Assuming Mossflower had the same development cycle as our world, then most of the good beasts share a common ancestor with vermin. That being said, why do you think vermin went bad and goodbeaats went good? Did the harsh habitat of vermin force them to adapt and become more cruel, did some prehistoric event cause the two groups to seperate? Did both group seperate for entirely natural reasons?
Quote from: Izeroth on September 26, 2014, 12:21:26 PM
Assuming Mossflower had the same development cycle as our world, then most of the good beasts share a common ancestor with vermin. That being said, why do you think vermin went bad and goodbeaats went good? Did the harsh habitat of vermin force them to adapt and become more cruel, did some prehistoric event cause the two groups to seperate? Did both group seperate for entirely natural reasons?
I find it much like the Bible as God created the world he created Adam and Eve then they had children and the line of Able was good and Cain was cursed due to Cain killing able the line of good was passed over to Seth and then there ancestors on Cain's side were cursed and Seth's good. Thats my thinking do to how BJ was a Catholic that most of the evidence includes he was a Christain (See Was Brian Jacques a Christain topic!)
That's just my 2 cents :P
They're just naturally bad. Heck, even in real life those kinds of animals start doing bad things at an early age.
Though it's mainly Jacques wanting good and evil to be defined by species to make things black and white and simple.
Ferrets are more mischievous than
bad per say, and are actually far more useful as pets than mice, rats, and other varmints.
Quote from: JangoCoolguy on September 26, 2014, 11:45:28 PM
Though it's mainly Jacques wanting good and evil to be defined by species to make things black and white and simple.
This, however, I agree with.
Trust me, squirrels and mice are very annoying. They steal food from bird feeders and eat dog food. In their natural habitat (they are a problem on islands) ferrets don't cause trouble for humans really. But, anyway, this topic is not about discussing that. The main point of this topic is to discuss why you think vermin went evil from a lore point of view. Obviously, we know that the real life explanation is that BJ wanted to simplify things.
You know, I'm not sure if I've thought much of it before, but I'm not sure that there's evidence that every 'vermin' creature in the world is evil. I know that Mr. Jacques said that the vermin are bad, but he said that in the context of someone asking him if any good vermin would appear in the books -- not whether or not there are any good vermin anywhere in the Redwall world. It is possible that there are good or decent vermin, but that the books don't talk much about them, since they're off minding their own business instead of attacking woodlanders.
As it is, even though the books focus on the worst elements of vermin society, we have evidence that not all vermin are completely bad. Bowfleg's horde was content to stay encamped in a good living location, and probably would have continued to live there indefinitely, if Swartt Sixclaw hadn't poisoned their leader and taken over. There were also rats that farmed the land at Castle Marl after the book (albeit under duress). Many of the vermin characters we see who are not horde officers or pirates, like Lousewort and Sneezewort, don't seem to be particularly bad creatures. I'm not saying that they didn't do bad things, but I think some of that could be explained by the harsh culture and the rulers that they live under.
That leads in to my next point, that the culture they live in undoubtedly does have a way of making sure the meanest, most ruthless vermin rise to the top. This might have originally been because of tough living conditions, but by now I think it's mostly done because they've "always" done it that way, as far back as anyone remembers. Anyway, once a hard leader is in charge, they enact policies that perpetuate that lifestyle. That can be changed, though; as shown in Loamhedge, vermin are capable of appointing more pacific leaders and living less violent lives.
So while it is true that the vermin groups we've seen are villainous, that doesn't necessarily mean that they all are. It's possible that there are good vermin living peaceful lives somewhere, but that it never came up because the books mainly cover periods of conflict in the part of the world where there are a lot of savage vermin bands.
I don't think a race can 'go' bad. Actions are what makes someone bad. You can't be 'born bad either.
Well, let's say goodbeasts were not very nice to let's say, a group of rats, and they had a grudge against them. They would then tell their children bad things about them, and they will tell others such as ferrets, foxes, and stoats about them, then there would be a big difference between the two.
Quote from: The Mask on September 28, 2014, 05:50:03 AM
I don't think a race can 'go' bad. Actions are what makes someone bad. You can't be 'born bad either.
No, you can't, but it seems vermin are.
They're not really born bad, it's the bad parenting done by the vermin like Swartt. (spelling?)
That wouldn't explain Veil, I really don't think that bad treatment in the first two months of existence can make someone a bad person.
Quote from: rusvulthesaber on October 05, 2014, 08:13:34 PM
Quote from: The Mask on September 28, 2014, 05:50:03 AM
I don't think a race can 'go' bad. Actions are what makes someone bad. You can't be 'born bad either.
No, you can't, but it seems vermin are.
I don't think vermin are born bad, necessarily, but maybe with an inclination towards bad. Or perhaps it was just the example that they are set. Perhaps because the races of squirrels, otters, moles, hedgehogs, badgers, and hares don't like them, the vermin don't like them back. And while the "better" races just sit there (Basically), the vermin do something about the fact that they don't like them. Or maybe they're just poor foragers.
Quote from: rusvulthesaber on October 05, 2014, 09:23:12 PM
That wouldn't explain Veil, I really don't think that bad treatment in the first two months of existence can make someone a bad person.
Prejudiced from the Abbeydwellers, maybe?
Quote from: rusvulthesaber on October 05, 2014, 09:23:12 PM
That wouldn't explain Veil, I really don't think that bad treatment in the first two months of existence can make someone a bad person.
Many people turn bad because of something that happened that happened to them that they don't remember because they were too young.
Quote from: Delthion on October 06, 2014, 01:34:38 AM
Quote from: rusvulthesaber on October 05, 2014, 09:23:12 PM
That wouldn't explain Veil, I really don't think that bad treatment in the first two months of existence can make someone a bad person.
Many people turn bad because of something that happened to them that they don't remember because they were too young.
Well, once you think about it, Veil was really more igfnored than anything else - Swartt didn't care about him, his nurse was. . . . . Probably really only indifferent, so on and so forth. The only 'bad' thing that happened to him was being left behind in sa ditch - And being picked up soon by Skipper or one of his otters.
I think it is just that Brian Jaques used pre-made human stereotypes for his characters (e.g. "a rat")and he liked to occasionally brake these rules.In the absence of this though, I think that the vermin have developed to be nattrally cruel and tyrannical because of their development.The woodlanders managed to survive thanks to the development of positive social skills, whereas the vermin developed a preference to the survivalist,eat-or-be-eaten approach early in their history!(I know a lot about social evolution!! :D)
My reasoning, strictly confined to real life, is that Jacques wanted his younger readers to easily be able to tell bad guys from good guys.
In the context of the series' history, willruth's explanation is excellent.
I find it very strange that Jacques said there would be no good vermin, and then proceeded to add good vermin in his later books. Perhaps he had a change of heart after he said that??
There aren't any true "good" vermin in the books. Even those that were muddling in gray overtures, such as Veil, were casted off as "evil" at the end when even the Redwallers were trying to determine which aisle Veil fell on. Even with the upbringing Veil had in the abbey, with not much to remember from his life before living there, its a surprise he turned up "bad". Most would say that people are products of their environment--if abbey life made up a majority of what Veil would know, then why did he exhibit the "bad" characteristics when he had no knowledge of them?
Oh yeah, its because ferrets are bad in Redwall. There's no such thing as a good ferret ;) [/sarcasm but you get the picture]
I think Crumdun was sort of good (he wasn't evil, anyway).
Blaggut was a definite exception to that rule, however. Regardless of what terrible things he probably did before he went to Redwall, the creatures of the abbey eventually did welcome him gladly, treating him as a friend. Of course, it was primarily the Dibbuns who found the most happiness in him being there, but the elders like Simeon, who had more experience with vermin, also accepted him with kindness.
Quote from: Cornflower MM on October 05, 2014, 11:46:28 PM
Quote from: rusvulthesaber on October 05, 2014, 08:13:34 PM
Quote from: The Mask on September 28, 2014, 05:50:03 AM
I don't think a race can 'go' bad. Actions are what makes someone bad. You can't be 'born bad either.
No, you can't, but it seems vermin are.
I don't think vermin are born bad, necessarily, but maybe with an inclination towards bad. Or perhaps it was just the example that they are set. Perhaps because the races of squirrels, otters, moles, hedgehogs, badgers, and hares don't like them, the vermin don't like them back. And while the "better" races just sit there (Basically), the vermin do something about the fact that they don't like them. Or maybe they're just poor foragers.
Quote from: rusvulthesaber on October 05, 2014, 09:23:12 PM
That wouldn't explain Veil, I really don't think that bad treatment in the first two months of existence can make someone a bad person.
Prejudiced from the Abbeydwellers, maybe?
Maybe after he started to do bad things with bad intent. But there's no reason that he would have been prejudiced against before he did anything bad. Abbey dwellers seem to be very accepting and kind.
I think that Brian made vermin bad so that we could easily identify villains versus the "Good guys". The few exceptions in which some vermin were good was just for a plot twist or change of pace, I think.
^
^
Quote from: Lutra on October 16, 2014, 02:42:35 AM
Oh yeah, its because ferrets are bad in Redwall. There's no such thing as a good ferret ;) [/sarcasm but you get the picture]
I won't say what I think of that...
Anyway...
I'm taking a sociology class right now :D and we just learned about certain gangs in LA and how they formed and why they continue (this could also apply to vermin, keep reading).
Strain Theory - Since there are not enough resources for everyone there is a strain on society therefore some people respond to it in different ways. Some examples that would apply to vermin: Innovation - try to achieve society's goals (earning money) with abnormal, socially unacceptable means. Rebellion - protest against both society's goals and following norms of behavior
Labeling Theory - People (or vermin in this case) are called "bad" for so long they start to act like it because no more is expected of them
Differential Association - A person (or vermin in this case) learns to favor one subculture or another due to life experiences or socialization
Conflict Theory - History is a series of class struggles and conflicts
Both interesting and very intelligent. ;) Well, we learn something new every day! Thanks for sharing that awesome bit of information with us, Rom. :)
You're welcome
*Sits in small shack building boat, boredly being the only good vermin in the series other then those two vermin that were kinda indifferent*
I think I have an answer to the veil question. The abbey dwellers all have a miss trust of vermin. Veil was brought up by a naive doting mother who most likely spoiled him. The other abbey dwellers on the other hand didn't trust him most likely blaming him for things he did not do. treating him more severally for things he did do than the other dibbuns. the combination made him indifferent. he started with little things but they just go worse as he was continually reprimanded and accused. he was not treated equally, nor did they ever really trust him.
When asking the question bad and what started it in a lore view there's really no way to know. however when looking at it from a readers view its clear that certain species are good, and others are bad.
Actually the only in-between species in the entire deal are lizards. Most of the good ones are just pets that can't even talk.
The randomized good vermin bad woodlander is very rare and varied, personally I think if someone called me something like vermin I would want to hurt them too though.
Hey Sandpaw! Why dontcha introduce yourself in the front lawns, in the Introduction Topic?
As for calling someone vermin, I believe that would be an insult.
Interesting topic. I've recently finished a series of books involving squirrels, mice and hedgehogs, where there is no Redwall type foe beasts, and it's just the three above species.
Has anybody read this series? That main character is a squirrel named Urchin.
It may be insulting to call someone vermin, but it's a universal term used by pretty much all Goodbeasts.
Quote from: Sagetip, the hare on December 14, 2014, 08:11:51 PM
Interesting topic. I've recently finished a series of books involving squirrels, mice and hedgehogs, where there is no Redwall type foe beasts, and it's just the three above species.
Has anybody read this series? That main character is a squirrel named Urchin.
I have! The Mistmantle Chronicles? I didn't like them as much, though
Ok, I need to gather my thoughts on the subject.
I think...that with the way the vermin were raised, they paid more attention to the wild side of their instincts. You can see that even in our world. Animals that BJ made "bad" are all more of a wild, competitive animals in our world. Whereas the creatures that he made "good" are usually viewed as more "timid" and "tame."
But there is fault in my logic, I realize. Badgers are generally viewed as vicious creatures. I think BJ took the more warlike, fighting species and put most of them in the bad category, but decided that it wasn't really logical for all the bad guys to be fighters and the good guys to be peacemakers.
Sorry, just rambling thoughts. :P
well, hares don't necesaryily fight in the real world, and many ferrets, stoats and weasels are bred for pets and coats, so it's not that they are consciously bad in the real world, they just have a "self-defense" instinct. Bzut in redwall, they obviously want to be bad, and enjoy it. If you look at good creatures, they can actually tend to be pompous and overrulling (voles. Voles. VOLES! I'll let you find other pompous, overruling creatures). So you could say that these animals persecuted the "bad" ones (notice how almost every single "good" creature has a name like"vermin" for the "bad" creatures? Noticably Skippers) and the "bad" creatures said "Well shut up" and left, or killed, the "good" creatures and their domain. This may not go for certain species (like hares, who seem to constantly be cooped up in their mountain and rarely encounter "bad" creatures in scenes that don't include fighting.) Now badgers and hares mayy only give hard feelings to "bad" creatures since they (badgers and hares) feel a sense of protection to other "Good" creatures and wish to... prosecute attackers. Some species, like squirrels, mice and otters were more warlike (squirrels and mice scrrabble over food, and otters may actually fight) so they choose to stand up to the "bad" creatures, thus reversing the fight. This may also be a reson for the appearence of Kotir. The "good" animals built it for a fortress againstt bad animals (support: "bad" animals are always bad structure builder, annd when they build houses and forts it is usually slave labor).
Just a thought
THE MATRIX!!!!!
If this was anything like the real world Badgers would be rampaging monsters eating everything.
I think vermin in the Redwall world are a lot like orcs in The Lord of the Rings. They're pure evil, and they don't know how to be good. I'm not saying that all vermin are always bad no matter what, because throughout the series are several vermin who aren't so bad in the end (Blaggut, Romsca, Veil). Maybe they're the same, even though I don't think there were ever good orcs.
There are some good vermin in the books. I think 2 examples actually stayed in redwall. One went good cause he was hiding cause he stole the peals of lutra another (I can't remember which book) was with his shipmate and wanted to stay cause he loved taking care of the dibbins. I believe he gets killed when they leave though.
That would be Graylunk, whose skeleton Tansy and Arven found, and Blaggut.
Welcome to the forum, Stonestripe! If you make a post in the Introduction Topic in the Front Lawns you can be more properly greeted.
Quote from: Eulaliaaa! on January 25, 2015, 09:33:42 PM
I think vermin in the Redwall world are a lot like orcs in The Lord of the Rings. They're pure evil, and they don't know how to be good. I'm not saying that all vermin are always bad no matter what, because throughout the series are several vermin who aren't so bad in the end (Blaggut, Romsca, Veil). Maybe they're the same, even though I don't think there were ever good orcs.
The difference between orcs and vermin is this. Orcs were
bred by Morgoth/Melkor to become evil. Vermin have no such restraints.
I believe that, if you look at the Redwall Books from a lore point of view, that because they're all written or chronicled by the Redwall Abbey Recorders, that that is why vermin are depicted as such villainous, despicable creatures so often while most goodbeasts are depicted as kind, stalwart, loyal chums through and through.
If a faction chronicling the events of their past had the mind to, they could very, very easily put their foes or those they dislike in an unfair light.
I'm not saying that this means that all vermin were simply depicted unfairly and never were actually evil, but there are certainly many points that could have been edited by Redwall Abbey Recorders to make them seem far worse, while those favored by Redwall Abbey residents could end up looking far more heroic, trustworthy and skilled.
But Deyna was good after he was raised by vermin. :o
::)
Which doesn't make sense. Taggerung and Outcast go against all logic. Nature does not trump nurture when it comes to personality
Agreed. The way one speaks and acts is affected by that which the young one is surrounded by. For example, the children of immigrants to the United States usually learned to speak English, and despite their nationality they became "normal" to the area.
Of course, each and every person (creature, whatever) has their own personality that either hinders or helps said influences, but usually one brought up in an environment where everyone is caring will also care for those who care for him, just as a dog-eat-dog world would spawn its own dogs for the vicious circle.
I have been rereading The Sable Quean and there is a prime example of vermin wonderland inequality in that book. near the beginning of the book a young stoat named Globby snuck into redwall. All he wanted was to find some food. he had no intention of hurting anyone at all. He was just hungry. And when he is cause what dose the skipper do. Beat him with an oven paddle, right in front of the abbess, and the abbes let him!. If that had been a "goodbeast" he would never have dream of doing something like that.
if you haven't read the book yet don't read this
Sure he kills Tollum latter but it was an accident. All he wanted was to leave the abbey in peace. He was scared and trapped in a corner. Anyone would have acted the way he did.
Threw out the entire book he gave no indication that he bared any ill will on anyone, good or bad. He was just some one caught up in a bad situation.
Quote from: Faiyloe on April 21, 2015, 08:36:18 PM
I have been rereading The Sable Quean and there is a prime example of vermin wonderland inequality in that book. near the beginning of the book a young stoat named Globby snuck into redwall. All he wanted was to find some food. he had no intention of hurting anyone at all. He was just hungry. And when he is cause what dose the skipper do. Beat him with an oven paddle, right in front of the abbess, and the abbes let him!. If that had been a "goodbeast" he would never have dream of doing something like that.
if you haven't read the book yet don't read this
Sure he kills Tollum latter but it was an accident. All he wanted was to leave the abbey in peace. He was scared and trapped in a corner. Anyone would have acted the way he did.
Threw out the entire book he gave no indication that he bared any ill will on anyone, good or bad. He was just some one caught up in a bad situation.
That's because to most woodlanders a good vermin is a dead vermin so basically they're prejudice
Indeed.
Faiy and I are writing a fanfic that touches on this, actually.
Quote from: Faiyloe on April 21, 2015, 08:36:18 PM
I have been rereading The Sable Quean and there is a prime example of vermin wonderland inequality in that book. near the beginning of the book a young stoat named Globby snuck into redwall. All he wanted was to find some food. he had no intention of hurting anyone at all. He was just hungry. And when he is cause what dose the skipper do. Beat him with an oven paddle, right in front of the abbess, and the abbes let him!. If that had been a "goodbeast" he would never have dream of doing something like that.
if you haven't read the book yet don't read this
Sure he kills Tollum latter but it was an accident. All he wanted was to leave the abbey in peace. He was scared and trapped in a corner. Anyone would have acted the way he did.
Threw out the entire book he gave no indication that he bared any ill will on anyone, good or bad. He was just some one caught up in a bad situation.
There's something to breaking and entering with the intention of theft that might've added to Skipper's reaction. Most "goodbeasts" wouldn't bother sneaking over the walls, they'd just walk up to the front gate and ask to be let in. It might have some prejudice involved but I think most people would react in similar ways if someone broke into their home and tried stealing their food. Especially if that food would be willingly handed over if you just asked politely. Whether there was an intention to hurt someone or not the punishment for the crime doesn't change.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on December 02, 2017, 05:56:38 PM
Quote from: Faiyloe on April 21, 2015, 08:36:18 PM
I have been rereading The Sable Quean and there is a prime example of vermin wonderland inequality in that book. near the beginning of the book a young stoat named Globby snuck into redwall. All he wanted was to find some food. he had no intention of hurting anyone at all. He was just hungry. And when he is cause what dose the skipper do. Beat him with an oven paddle, right in front of the abbess, and the abbes let him!. If that had been a "goodbeast" he would never have dream of doing something like that.
if you haven't read the book yet don't read this
Sure he kills Tollum latter but it was an accident. All he wanted was to leave the abbey in peace. He was scared and trapped in a corner. Anyone would have acted the way he did.
Threw out the entire book he gave no indication that he bared any ill will on anyone, good or bad. He was just some one caught up in a bad situation.
There's something to breaking and entering with the intention of theft that might've added to Skipper's reaction. Most "goodbeasts" wouldn't bother sneaking over the walls, they'd just walk up to the front gate and ask to be let in. It might have some prejudice involved but I think most people would react in similar ways if someone broke into their home and tried stealing their food. Especially if that food would be willingly handed over if you just asked politely. Whether there was an intention to hurt someone or not the punishment for the crime doesn't change.
But that is where you see a difference in the nurture of vermin vs. good beasts. Assuming that stoat mostly grew up interacting with other vermin, he couldn't just go up to the abbey door and ask for food. Think about it he sees a fortified building full of beasts he had never met before. In vermin society if you went up and knocked on the door and it was filled with members of another horde/group he would probably be faced with three choices: 1) Death, 2) Being Enslaved, 3) He might be pressed into joining that horde in question. He just wanted food so he snuck into the abbey to get it and not be subjected to one of the above faiths. He had no clue that the Redwallers would just give him food if he asked for it. He probably never in his life dealt with a group/society like the one found at Redwall.
Now the skipper's reaction to attack him was warranted. He did not know what the stoat's true intentions where or how he would react if another weaker Redwaller had discovered him. But only to to the extent to get the stoat apprehended and neutralized as a threat- i.e. bound or restraint him. The Skipper though it seemed went out of his way to beat and in a way torture the stoat. Which he likely wouldn't have done if he was a good beast caught stealing. The skipper would have likely used much less force- just what was necessary to get them restrained.
Quote from: Jetthebinturong on April 20, 2015, 05:38:34 PM
Which doesn't make sense. Taggerung and Outcast go against all logic. Nature does not trump nurture when it comes to personality
Not necessarily. Both nature and nurture play a role when it comes to personality or anything else. But apart from that its also not so clear cut to look at the 2 environments in a dichotomy- in that one was good and the other was bad. Despite the fact that Redwall as a whole is a much nicer environment than the Juskarath clan. Veil's childhood or upbringing wasn't particularly good. There is indication that throughout his childhood at least some of the Redwallers treated him with suspicion and he would be the first one to be blamed when things went wrong- despite an absence of proof that he actually did it. He was also not a particularly well respected member of Redwall- in fact he might have been the least respected creature in Redwall. Furthermore the fact that Byrony was both over bearing and extremely lenient when it came to punishment-probably made him spoiled and immature- that he believed he could get away with everything and that he didn't fully grasp the consequence of his actions. Finally he also appears to have had some disorder i.e. cleptomania- hence the stupid petty thefts he did.
Now while Tagg was raised by vermin- the Juskarath clan, he did not necessarily have a bad childhood or upbringing. Ever since he was kidnapped by the Juskarath he was respected and treated fairly well because he was the Taggerung and the adopted son of their chieftain Swaney Rath. This respect would only grow as he got older and his skill as a warrior surpassed that of anyone else. Tagg's childhood was also a fairly peaceful time- the Juskarath did not fight any skirmishes or go on any raids so Tagg was not forced to kill anyone. It is also unlikely that as a result of his skill that any other clan member would bully or mistreat him. Rath was also an ok father and it seems for most of the time they lived together he treated Tagg pretty well and there was some level of mutual respect. Rath was also somewhat of a "nice" vermin leader in that he warned Gruven I before he killed him and gave him the chance to back down. He was also, for a vermin leader, very tolerant of Antigra. Tagg left him because in the period leading up to that he wanted to make Tagg a killer and have him skin a fox alive- a particularly gruesome death that shocked even the other Juskarath. This led to Tagg leaving him because of the fact that he was more averse to killing and had a much nicer personality than even most Redwall or good beast warriors but also that despite his upbringing as a Juska he was never before forced to kill any beast. If Rath had accustomed Tagg to killing from a younger and more impressionable age it is not of the question that he may have turned out differently.
Quote from: The Skarzs on November 29, 2017, 10:40:51 PM
Indeed.
Faiy and I are writing a fanfic that touches on this, actually.
I'm trying to do something similar on FF.Net, a 'reply' to Taggerung and Outcast of Redwall. A study of sorts on the nature of Abbeybeasts and vermin.
But I should probably start with a 'hello everyone I'm obsessed with vermin!'
Hello, you, so am I!
I don't know why, but they just stick out as the natural favourites.
I don't feel they ever 'went bad' though, it's just the natural dog eat dog instincts that make them mean-ish, that and they probably live in fear of other bands.etc and are therefore mistrustful. It's just a combination of factors.
Quote from: The Grey Coincidence on December 09, 2017, 07:48:26 AM
Quote from: The Skarzs on November 29, 2017, 10:40:51 PM
Indeed.
Faiy and I are writing a fanfic that touches on this, actually.
I'm trying to do something similar on FF.Net, a 'reply' to Taggerung and Outcast of Redwall. A study of sorts on the nature of Abbeybeasts and vermin.
But I should probably start with a 'hello everyone I'm obsessed with vermin!'
Crud, we better get ours done first, then! ;)
Haha, don't worry I don't copy.
Tho I would like to read it!
Stick around, then! ;)
Can you give a link to your fanfic?
Actually, you may get more people to read it if you post it on the fan fiction board on this forum.
I think I'll do both. The link is here, but as you suggested I also started writing it on the fanfiction boards here.
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/12679554/1/Black-and-White
Welcome to the forum, The Grey Coincidence :)
So, I want to suggest a couple things for sake of discussion.
...I think grey characters were always a mistake. The entire concept of species misalignment (and the singular morally ambiguous Veil) strikes me as an attempt at addressing a question that is just destined to open a series of more boxes with more unanswerable questions. It's like Klingon cosmetics in Star Trek. Just don't start poking at an obvious glaring issue, because you'll just unleash an ever more bizarre, untenable debate.
The Redwall universe possessing a black-and-white morality as it does makes any chipping at that foundation, or introducing caveats, risk a spiraling situation wherein readers might want more moral variance when Redwall is fundamentally not about moral ambiguity. Trying to sort out an apparent exception spotlights the whole fundamental incompatibility between our beautiful world, and Redwall's simplicity. Bryony concluded that Veil was evil. I'm inclined to agree. But why was that a plot to begin with? Why are we highlighting that evil beasts are evil? That is merely why they are vermin.
There's the "kill vermin on sight" idea that some fans have brought up over the years. This asks that, if vermin are evil, shouldn't they be exterminated? I could almost swear there's an old parody out there depicting a eugenics program in a future Mossfower. Which highlights my point -because even thinking through a nature v. nurture, moral acceptance of murder in the name of pragmatism ect. are products of not accepting the simple morality at face value. This is not a universe set up for exploring the issue without things like odd moral problems and allegations of racism cropping up. I can think back years ago of insufferable know-it-alls in the ROC having "fun" with this whole dynamic.
Redwallers, more so in the early books, seem open to the idea of good, or at least tolerable, vermin. Mortimer can totally wrap his head around negotiating in good faith with Cluny, a couple foxes can be brought into the Abbey, a bunch of vermin can be performers in Mattimeo, two vermin can be allowed inside in Salamandastron with simple promises ect. I'm not sure this ever wholly went away, but I am really curious at what it might imply. You could never see certain goodbeasts accepting the idea of a good vermin. Grubbage probably needed the Abbey to survive among goodbeasts – no Long Patrol could take him in, I'd think. Abbeybeasts seem conditioned to be more trusting of pretty much anyone, if it takes persuading every time I can think of it happening.
Do you guys think that gray characters, in terms of species misalignment, seem to increase or decrease as the books go on over the years? Also, does the moral spectrum, as observed by in-universe characters, seem to polarize? In other words, does the idea of trustworthy/harmless vermin disappear form Redwallers as the series goes on? The opposite position, the attitude of "the only good vermin is a dead vermin", finds its exemplars among goodbeasts here and there (hi Skor!). Does that attitude become more common?
What interests me most is when Jacques, who explicitly made the series morally straightforward, decided to pose the conundrum of Veil. To recycle some Ask Brian material that we've probably all read before that is nonetheless relevant, there is this question: "Will you ever have any really good vermin or bad woodlanders in any of your stories?"
To which Jacques replied: "The goodies are good and the baddies are BAD, no grey areas."
I have no idea when that question was asked. The interesting thing is the specific use of 'vermin' and 'woodlander' in the question, meaning the answer doesn't really leave room for any type of gray character. There's also the answer to whether Jacques saw Veil as a good guy: "As 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."
Thought-provoking post, crumb. I like it. ;D
I'm going to go ahead and write my own thoughts on your paragraph of questions. (Book spoilers!)
QuoteDo you guys think that gray characters, in terms of species misalignment, seem to increase or decrease as the books go on over the years? Also, does the moral spectrum, as observed by in-universe characters, seem to polarize? In other words, does the idea of trustworthy/harmless vermin disappear form Redwallers as the series goes on? The opposite position, the attitude of "the only good vermin is a dead vermin", finds its exemplars among goodbeasts here and there (hi Skor!). Does that attitude become more common?
As the books go on chronologically, it seems like gray vermin are less and less, while the occasional woodlander doing vermin-like things increases: The vole stealing Martin's sword and killing
and eating a bird, the crazy hedgehog trying to use the young ones as slaves, the
very vermin intolerant Rogue Crew. . . Vermin don't get better, but there seems to be more goodbeasts doing bad things.
The moral spectrum does seem to polarize more as the series went on, from what I can tell. To start:
Mossflower, one of the earliest chronologically- Martin finds a rat and was willing to help him before finding he was dead. Mercy, if backed by a strong threat, is shown to the remaining vermin from Kotir, by Long Patrol no less.
Outcast of Redwall- Veil growing up in Redwall.
Bellmaker- Allowance of Blaggut and Strapp into Redwall. Finnbarr may have shed a tear as he thought of how many deaths there would be should the Shalloo sink.
Redwall, Mattimeo- Your above examples with Cluny and Slagar.
After this, there seems like a time of even pegging when it comes to tolerance. I'm not sure if there's a transition between this and
The Rogue Crew, but in this last book, there is open disdain and wanton destruction of vermin, mostly by the otters themselves, but not contested by the Long Patrol hares, nor by the Redwallers if I remember right.
We also don't hear "the only good vermin is a dead one" up until somewhere in the middle of the series.
I have a question now:
Are vermin more tolerant of woodlanders, or vice versa?
Vermin are more tolerant of Woodlanders because they'll go after anybeast they don't like; it's not species-specific. Woodlanders, on the other paw, have a predisposed disposition to vermin.
About otters and badgers being more on the murderous side: they're mustelids, as are most vermin. Keep that in mind.
Thank you.
No and Yes.
No I don't think that the vermin have changed much, if even. They're still conniving and greedy and cowardly. The main vermin trait I believe is selfishness, aside from Veil how many vermin have died for another beast? Willingly that is. I honestly dont know but highly doubt there are many of them. Their culture is very dog-eat-dog and I believe that most vermin start out with their strong self-defense instincts, which is why they are snappy and bad-tempered. This self-defense leaks into their selfishness. They are cowards because they are selfish. Backstabbing and cunning because they want to improve their position. It's their self-defense that naturally makes them 'bad' but because most are raised to 'eat-other-dogs' their self-defense becomes selfishness. That's my headcannon!
Well the woodlanders did get invaded half-a-hundred times over, makes some sense that they're a bit fed up by now. They learn their stories-and in almost every story the vermin are evil.
Yeah but their ARE grey areas, and even Mr Jacques can't deny that. Voles are generally pompous and in Mossflower, when the Kotir army are running away Skipper asks Martin to have one last go at them. He is refused and this is after seasons of surpression-BUT throwing some javelins at a retreating, surrendered enemy is not a 'good' thing, so there you have it. A 'grey' character. These guys are pretty difficult to avoid to be honest.
Quote from: a crumb on December 15, 2017, 02:51:32 AM
Welcome to the forum, The Grey Coincidence :)
So, I want to suggest a couple things for sake of discussion.
...I think grey characters were always a mistake. The entire concept of species misalignment (and the singular morally ambiguous Veil) strikes me as an attempt at addressing a question that is just destined to open a series of more boxes with more unanswerable questions. It's like Klingon cosmetics in Star Trek. Just don't start poking at an obvious glaring issue, because you'll just unleash an ever more bizarre, untenable debate.
The Redwall universe possessing a black-and-white morality as it does makes any chipping at that foundation, or introducing caveats, risk a spiraling situation wherein readers might want more moral variance when Redwall is fundamentally not about moral ambiguity. Trying to sort out an apparent exception spotlights the whole fundamental incompatibility between our beautiful world, and Redwall's simplicity. Bryony concluded that Veil was evil. I'm inclined to agree. But why was that a plot to begin with? Why are we highlighting that evil beasts are evil? That is merely why they are vermin.
There's the "kill vermin on sight" idea that some fans have brought up over the years. This asks that, if vermin are evil, shouldn't they be exterminated? I could almost swear there's an old parody out there depicting a eugenics program in a future Mossfower. Which highlights my point -because even thinking through a nature v. nurture, moral acceptance of murder in the name of pragmatism ect. are products of not accepting the simple morality at face value. This is not a universe set up for exploring the issue without things like odd moral problems and allegations of racism cropping up. I can think back years ago of insufferable know-it-alls in the ROC having "fun" with this whole dynamic.
Redwallers, more so in the early books, seem open to the idea of good, or at least tolerable, vermin. Mortimer can totally wrap his head around negotiating in good faith with Cluny, a couple foxes can be brought into the Abbey, a bunch of vermin can be performers in Mattimeo, two vermin can be allowed inside in Salamandastron with simple promises ect. I'm not sure this ever wholly went away, but I am really curious at what it might imply. You could never see certain goodbeasts accepting the idea of a good vermin. Grubbage probably needed the Abbey to survive among goodbeasts – no Long Patrol could take him in, I'd think. Abbeybeasts seem conditioned to be more trusting of pretty much anyone, if it takes persuading every time I can think of it happening.
Do you guys think that gray characters, in terms of species misalignment, seem to increase or decrease as the books go on over the years? Also, does the moral spectrum, as observed by in-universe characters, seem to polarize? In other words, does the idea of trustworthy/harmless vermin disappear form Redwallers as the series goes on? The opposite position, the attitude of "the only good vermin is a dead vermin", finds its exemplars among goodbeasts here and there (hi Skor!). Does that attitude become more common?
What interests me most is when Jacques, who explicitly made the series morally straightforward, decided to pose the conundrum of Veil. To recycle some Ask Brian material that we've probably all read before that is nonetheless relevant, there is this question: "Will you ever have any really good vermin or bad woodlanders in any of your stories?"
To which Jacques replied: "The goodies are good and the baddies are BAD, no grey areas."
I have no idea when that question was asked. The interesting thing is the specific use of 'vermin' and 'woodlander' in the question, meaning the answer doesn't really leave room for any type of gray character. There's also the answer to whether Jacques saw Veil as a good guy: "As 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."
One thing I would add is that in the book Rogue Crew there is an example of that one vermin, his name escapes me at the moment, who is captured by the Long Patrol. Later on when the Long Patrol meets up with the Rogue Crew-2 Rogue Crew otters proceed to torture him and then they are beaten up/subdued by the Long Patrol officer who is a boxer. That particular vermin then runs away because it is stated in the book that he found his time with the Long Patrol to be fine and he was treated well by them. However, he runs away because he is terrified of the Rogue Crew.
What is also interesting in the book the Rogue Crew is the relation that Razzid's horde had to one another. There is that one scene where when their ship is in the river moss they spot a big pike. Razzid throws a rat horde-beast overboard as bait for the pike who kills him. Razzid then jumps overboard and kills the pike. Which is then cooked and supposed to be eaten. However none of the other horde-beasts eat the pike and it spoils. The reason was that they didn't want to eat the pike given what happened to that rat ( a fellow hoard member) to get it. This is the only example in the book of such vermin horde camaraderie and loyalty in the book.
However one case that I think is often overlooked in this debate is the rat Grubbage in Triss. He was a bosun on the Seascrab, thus a high ranking vermin too, and from what we can tell he grew up a corsair. Yet he was taken into Redwall, stayed to live there, and was even liked by Redwallers. Triss was definitely a later book too.
Not all the Abbeydwellers or others considered "good beasts" have always been good either, think back in Salmandastron there was a shrew that attempted mutiny on Log-a-log, and then what about even some badger lords have become quite fierce when suffering from Bloodwrath!
I think it boils down to writing style, BJ wanted to have an epic about good versus evil and though occasionally he did have shades of gray the overall arch was vermin basically have always been bad, and that could even be attributed to their atheist viewpoint (think about it, vermin believe in Hellsgates but I highly doubt they believe in an almighty savior) and even showed disregard for the abbey's sacred treasures.
So really if you want to get all symbolic BJ was showing that for most vermin a life without God could corrupt. But as pointed out it wasn't always so cut and dry, so there is some validity to saying that the answer really isn't that clear...
Indeed.
It seems there are a few species who are more inclined for bad actions. Shrews, who with their constant arguing are but a step away from turning, and the voles who have more than once shown themselves to be capable of malicious acts.
Don't forget Hedgehogs, who are quite possibly the most annoying species.
Can you explain?
I don't remember them by name, but hedgehogs seem like they go bonkers a whole lot. There were multiple examples of this, the most extreme one being that old dude who kidnapped woodlander children to his island.
I know this thread has been dead a couple years know, but I'd like to put in my opinion/headcanon.
People have long been debating this, mainly because Redwall, despite being aimed at children, has many older fans, and really would like things to reflect real life morality more. But, there have been plenty of evil creatures for the woodlanders to get the idea vermin are evil, we should just kill 'em on sight.
You're more likely to remember the monsters like Cluny, Tsarmina, Slagar, Ironbeak, etc. than the literally handful of good guys, like Blaggut, Romsca, and Gingiviere.
Also, people say (and it is outright stated in some books) that these are stories the woodlanders tell and write down. (I do call sorta B S on this, because there are some situations they should have no way of knowing about, like Slagar killing Hairbelly for complaining, or Slagar laying his trap, Cluny's nightmares, the situation of the Juskarath after Tagg/Deyna left, etc.) A real life example was included on Adam Ruins Everything:
The story of 300 (a comic book based on a real life event of the Spartans vs. the Persians) depicts everything inaccurately for sake of rule of cool. There was way more than 300 Spartans (there was 300 Spartan warriors, but there was about 6,700 more people helping, like the warriors' attendants and allies from other cities). But, even bigger, we imagine the Spartans to have been the good guys and the Persians to have been evil. But this is because Sparta won, and they had a scribe (I forget his name) to write down events, and would've been biased towards his own country. Persia did not have scribes at the time to tell their side of the story. Studies have shown the Spartans were total mean persons who were militaristic, baby murderers, child molesters, and slave owners (and murderers).
In Sparta, if you gave birth to a boy, it was immediately judged. If the baby boy was determined weak, they'd kill him. Once the boy was seven, he'd begin "training", which could involve brutal training, or even being forced to survive a month or two in the wilderness, and, if they survived this "training", the boys were made into concubines for the soldiers. The child soldiers would also be made to kill a slave in cold blood. (And this is just the tip of the iceberg!)
Persia, meanwhile, could almost be considered a precursor to modern-day USA. They had the beginning of the scientific method, when they conquered you, you were allowed to keep your own religion and culture, and they wouldn't murder or rape their new conquests (they may have on an individual level, but most peoples' policies towards people they just conquered was to murder the men and rape the women. Not Persia.)
Unfortunately, Persia lost, so the Spartans made themselves as good guys (because in their own twisted, pedophilic, bloodthirsty minds, they were!)
The same is applied to Redwall — the vermin attack the woodlanders, so the woodlanders remember the bad guys, and are suspicious towards all of them. They've been attacked by rats, ferrets, weasels, stoats, foxes and cats for so long, they view them as being born evil.
TUC bothers to deconstruct this: because woodlanders distrust vermin, the vermin go hungry. The vermin are never given a chance to prove themselves "good" and thus turn to villainy to get their meals. Urthblood takes vermin and woodlanders into his army, and makes them fight together, as having to fight a common enemy together helps build trust the quickest—you have to trust your comrades not to stab you in the back, and if you stab your comrade in the back while fighting, your chances of survival go down. Plus, the others will try to kill you in retribution. Plus, it helps defend the land from slavers and conquerors.
In Zootopia, prey tend to be racist towards predators, and large animals tend to be racist towards small animals. They assign stereotypes to species (foxes are shifty, sly, and untrustworthy, rabbits are meek little carrot farmers, etc.). Nick and Judy show the two reactions to this:
Nick: The world will always distrust foxes and never give them a chance, regardless of whether or not we did anything to deserve it on an individual level. So, why try to be good when no one's willing to give me the chance anyway?
Judy: The world expects me to be a stupid, meek little farmer. I'll prove I can be more than that. I'll be the best at anything I apply myself to!
Judy (When presented with something that conflicts with her ego): Why won't anyone give me a chance?! I was the valedictorian of my class! I can excel at any job given, and parking duty is below me! (Not realizing Chief Bogo probably wants her to gain real world experience and work her way through the ranks.)
Just like the citizens of Zootopia, the woodlanders of Mossflower fall into stereotyping, which leads the "goodbeasts" to be massive dicks towards the vermin—because they expect them all to be evil.