...he echoed what he said earlier to Bryony in contempt.
That that implied that he still had some of that same spirit in mind when he said his last words.
The "contempt" in that post refers to his previous actions, not when he was dying.
True, but the echoing thereof could be taken as matching the spirit of the statement, not just the words.
... well, you get the idea. I don't suppose it matters anyway since we agree on this point.
Quote from: James Gryphon on July 06, 2011, 01:18:01 AM
True, but the echoing thereof could be taken as matching the spirit of the statement, not just the words.
... well, you get the idea. I don't suppose it matters anyway since we agree on this point.
I think you might have lost me. You mean when I said "contempt", I might have misplaced the word to both cases of actions, or...?
Well, what I'm saying (in the most convoluted way I know how ;)) that the word "echoed" could imply that there was contempt in both statements.
I never did understand veil, but I guess you could say it just made the book better and more unpredictable, which will make any book that much better
Echoed was used to state he was saying what he said before, with contempt being a noun describing the previous action. Or something pretty much like that. But this is only a statement of mine, and has nothing to do with what was said directly in the book, in wording.
I'll just go ahead and throw my haypenny in here...
I think Bryony's conclusion makes sense. She knew, all along, that Veil was not the nice little abbey beast she'd always hoped he was. It was only after he died, however, that she was able to admit to herself this was so. As you said, she didn't seem to think Veil jumped in front of her to solely save her life, and neither do I - personally, I think he was just trying to get under his daddy's skin. Saving a mousemaid he was trying to kill would have been properly annoying. Either way, he wasn't "good," and that one action didn't make him so.
Bella, on the other hand, seemed to have an interesting turnabout. She predicted from the start Veil's true nature - even named him after it - but after hearing Bryony's story, she seemed to find there was some good in him after all. I'm not sure how she'd admit to such a conclusion - it seems out of character for her, considering.
Bella may have been getting Bryony to fully admit to herself everything she knew. Better for the mousemaid in the end. Seriosuly, Bella went ahead and right then named her Abbess.
This part of Outcast still puzzles me and after reading your comments, this is how i make sense of it.
Byrony always believed in Veil's ability to do good despite his evil nature and actions. However, on her pursuit of Veil, Veil consistently demonstrated his capacity to do evil (he stole her rations, trapped her and Togget). After Veil died, Byrony had some time to think about good and evil and came to the conclusion that though Veil did save her life, he himself, was still an evil creature and the fact that he saved her life wasn't changing that fact....Thats how i understand it, but do i sound as if i'm contradicting myself?
Quote from: sabretache5611 on July 06, 2011, 07:29:01 AM
This part of Outcast still puzzles me and after reading your comments, this is how i make sense of it.
Byrony always believed in Veil's ability to do good despite his evil nature and actions. However, on her pursuit of Veil, Veil consistently demonstrated his capacity to do evil (he stole her rations, trapped her and Togget). After Veil died, Byrony had some time to think about good and evil and came to the conclusion that though Veil did save her life, he himself, was still an evil creature and the fact that he saved her life wasn't changing that fact....Thats how i understand it, but do i sound as if i'm contradicting myself?
A little bit, but you are making a good character analysis.
Quote from: Galedeep on July 06, 2011, 07:37:33 AM
Quote from: sabretache5611 on July 06, 2011, 07:29:01 AM
This part of Outcast still puzzles me and after reading your comments, this is how i make sense of it.
Byrony always believed in Veil's ability to do good despite his evil nature and actions. However, on her pursuit of Veil, Veil consistently demonstrated his capacity to do evil (he stole her rations, trapped her and Togget). After Veil died, Byrony had some time to think about good and evil and came to the conclusion that though Veil did save her life, he himself, was still an evil creature and the fact that he saved her life wasn't changing that fact....Thats how i understand it, but do i sound as if i'm contradicting myself?
A little bit, but you are making a good character analysis.
thank you
I think that she was a little harsh when speaking with Bella but that overall she still loved him as much as she did through out the story. That said she had matured and knew he was never going to be a "goodbeast" but in the end he wasnt really a truly a "badbeast" either.
I'd like to point out that Bryony was actually talcking to the Abbess Meriam about this and Bella wasn't there at all.
Warning! The following opinion is both long winded and pompus!
The way I understand this conclusion is that it's not so much about good and evil or who was right or wrong as it is about maturity and acceptance.
The Redwallers all hated Veil and instantly cast him as evil, even though he was just a baby and hadn't done anything good or evil when they all decided this, which is both a harsh and immature attitude.
Now whilst Veil was actually bad (because some people just are) Veil had to grow up with the fact that 99% of the people around him hated him and at best treated him as an unwanted thing that you had to put up with because it's you're job insted of you're choice. The Redwallers never wanted to make Veil a better person because they never expected he could be, they just waited for him to get worse and worse because they had decided that was all he could ever be.
Bryony on the other hand decided that Veil had to be a good person deep down, not believed or hoped but decided, she wasn't willing to accept that Veil could be bad because she loved him and rather than accept that fact that he did bad things but love and support him anyway she denies the badness and pretends it wasn't there. This is just as immature as the Redwallers because like them she didn't want to turn Veil into a good person but insted expected him to instantly be one. She had an idea of what he should be in her heart and was just waitting for him to be that insted of what he actually was.
Anyway long story short, by the end of the book both sides have matured in there opinion.
The Redwallers can accept the fact that Veil could have (if not been a good person) at least done some good if they had accepted him and try to help him more than they did.
Bryony could accept the fact that Veil was a bad (not necessarily evil) person but that she could still love him.
QuoteThe Redwallers can accept the fact that Veil could have (if not been a good person) at least done some good if they had accepted him and try to help him more than they did.
Bryony could accept the fact that Veil was a bad (not necessarily evil) person but that she could still love him.
Best explanation I've read, and that is what I feel it basically comes to. Bryony was not going to be like the others of the abbey and declare Veil a loss from the start because he's a ferret. At the same time, each creature will make a decision, and Bryony had to accept this too, but that didn't mean she would have to agree with what the others thought of him.
Yeah I agree with you. Romsca (my favorite character) probably only turned nice because the Abbot was kind to her. If the other Redwallers had also been kind to Veil since he first came to the abbey, he might of turned out okay after all. But then, the story wouldn't have been nearly as dramatic. I was still very disappointed with the ending, though :(
Bryony probably didn't want to believe that he was evil.
Quote from: Tam and Martin on December 05, 2012, 05:57:50 PM
Bryony probably didn't want to believe that he was evil.
But the real question is: why did she belive that he was good deep down inside unlike everyone else?
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn on November 15, 2013, 01:14:58 AM
Quote from: Tam and Martin on December 05, 2012, 05:57:50 PM
Bryony probably didn't want to believe that he was evil.
But the real question is: why did she belive that he was good deep down inside unlike everyone else?
Well she had known him probably better than anyone else so that would give a good point. She also may have realized it through other things.
Quote from: Tam and Martin on November 15, 2013, 01:48:28 AM
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn on November 15, 2013, 01:14:58 AM
Quote from: Tam and Martin on December 05, 2012, 05:57:50 PM
Bryony probably didn't want to believe that he was evil.
But the real question is: why did she belive that he was good deep down inside unlike everyone else?
Well she had known him probably better than anyone else so that would give a good point. She also may have realized it through other things.
What other things? For his whole life, Veil acted evily. There was never a good deed that he ever did. Whatever he did was always with evil intention.
I am currently re-reading The Outcast Of Redwall, so I will probably have a more detailed opinion on this matter as soon as I am done reading it.
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn on November 15, 2013, 01:56:30 AM
Quote from: Tam and Martin on November 15, 2013, 01:48:28 AM
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn on November 15, 2013, 01:14:58 AM
Quote from: Tam and Martin on December 05, 2012, 05:57:50 PM
Bryony probably didn't want to believe that he was evil.
But the real question is: why did she belive that he was good deep down inside unlike everyone else?
Well she had known him probably better than anyone else so that would give a good point. She also may have realized it through other things.
What other things? For his whole life, Veil acted evily. There was never a good deed that he ever did. Whatever he did was always with evil intention.
Well, as I said, she knew him better and maybe he wasn't always evil.
Quote from: Tam and Martin on November 15, 2013, 01:57:19 AM
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn on November 15, 2013, 01:56:30 AM
Quote from: Tam and Martin on November 15, 2013, 01:48:28 AM
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn on November 15, 2013, 01:14:58 AM
Quote from: Tam and Martin on December 05, 2012, 05:57:50 PM
Bryony probably didn't want to believe that he was evil.
But the real question is: why did she belive that he was good deep down inside unlike everyone else?
Well she had known him probably better than anyone else so that would give a good point. She also may have realized it through other things.
What other things? For his whole life, Veil acted evily. There was never a good deed that he ever did. Whatever he did was always with evil intention.
Well, as I said, she knew him better and maybe he wasn't always evil.
But he acted evil for pretty much the whole book. If he even had some good, it surly would have shown sometime in his life before he died?
Well I also think that after Veil died Bryony saw that he could "change" his ways b/c, well he was dead.
Quote from: Leatho Shellhound on November 15, 2013, 02:48:03 AM
Well I also think that after Veil died Bryony saw that he could "change" his ways b/c, well he was dead.
What? Sorry, I really didn't get that. :-\
Well since Veil died he couldn't change, so Bryony lost all hope of making him a better beast.
Quote from: Leatho Shellhound on November 15, 2013, 02:55:24 AM
Well since Veil died he couldn't change, so Bryony lost all hope of making him a better beast.
Well, yea. But that still dosen't mean that Veil had any good inside of him.
This whole issue still confuses me, too. But two quick thoughts:
1.) It's interesting to see how often Brian Jacques will present contrasting opinions right next to each other from separate, credible characters. So as much as I think Brian Jacques
did like to write a rather clear-cut, black-and-white world, there were still these moments where he liked to leave the questions open for the reader.
This is one of the clearest examples, of course--and all the more fascinating since, as has been mentioned, both Bella
and Bryony end up changing their (opposing) views here, (though, Taggerung_of_Redwall's idea that Bella was trying to get Bryony to admit her fullest feelings is making me think...). But then, for example, there's Martin's need to end Badrang's slavery contrasted with Urran Voh's pacifism. Urran Voh actually ends up being completely right about Rose, too. He was afraid the war would kill her, and that was exactly what happened.
But to speak even more directly about Brian Jacques leaving the question open, in the specific example of "was Veil good or not?" Brian Jacques does literally say in one of his Question and Answer sessions:
QuoteAs to Veil and his final motives, I deliberately left that for the reader to decide. I have had many opinions and the jury is still out.
I could be reading this wrong, but it seems like, when he said "the jury is still out," he was still speaking for himself, too. He still wasn't sure.
So, Bryony's turnabout isn't a definitive statement about Veil's character--it's a reflection of her own character. But that, as I said, still confuses me. Why did she change her opinion? My guess for right now would be...
2.) I'm with Osu about Bryony needing Veil's death to come to the opinion she does in the end. To me, it seems like a sort of catharsis. His death shakes her, and she finally confronts everything. She wanted to defend him over and over again while he was alive. When it all finally comes to a head, and he dies, and he isn't really there to defend anymore, there may have been a lifetime of pent-up frustration for her to sort through.
And... maybe... I mean, this is a melodramatic thought and everything, but... in line with the idea of catharsis, what if Veil's sacrifice was too much for Bryony? I mean, what if, for Bryony, Veil's getting himself killed was the meanest thing he could do to her? Brian Jacques
was a fan of opera, and there are these sorts of intense statements of love in that genre where people express separation as the ultimate state of torture.
Which leads to thought 2... er... part B. The last thing Bryony says to Veil is "Oh, Veil, my Veil! You saved me... Why?" If she
really always believed he was always good, this shouldn't have confused her. So if this is confusion on her part, it would suggest that she knew deep down inside what kind of creature he was--this would point again to the idea that she needed his death to shock her into changing her opinion (or, rather, into realizing what she'd believed all along). But to me, "why?" is itself a really ambiguous question. She might instead be asking it out of pain. Which would instead point to the idea that Veil's death was the most painful way he had ever hurt her.
I'm starting to think it's more than one thing at once, which would also be fantastic characterization. Maybe Bryony doesn't even know everything she means in that moment of grief.
I'm obviously thinking out loud. I really wish I could have a clear cut opinion, but... this is fun, too.
I chalk it up to lazy writing (as usual), but it's always bothered me.
Veil saved Bryony's life and she more or less threw him under the bus. What a *bleep*! >:(
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn on November 15, 2013, 02:15:54 AM
Quote from: Tam and Martin on November 15, 2013, 01:57:19 AM
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn on November 15, 2013, 01:56:30 AM
Quote from: Tam and Martin on November 15, 2013, 01:48:28 AM
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn on November 15, 2013, 01:14:58 AM
Quote from: Tam and Martin on December 05, 2012, 05:57:50 PM
Bryony probably didn't want to believe that he was evil.
But the real question is: why did she belive that he was good deep down inside unlike everyone else?
Well she had known him probably better than anyone else so that would give a good point. She also may have realized it through other things.
What other things? For his whole life, Veil acted evily. There was never a good deed that he ever did. Whatever he did was always with evil intention.
Well, as I said, she knew him better and maybe he wasn't always evil.
But he acted evil for pretty much the whole book. If he even had some good, it surly would have shown sometime in his life before he died?
I haven't read the book in a while so who said he was evil his whole life?
Quote from: Tam and Martin on November 15, 2013, 08:47:02 PM
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn on November 15, 2013, 02:15:54 AM
Quote from: Tam and Martin on November 15, 2013, 01:57:19 AM
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn on November 15, 2013, 01:56:30 AM
Quote from: Tam and Martin on November 15, 2013, 01:48:28 AM
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn on November 15, 2013, 01:14:58 AM
Quote from: Tam and Martin on December 05, 2012, 05:57:50 PM
Bryony probably didn't want to believe that he was evil.
But the real question is: why did she belive that he was good deep down inside unlike everyone else?
Well she had known him probably better than anyone else so that would give a good point. She also may have realized it through other things.
What other things? For his whole life, Veil acted evily. There was never a good deed that he ever did. Whatever he did was always with evil intention.
Well, as I said, she knew him better and maybe he wasn't always evil.
But he acted evil for pretty much the whole book. If he even had some good, it surly would have shown sometime in his life before he died?
I haven't read the book in a while so who said he was evil his whole life?
I clearly remember Veil doing just evil for his whole life. And now, I have anither opinion:
Veil's death seemed to have some affect on Bryony's view on Veil. All of a sudden, she "relizes" that Veil had been bad all along. But isn't it weird that she all of a sudden Veil dies to protect her, the most good act of his whole life? I've seen several intresting idea's about this in this topic, but none seem to make the matter really clear. Bryony should have started to relize Veil's wickedness right before he died, but then have some justification of his character after he scarificed himself to save another. But it seems to be just the oppasate: Bryony believes in him having some good until the very end, but after he dies heroicly, she relizes the wickedness that was always inside of him. No matter witch way you put it, it will never make complete seance.
Another thing: WAS Veil good deep inside at all? I'm surprised that this question hasn't been covered yet: Was Veil at least a little good? His whole life was spent just doing evil to everybody around him, but then, all of a sudden, risks his life (and loses it) to save Bryony. This might be looked at as a pretty lousy plot turn, but I think I might have the answer. And here it is: Was it the Redwaller's fault that Veil "was" wicked? First of all, lets look at what Veil did to save Bryony: this was obviously an act of selfless heroisum, no matter witch way you put it. He put his life on the line to make sure that Bryony wouldn't be hurt (killed is probably more acurate). Actions can speak more than words. So, can thismean that Veil was good some?
Of course, there can be an argument hat can be used to disprove what was said above: Veil acted evil his whole life at the abbey. He stole, lied, and even tried to poison someone. This
can be used to say that Veil was completely evil, no matter what he did in the end (what if him saving Bryony's life was an acsident). Now, this leads to what I said above: was it the creatures at Redwall's fault?
From the moment he was first brought into Redwall, there's one thing about Veil that is inpossable to go unoticed: Veil was a vermin. And, of course, vermin are
usually quite bad. Now, here's a question about this: what makes a vermin a vermin? Why can't, per say, an otter become a bad guy? Here's the answer: the lifestyle you were raised in. The creatures at Redwall (and any other place of good creatures) were raised into a place were peace was one of the main foundations of its beliefs. It also is based on the value that
any creature of good heart may come in welcomed. But the lifestyle values are completly different when it comes to vermin: they are raised into a world were life is usually about survival. That is probably why allot of vermin (Swart Sixclaw, for example) become sopower hungry: most of there life is spent just surviving, so, when they get wiser and stronger, they set out to have the "best" life they cane have, almost always by using other creatures evily for there own selfish whims. That is why vermin are evil and why most other creature are good. And that probably what became the normal sterioype amongst, per say, Redwallers as to what vermin were on the inside: they are all evil. And thats probably how most of the Redwallers treated Veil as: a vermin. Now, see here that Veil was raised in a good home: a place were values were set upon peace and equilness between all (now, get this)
good-considered creatures. Veil could have been raised in the way that
all creatures are equil to each other. But, it seems that the whole thing about all good-considered are welcomed was acsepted as the thing at Redwall. Veil was a vermin as a species; but he wasn't a vermin at heart when he was just born. He could have been raised in a way that told him that you can be good. But just because he was a ferret, a vermin
species, he was considered to have a vermin
heart, whitch is, of course, evil. So, he was basicly treated by most as a vermin. He was probably bullied allot because he was a "vermin", and allot of the older Abbey dwellers probably didn't trust him because he was a vermin. So, even though Veil wasn't raised amoung vermin, he was treated and told, probably many times, that he was a vermin, this probably lead to him acting like a vermin at
heart. But Bryony probably saw through the other Redwaller's belief. Vermin arn't bad at heart when first put into existence. But, the way they are raised in the vermin world makes them evil. Bryony must have belived that Veil could be good; but they way Veil was treated by the other Redwallers made him grow up making Veil feel evil and want to do evil. Now, of course, there is a difference bewtween being raised into evil and being told and treated that you are evil. The latter one isn't so perminant as to being evil; if you are just treated and raised as you grow up as a normal good guy, then you can be good. But thanks to the regular steriotype of vermin, Veil was treated and called a vermin. But it appears that some of the good treatment from Bryony really did have some affect on him. Finally, after being cast away from the creatures that treated him as a vermin and away from the common vermin sterotype, Veil probably relized towards the end of his life the meaning of being good. He probably relized this a little bit before he died: thats why he risked his life for Bryony, a very heroic and selfless act that no vermin would usually do. Veil did have some good inside of him thanks to Bryony; it was just that he wasen't really able to act good and didn't "want" to act good because of the views of the creatures around him. But after being away from those views, he finally relized what it really ment to be good, and his final act showed this. After showing all thses facts, there is one conclusion that is hard to disprove: Veil was good inside, he just didn't know until the end of his life.
This whole post might seem a little off-topic, but it really isn't. As I said at the beginning of my post, it will probably never be completly known why Bryony thought of Veil after he died was what it was. Bryony MIGHT have sort of "succomd" in the end to think Veil as evil. But if that is the case, it was probably a wrong view to change to.
I know that this is a pretty long post, and will be a hard burden to those who want to respond to this but have to quote some of it ;D but these are just my two cents on this whole matter. I hope you guys find it helpful! :)
,
Very interesting. And like Blazemane said, very fascinating how Bryony treats Veil's death, breaking her and making her at the same time by saving her. Btw great post Ungatt! ;D *Hands out cookies*
Quote from: The Shade on November 15, 2013, 10:31:48 PM
great post Ungatt! ;D *Hands out cookies*
Did you actually read the whole thing? JK ;D
Very well done Ungatt!
So, by all this discussion, I think Veil would do good to other one person; Bryony. She cared for him, they grew up together, and I think this factor caused Veil to act like he did, saving her life. If the Redwallers had cared for him in the same way, instead of assuming he would automatically turn evil, he might have cared for them also.
Quote from: The Shade on November 16, 2013, 02:06:44 PM
So, by all this discussion, I think Veil would do good to other one person; Bryony. She cared for him, they grew up together, and I think this factor caused Veil to act like he did, saving her life. If the Redwallers had cared for him in the same way, instead of assuming he would automatically turn evil, he might have cared for them also.
Agreed.
Quote from: Tam and Martin on November 16, 2013, 01:45:25 PM
Very well done Ungatt!
Thanks! I think this sets the record for longest post on this Forum ever. ;D
Here's an "epilogue" to my really long post above: I'm not trying to say that the creatures at Redwall are "bad"; but my previous post does cement down one thing: Nobody is perfect. In the Redwall series, BJ dosn't have the wise creature of Redwall ever really make mistakes. But The Outcast Of Redwall, if studied very closly, prevents them from becoming perfect. Pretty much every creature at Redwall sadly succomed to the vedmin steriotype and treated Veil like one, which made him do evil. If you think about it, there's a good lesson that can be learned from Outcast: The hurt that comes from judging people who they are on the outside, but not for whats in there heart. But you have to look very closely to the story to see this lesson. Just goes to show how great a writer BJ was!
I have something to add to Ungatt's very large post above.
When Outcast of Redwall took place it was soon after Redwall was made and Mossflower had recently been freed. the rules and morals of Redwall had been newly formed. The creatures living there where probably still used to hard living and keeping their guard up I'm sure a lot of them did not grow up in the abbey. I'm sure if Veil had come to the abbey latter on in in it's history he would have been treated with less suspicion.
Quote from: Faiyloe on November 23, 2013, 02:22:21 PM
I have something to add to Ungatt's very large post above.
When Outcast of Redwall took place it was soon after Redwall was made and Mossflower had recently been freed. the rules and morals of Redwall had been newly formed. The creatures living there where probably still used to hard living and keeping their guard up I'm sure a lot of them did not grow up in the abbey. I'm sure if Veil had come to the abbey latter on in in it's history he would have been treated with less suspicion.
Hey, I never thought if that....but also keep in mind that
Outcast happened many seasons (or years) after Redwall was first build. Allot of the creatures from the previous book in the chronological order (
Legend Of Luke) had long since died before Veil ever got there. Its possable that the only two creatures that were alive from the beginning of Redwall were Bella and Abbes Germain (I can't be sure on Germain, though...). But here's an alternitave idea that still fits yours, Faiyloe: even though Redwall was quite old in
Outcast, it probably was still developing in means of residents. Probably only some of the creatures currently at Redwall at the current point of
Outcast were probably half creature who had lived at Redwall there whole life and creatures who had come from a different land that had many wars and tyrants and stuff like that. So the creatures from other lands were probably not so trustful, so when Veil came along, they probably didn't trust him for his species. And, if you read my large post above, they made him want to do evil, and he did, which made the more trustful creatures not trust Veil eventually. Exept Bryony, of course...
An' juzt tae add ziz tae ze mix o' zoughtz...
Ze poizonin' zat Veil did vaz zummat zat vaz pretty common in vermin life. It vaz probably juzt zummat like ztealin' zome rationz from yer mate'z travellin' zack like ze 'arez an' goodbeaztz are alvayz daein'. In ozer vordz, for Veil, poizonin' vaz juzt like zecretly puttin' 'otroot pepper in yer mate'z dizh an', tae 'im, zeemed tae nae be zae bad.
O' courze, ziz 'ole zin' might 'ave juzt been zomebeazt'z crazy idea tae get a dizcuzzion goin' vhere everybeazt iz 'ard at vork tryin' tae figure oot vhy vot 'appened 'appened... *'int 'int*
Quote from: HeadInAnotherGalaxy on November 23, 2013, 10:26:51 PM
An' juzt tae add ziz tae ze mix o' zoughtz...
Ze poizonin' zat Veil did vaz zummat zat vaz pretty common in vermin life. It vaz probably juzt zummat like ztealin' zome rationz from yer mate'z travellin' zack like ze 'arez an' goodbeaztz are alvayz daein'. In ozer vordz, for Veil, poizonin' vaz juzt like zecretly puttin' 'otroot pepper in yer mate'z dizh an', tae 'im, zeemed tae nae be zae bad.
O' courze, ziz 'ole zin' might 'ave juzt been zomebeazt'z crazy idea tae get a dizcuzzion goin' vhere everybeazt iz 'ard at vork tryin' tae figure oot vhy vot 'appened 'appened... *'int 'int*
I agree there. Things don't seem as bad until you do them often or you find something that is worst than that.
Quote from: Tam and Martin on November 25, 2013, 12:34:36 AM
Quote from: HeadInAnotherGalaxy on November 23, 2013, 10:26:51 PM
An' juzt tae add ziz tae ze mix o' zoughtz...
Ze poizonin' zat Veil did vaz zummat zat vaz pretty common in vermin life. It vaz probably juzt zummat like ztealin' zome rationz from yer mate'z travellin' zack like ze 'arez an' goodbeaztz are alvayz daein'. In ozer vordz, for Veil, poizonin' vaz juzt like zecretly puttin' 'otroot pepper in yer mate'z dizh an', tae 'im, zeemed tae nae be zae bad.
O' courze, ziz 'ole zin' might 'ave juzt been zomebeazt'z crazy idea tae get a dizcuzzion goin' vhere everybeazt iz 'ard at vork tryin' tae figure oot vhy vot 'appened 'appened... *'int 'int*
I agree there. Things don't seem as bad until you do them often or you find something that is worst than that.
Very true...this is all good information for the whole Veil being evil thing.
Hmm, I have not read Outcast in a long time, but from what I recall, my perception was the following:
Bryony, having raised Veil as her own, loved him and thus was convinced that there was a spark of good within him. Despite the many things which he did which could absolutely be considered wrong (because Veil was raised as an Abbeybeast, he does not have the excuse that he never learned right from wrong), including attempted murder, which crosses the line into actual evil, Bryony held faith less in his current character as much as his capacity to change and become good. Thus, when Bryony insists that Veil is not evil, she does not mean his actions and character are not bad, she means he is not evil unconditionally, which many Abbeybeasts seem to think. This is part of why she follows him: to convince him to change, to become what she believes he can become.
Therefore, when Veil died, she was resigned to the fact that while Veil may have had the capacity to reject evil, he did not choose to do so in any meaningful way. In fact, when given the chance, he consistently chose to do evil, which meant that in sum, the original judgement was correct: Veil chose to be evil. And this is from my point of view correct. We cannot know Veil's motivations for saving Bryony's life, but even if we assume he did it because he cared about her, this says little about his character. It is difficult to go through life without caring about someone. Even the most evil of men have those they protect. Character requires sustained action: to do one courageous deed does not make a man courageous, but rather doing them over and over again until his tendency in any situation is to act courageously. Veil consistently chose to act evilly, and one good action cannot erase the fact that the choices and tendencies he created were anything but virtuous. If he had lived, there is every indication he would have simply returned to his old ways. Yet even if he would not have, during his life he chose evilly, and in the end that is what we must judge by.
Thus, it seems to me that Bryony acts rationally, despite the fact that her actions confuse many who read the book. She is convinced that Veil is not unconditionally evil, and that is correct: he had the ability to choose good. She attempts to influence him to become good. When he dies, she must admit that while he had the capacity to choose good, he did not utilize it. Therefore, at the final evaluation, he is indeed evil.
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on November 21, 2017, 12:09:28 AM
Hmm, I have not read Outcast in a long time, but from what I recall, my perception was the following:
Bryony, having raised Veil as her own, loved him and thus was convinced that there was a spark of good within him. Despite the many things which he did which could absolutely be considered wrong (because Veil was raised as an Abbeybeast, he does not have the excuse that he never learned right from wrong), including attempted murder, which crosses the line into actual evil, Bryony held faith less in his current character as much as his capacity to change and become good. Thus, when Bryony insists that Veil is not evil, she does not mean his actions and character are not bad, she means he is not evil unconditionally, which many Abbeybeasts seem to think. This is part of why she follows him: to convince him to change, to become what she believes he can become.
Therefore, when Veil died, she was resigned to the fact that while Veil may have had the capacity to reject evil, he did not choose to do so in any meaningful way. In fact, when given the chance, he consistently chose to do evil, which meant that in sum, the original judgement was correct: Veil chose to be evil. And this is from my point of view correct. We cannot know Veil's motivations for saving Bryony's life, but even if we assume he did it because he cared about her, this says little about his character. It is difficult to go through life without caring about someone. Even the most evil of men have those they protect. Character requires sustained action: to do one courageous deed does not make a man courageous, but rather doing them over and over again until his tendency in any situation is to act courageously. Veil consistently chose to act evilly, and one good action cannot erase the fact that the choices and tendencies he created were anything but virtuous. If he had lived, there is every indication he would have simply returned to his old ways. Yet even if he would not have, during his life he chose evilly, and in the end that is what we must judge by.
Thus, it seems to me that Bryony acts rationally, despite the fact that her actions confuse many who read the book. She is convinced that Veil is not unconditionally evil, and that is correct: he had the ability to choose good. She attempts to influence him to become good. When he dies, she must admit that while he had the capacity to choose good, he did not utilize it. Therefore, at the final evaluation, he is indeed evil.
The major problem I have with defining Veil's morality is that most of his actions don't make any sense. In some ways he appears to not be fully mentally competent and might have some disorders. For example most of the wrong things he did at the abbey were petty theft- i.e. stealing the honey pot. He ate the honey and then threw the pot away. However in Redwall there isn't any point to stealing when food, shelter and whatever else you want is all free. There is no money and individual abbey beasts don't have a lot of treasure or valuables that they personally own. He could walk into the kitchen and eat as much food or honey as he wanted and face no or minimal repercussions. If they did try to penalize him for excessive eating or something I'm pretty sure that Byrony could defend him pretty effectively as she had the Abbess' and Bella's ear. Plus he wasn't a glutton either as he was described as being lean and athletic and not overweight. We only see one other Abbey character who also stole and that was the hedgehog, Orkwill who stole possessions/items from others, in Eulalia- who ends up redeeming himself by helping Gorath and so forth. But given that everything in Redwall is free it only makes sense that these 2 characters were kleptomaniacs because there is no point or benefit from stealing.
Another thing that is confusing about Veil is that prior to his attempted murder via poisoning of a hedgehog we do not know of him committing any violent act in Redwall during his life there, apart from when he bit the skipper as a newly found/abandoned baby. Surely if he was violent he would have been expelled from Redwall sooner. There is also no evidence that he was sadistic or enjoyed tormenting or hurting others. Since there isn't any proof of him being habitually violent the fact that he chose to try to poison and kill the hedgehog makes little sense. The only reason I could see for him doing it is extreme vengefulness. He got accused by this hedgehog of stealing the honey pot, and the hedgehog went immediately after him, - but Byrony covered for him and returned the pot. Veil faced no repercussions. So why would he at that point in time chose to try and murder this hedgehog?
Then when he is expelled from Redwall he repeatedly tells Byrony to stop following him, steals her supplies and tries to get her to turn back. The fact that he is telling her to go back indicates that he does care for her. And hat he probably rightly assumes that his journey is going to be dangerous outside of the abbey and he doesn't want her to get hurt. If he was simply annoyed by her and wanted her to stop following him he could have killed her and the mole like he killed the 2 foxes. Now while I agree that evil individuals might have someone they care for, in Redwall there are many vermin who don't care about anyone even members of their family. But also he must have cared a lot about her to sacrifice his life to save hers. So while he commits an evil act i.e. trying to kill the hedgehog he also does something extremely good- willingly sacrificing his life for another. So her conclusion does not make a lot of sense- if he sacrificed his life for hers he must have had more than a speck of good in him. As caring about someone does not necessarily mean you would sacrifice yourself for them. If anything this would show he is more of a "gray character".
Veil--to me--seems a lot more like a "teenager" albeit an older one (or a young adult, he was in his twenties wasn't he?) than any of the other characters described to be his age or younger. He does irrational things without thinking, and they don't always make sense. Veil goes off of very impulsive feelings he gets.
Perhaps having some kind of disorder would not be wrong, but the only one who ever cared about him was Bryony, and that was why he saved her. The hedgehog was just another aggressor in his life, Bryony was not.
Quote from: Grond on November 25, 2017, 01:32:41 AM
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on November 21, 2017, 12:09:28 AM
Hmm, I have not read Outcast in a long time, but from what I recall, my perception was the following:
Bryony, having raised Veil as her own, loved him and thus was convinced that there was a spark of good within him. Despite the many things which he did which could absolutely be considered wrong (because Veil was raised as an Abbeybeast, he does not have the excuse that he never learned right from wrong), including attempted murder, which crosses the line into actual evil, Bryony held faith less in his current character as much as his capacity to change and become good. Thus, when Bryony insists that Veil is not evil, she does not mean his actions and character are not bad, she means he is not evil unconditionally, which many Abbeybeasts seem to think. This is part of why she follows him: to convince him to change, to become what she believes he can become.
Therefore, when Veil died, she was resigned to the fact that while Veil may have had the capacity to reject evil, he did not choose to do so in any meaningful way. In fact, when given the chance, he consistently chose to do evil, which meant that in sum, the original judgement was correct: Veil chose to be evil. And this is from my point of view correct. We cannot know Veil's motivations for saving Bryony's life, but even if we assume he did it because he cared about her, this says little about his character. It is difficult to go through life without caring about someone. Even the most evil of men have those they protect. Character requires sustained action: to do one courageous deed does not make a man courageous, but rather doing them over and over again until his tendency in any situation is to act courageously. Veil consistently chose to act evilly, and one good action cannot erase the fact that the choices and tendencies he created were anything but virtuous. If he had lived, there is every indication he would have simply returned to his old ways. Yet even if he would not have, during his life he chose evilly, and in the end that is what we must judge by.
Thus, it seems to me that Bryony acts rationally, despite the fact that her actions confuse many who read the book. She is convinced that Veil is not unconditionally evil, and that is correct: he had the ability to choose good. She attempts to influence him to become good. When he dies, she must admit that while he had the capacity to choose good, he did not utilize it. Therefore, at the final evaluation, he is indeed evil.
The major problem I have with defining Veil's morality is that most of his actions don't make any sense. In some ways he appears to not be fully mentally competent and might have some disorders. For example most of the wrong things he did at the abbey were petty theft- i.e. stealing the honey pot. He ate the honey and then threw the pot away. However in Redwall there isn't any point to stealing when food, shelter and whatever else you want is all free. There is no money and individual abbey beasts don't have a lot of treasure or valuables that they personally own. He could walk into the kitchen and eat as much food or honey as he wanted and face no or minimal repercussions. If they did try to penalize him for excessive eating or something I'm pretty sure that Byrony could defend him pretty effectively as she had the Abbess' and Bella's ear. Plus he wasn't a glutton either as he was described as being lean and athletic and not overweight. We only see one other Abbey character who also stole and that was the hedgehog, Orkwill who stole possessions/items from others, in Eulalia- who ends up redeeming himself by helping Gorath and so forth. But given that everything in Redwall is free it only makes sense that these 2 characters were kleptomaniacs because there is no point or benefit from stealing.
Another thing that is confusing about Veil is that prior to his attempted murder via poisoning of a hedgehog we do not know of him committing any violent act in Redwall during his life there, apart from when he bit the skipper as a newly found/abandoned baby. Surely if he was violent he would have been expelled from Redwall sooner. There is also no evidence that he was sadistic or enjoyed tormenting or hurting others. Since there isn't any proof of him being habitually violent the fact that he chose to try to poison and kill the hedgehog makes little sense. The only reason I could see for him doing it is extreme vengefulness. He got accused by this hedgehog of stealing the honey pot, and the hedgehog went immediately after him, - but Byrony covered for him and returned the pot. Veil faced no repercussions. So why would he at that point in time chose to try and murder this hedgehog?
Then when he is expelled from Redwall he repeatedly tells Byrony to stop following him, steals her supplies and tries to get her to turn back. The fact that he is telling her to go back indicates that he does care for her. And hat he probably rightly assumes that his journey is going to be dangerous outside of the abbey and he doesn't want her to get hurt. If he was simply annoyed by her and wanted her to stop following him he could have killed her and the mole like he killed the 2 foxes. Now while I agree that evil individuals might have someone they care for, in Redwall there are many vermin who don't care about anyone even members of their family. But also he must have cared a lot about her to sacrifice his life to save hers. So while he commits an evil act i.e. trying to kill the hedgehog he also does something extremely good- willingly sacrificing his life for another. So her conclusion does not make a lot of sense- if he sacrificed his life for hers he must have had more than a speck of good in him. As caring about someone does not necessarily mean you would sacrifice yourself for them. If anything this would show he is more of a "gray character".
YES! Finally someone agrees with what I've been saying for YEARS!!!
Mental disorder is making more and more sense as I think about it. Faiyloe has been taking psychology, and when I was telling her about this she agreed wholeheartedly.
Fascinating!
I would like to pose a question though to the whole mental illness theory.
I'm buying it BTW.
Do you think Brian Jacques did this on purpose or is it a (grey) coincidence?
There is only one man who can answer this.
Sir Jaques himself...
I am currently rereading The Outcast of Redwall, and trying to look at Bryony and Veil's relationship, and the events that took place, through a different lens.
Certainly, there is the suggestion that Veil was inherently bad, because he was a vermin. But many of us don't like that explanation, so I would like to put forward my own.
Firstly, from what I can tell, there is no one person or thing to blame for the series of events that happened.
I happen to support the idea that Veil had a type of psychosis. There was no reason for him to steal, as everything in Redwall was pretty much free to have, so that may explain where his bad habits started from.
From there, it was up to Bryony to correct him on his behaviour as his adoptive mother. There was probably bias against vermin from other people, but I believe that made Bryony always defend him, pampering him in her naivety. Because this method of correction didn't work, he ended up falling further down the bad path.
This brings me to another point: Why did they even have Bryony take care of him? She had no experience as a mother, she was probably only around twelve when she first got him, and was not given much direction.
Unfortunately, the environment he was brought up in probably didn't help. While he may have been shown kindness, because of the tendency for Redwallers to disgust him, and the stories he doubtlessly heard about vermin, along with his mental disorder, would make him think he could never be anything but what he was told vermin were.
With all these variables, it seems it was a compound effect that would have lead nowhere else.
Quote from: Grond on November 25, 2017, 01:32:41 AM
The major problem I have with defining Veil's morality is that most of his actions don't make any sense. In some ways he appears to not be fully mentally competent and might have some disorders. For example most of the wrong things he did at the abbey were petty theft- i.e. stealing the honey pot. He ate the honey and then threw the pot away. However in Redwall there isn't any point to stealing when food, shelter and whatever else you want is all free. There is no money and individual abbey beasts don't have a lot of treasure or valuables that they personally own. He could walk into the kitchen and eat as much food or honey as he wanted and face no or minimal repercussions. If they did try to penalize him for excessive eating or something I'm pretty sure that Byrony could defend him pretty effectively as she had the Abbess' and Bella's ear. Plus he wasn't a glutton either as he was described as being lean and athletic and not overweight. We only see one other Abbey character who also stole and that was the hedgehog, Orkwill who stole possessions/items from others, in Eulalia- who ends up redeeming himself by helping Gorath and so forth. But given that everything in Redwall is free it only makes sense that these 2 characters were kleptomaniacs because there is no point or benefit from stealing.
Another thing that is confusing about Veil is that prior to his attempted murder via poisoning of a hedgehog we do not know of him committing any violent act in Redwall during his life there, apart from when he bit the skipper as a newly found/abandoned baby. Surely if he was violent he would have been expelled from Redwall sooner. There is also no evidence that he was sadistic or enjoyed tormenting or hurting others. Since there isn't any proof of him being habitually violent the fact that he chose to try to poison and kill the hedgehog makes little sense. The only reason I could see for him doing it is extreme vengefulness. He got accused by this hedgehog of stealing the honey pot, and the hedgehog went immediately after him, - but Byrony covered for him and returned the pot. Veil faced no repercussions. So why would he at that point in time chose to try and murder this hedgehog?
Then when he is expelled from Redwall he repeatedly tells Byrony to stop following him, steals her supplies and tries to get her to turn back. The fact that he is telling her to go back indicates that he does care for her. And hat he probably rightly assumes that his journey is going to be dangerous outside of the abbey and he doesn't want her to get hurt. If he was simply annoyed by her and wanted her to stop following him he could have killed her and the mole like he killed the 2 foxes. Now while I agree that evil individuals might have someone they care for, in Redwall there are many vermin who don't care about anyone even members of their family. But also he must have cared a lot about her to sacrifice his life to save hers. So while he commits an evil act i.e. trying to kill the hedgehog he also does something extremely good- willingly sacrificing his life for another. So her conclusion does not make a lot of sense- if he sacrificed his life for hers he must have had more than a speck of good in him. As caring about someone does not necessarily mean you would sacrifice yourself for them. If anything this would show he is more of a "gray character".
This is perhaps the best theory to explain veil's behavior that I have ever seen.
Me likey.
Quote from: The Skarzs on May 22, 2018, 08:46:10 PM
I am currently rereading The Outcast of Redwall, and trying to look at Bryony and Veil's relationship, and the events that took place, through a different lens.
Certainly, there is the suggestion that Veil was inherently bad, because he was a vermin. But many of us don't like that explanation, so I would like to put forward my own.
Firstly, from what I can tell, there is no one person or thing to blame for the series of events that happened.
I happen to support the idea that Veil had a type of psychosis. There was no reason for him to steal, as everything in Redwall was pretty much free to have, so that may explain where his bad habits started from.
From there, it was up to Bryony to correct him on his behaviour as his adoptive mother. There was probably bias against vermin from other people, but I believe that made Bryony always defend him, pampering him in her naivety. Because this method of correction didn't work, he ended up falling further down the bad path.
This brings me to another point: Why did they even have Bryony take care of him? She had no experience as a mother, she was probably only around twelve when she first got him, and was not given much direction.
Unfortunately, the environment he was brought up in probably didn't help. While he may have been shown kindness, because of the tendency for Redwallers to disgust him, and the stories he doubtlessly heard about vermin, along with his mental disorder, would make him think he could never be anything but what he was told vermin were.
With all these variables, it seems it was a compound effect that would have lead nowhere else.
I agree. I recently re-read Outcast just now and I have some things I'd like to add to this post and the previous one I made. I definitely think that Veil had mental health issues and disorders. The obvious one is kleptomania but there was probably some type of psychosis as well. Correcting my previous post he intended to poison Friar Bunfold, a mouse, but accidently ended up poisoning Myrtle the hedgehog. I had thought Bunfold was a hedgehog as well. Anyway given that Bunfold went immediately after Veil for the missing honey pot, it is likely that they had a history of antagonism. Hence, it may be possible that Bunfold was the biggest stressor or antagonist in Veil's life. Given Veil's impulsivity it is possible he thought that all of his problems, both real and even imagined could be solved by killing or getting rid of him.
Another kind of interesting side fact is that Redwallers where kind and tolerant, almost to a creature, to each other because more or less everyone behaved and didn't really break any laws for the most part. But given the treatment that Orkwill received for petty theft- banishment, which was advocated by certain beasts and opposed by others, they would also dish out serious punishment for transgressions. The voices who called for a more serious punishment for Orkwil may have been analogous to Friar Bunfold in Outcast. The season long banishment was essentially a compromise the Abbot came up with- which some considered to harsh and others too lenient. Now, Orkwill had virtually spent his entire life, since early infanthood in the Abbey. Banishing him into the wilderness of Mossflower, with which he had minimal experience could easily turn into a death sentence- and nearly did on a few occasions. Now Veil was not banished or severely punished for petty theft likely because Abbess Merriam was much kinder or softer and probably wouldn't allow it for petty theft. But there might have been some like the Friar who would have supported it and shown severe contempt for Veil because of him being a vermin and due to his actions. Also at this point the Redwallers didn't have a precedent to go by where a member of their order engaged in bad behaviour, and that this behaviour could be changed. This may have aggravated Veil's mistreatment at the hands of certain Redwallers and the disdain they showed for him, throughout his adolescence.