Redwall Abbey Community Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Don't forget to follow us on Twitter to get the latest updates on the site and to see amazing Redwall art and news!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   New

Author Topic: Bryony's Conclusion? (Outcast of Redwall; spoilers)  (Read 4997 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tam and Martin

  • Abbey Cellarbeast
  • ****
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 4895
  • Mud trucks and country
    • View Profile
Re: Bryony's Conclusion? (Outcast of Redwall; spoilers)
« Reply #45 on: November 25, 2013, 12:34:36 AM »

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.
Logged


If you wanna chat, PM me :) I'd love to talk with any of you!

Instagram: aaron.stott2000
SC: ayayron2000
 

Ungatt Trunn

  • Abbey Beekeeper
  • ****
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3362
  • Status: Preparing
  • competitive minecraft parody soundcloud rapper
    • View Profile
Re: Bryony's Conclusion? (Outcast of Redwall; spoilers)
« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2013, 05:06:32 AM »

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.
Logged

I've changed since I was last here, but for the better hopefully.

Check out my og youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCutjXm5vTbEVaUul6-fnXsA
 
The following users thanked this post: The Grey Coincidence

Wylder Treejumper

  • Abbey Glassmaker
  • ****
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2296
  • Status: Seeking Virtue
  • The Christmas Spirit
    • View Profile
Re: Bryony's Conclusion? (Outcast of Redwall; spoilers)
« Reply #47 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.
Logged
"Behold, many are called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because... They do not learn this one lesson- that the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected to the powers of heaven, and the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness." D&C 121:34-36
 

Grond

  • Abbey Bellringer
  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: Bryony's Conclusion? (Outcast of Redwall; spoilers)
« Reply #48 on: November 25, 2017, 01:32:41 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".
« Last Edit: November 25, 2017, 01:35:54 AM by Grond »
Logged
 

Ashleg

  • Abbey Herbalist
  • *****
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5080
  • Cellars President
    • View Profile
    • Emperor Ashleg for Cellar President
Re: Bryony's Conclusion? (Outcast of Redwall; spoilers)
« Reply #49 on: November 27, 2017, 05:41:28 PM »

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.
Logged
"Time for my highly elaborate and college-educated plan!"
-Sheldon Plankton

DO WE HAVE AN ACCORD?
 

Mike

  • Dibbun
  • Country: us
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Bryony's Conclusion? (Outcast of Redwall; spoilers)
« Reply #50 on: December 29, 2017, 08:33:27 PM »

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!!!
Logged
 

The Skarzs

  • Redwall Recorder
  • *****
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8923
    • View Profile
Re: Bryony's Conclusion? (Outcast of Redwall; spoilers)
« Reply #51 on: January 04, 2018, 05:47:39 PM »

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.

Logged
Cave of Skarzs

You never truly fail until you take the failure as final.

Every man is a warrior, yet every man must choose to fight.
 

The Grey Coincidence

  • Redwall Initiate
  • Country: cs
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: Bryony's Conclusion? (Outcast of Redwall; spoilers)
« Reply #52 on: January 05, 2018, 06:22:29 PM »

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?
Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   New
Tags: