[Redwall] Redwall One-Offs

[Celebes]

I think it's occasionally been discussed in the shout box, but it's interesting to note that Redwall, as in the first book in the series, has several things from a setting and story perspective that later get tweaked or removed in all later books.  A lot of the changes probably come from the first book being written as a standalone and the series only coming later, but I thought it would be interesting if we could highlight ones we thought of and discuss whether we thought they made the story better or worse overall.

A few I thought of:

Animal Variety: Redwall had a few creatures that didn't make a second showing in the series, namely the horse and the beaver.  The horse is especially interesting, because even with Redwall's somewhat compressed scale of animal sizes, a horse is magnitudes larger than everything else.  I don't think outside the odd sea creature here or there there hasn't been any other larger creatures since then.  I think it was probably changed because the weirdness a giant creature might bring to a otherwise small scale story (as this parody hilariously points out), though it would certainly be an interesting story element if these creatures could ever be utilized...

The Redwall Order: In the first book, Redwall Abbey was exactly what it said on the tin, an abbey.  It was a religious order made up completely of mice, one kind of mice even given that pains were taken to distinguish field and church mice, and the order had a set hierarchical structure of brothers, sisters, apprentices, and the abbot, with one offs like Constance.  All the other woodland creatures only came into Redwall's red walls for either a feast or for protection, with it implied that they leave after the event is done.  I may be wrong on this part, but I don't think dibbuns, especially not the vast array of species of dibbuns, were a thing either, horror of horrors.  In later books, it seems like any vague semblance of religion was dropped, the order was vastly diluted with only the abbot still maintaining authority and brother and sister titles not really carrying any weight, and any creature could love at Redwall permanently.  While I think that adding in more species variety made for a richer story (and has given us way more dibbun species to write), I do think I prefer the more set structure of Redwall and its order in the first.  Something about it makes it seem more mystical and lived in to me, rather than just a random smattering of peaceful woodland creature living together.  I feel like it adds more to Martin's character too, how he specifically was a warrior who gave up his sword to become a monk and found the peaceful order, an order which isn't much in later books.

Names: It seems like a greater proportion, if not most of the creatures in Redwall had traditional human names, and a lot with last names.  Jess Squirrel, John Churchmouse, Winifred Otter, Friar Hugo, Mortimer, Matthias, Martin, Constance, Basil, etc.  The villains certainly had less traditional names, but a lot of the good beasts had "normal" names.  I don't have much of an opinion on the change, though I do feel like the traditional names are easier to remember for whatever reason.  Though it may help that a lot of them appear in two books.

[Fyri]

My memory of the first book is somewhat hazy so I can't go into much detail there or think of any other examples right now but in response to those three points, and whether I think the changes were for the better or not:

Animal Variety: I recently read an interview in regards to the upcoming Netflix series where the creators were asked if they'd include what they called "mistakes" in the first book. The answer was dodgy so that's still up in the air, it seems. But they referred to the horse and beaver as two such mistakes. The horse, I assume, would indeed be because of its size and the difficulty that comes with taking it into account compared to the other beasts that inhabit the series. Not only the size difference but practically as well. All creatures in the Redwall series that come to mind (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read all books) are much easier to "anthromophy" and put on two paws and give them grabby front paws. A horse, or a deer, or a cow, any hoofed creature would make this a lot trickier.

Do I think this is a good change? While I can understand why it was made, it is a pity. I agree that it would make for an interesting story element to see the little mice and moles and such come muzzle to hoof with a large beast that walked on all fours all the time. It feels like missed potential to completely leave them out.

The Redwall Order: I don't have much to add here. I agree with Celebes. It makes Martin an even better character than he already is, and it adds a sense of structure to the Abbey. I generally prefer it when a setting has somewhat of a structure like an order, or to name other animal book examples, like Efrafa in Watership Down, or the Clans in Warrior Cats. It adds more depth to the world and more potential for interesting relations within. The Abbey might as well be run by Dibbuns else!

Furthermore, with the disappearance of the order, the only semblance of a belief system vanished as well, and in whatever form, I am a sucker for belief systems in world building. Again, I think it adds a lot of depth. You have mystical elements in the series; Mangiz in Mattimeo clearly truly had visions, Martin's ghost is a thing, etc.

So I don't think this is a good change and that it hurt the overall world building of the series, beyond simply losing the Redwall Order itself.

Names: Oh my, names. I think moreso than the horse and the beaver, the shift in naming tradition in the series is a clear sign that Redwall was meant as a stand-alone book at first. Especially in the case of last names. Fieldmouse, Churchmouse, Otter, Squirrel, etc. work fine as surnames in a stand alone book where there are no to little beasts contesting for a similar last name based on their species. Yet it quickly grow impractical in a series where a vast array of mice, otters and squirrels suddenly show up. You can't name ALL of them the same.

Though less the case with first names, I do feel this ties in to that somewhat. Normal human names overall work better in conjunction with a last name, I feel.

I like names that mean something a lot. I love it when thought is put into the naming of a character. A rose by any other name.... to me is not the same! I also prefer sticking to a naming convention. Whether that was more conventional human names or the made up garble that counts as the others, I do think it better if it is consistent, and even better if it varies between different locales or species.

In general, I'd say the names don't hurt the stories too much as I can imagine most people don't really care one way or the other, but personally the inconsistency of names is a negative. But hey, that's just me!

[Crystal M. V. Rosepaw]

I'm with Fyri, it's been a bit too long single I've read the original book for me to point to a lot of specifics (I tend to stick with some of my series favorites when I want to go back, since the order doesn't really matter too much outside of a few of them, and Redwall sadly isn't one of them). But, my thoughts on the mentioned subjects...

Animal variety: Though we do get some odd quirks in other books (apparently wolves and hamsters exist in universe, some birds have some degree of human level intelligence and some don't, sometimes the Sparra exist in the Abbey and sometimes they don't, etc), Redwall is the quirkiest. I'll also point out that Redwall is the only book, as far as I know, to allude to human civilizations existing at all; the horse has actual riding tack, and is attached to a human sized cart, the scale of some things are built to human sizes, etc. Some of these things have caused a lot of confusion on DAB over the years, because, well... If we throw out the idea of humans existing, how big are these animals? One of the mice is apparently big enough to carry a basket of apples, but I would be terrified if I saw a mouse big enough to comfortably carry a single apple in my kitchen. They've built entire churches and societies; if I found Redwall out in the woods, would it be the size of an actual monetary, or the size of a shed? We have had people on DAB that run on the idea that the animals in the series (and therefore here) are the size of the actual animals, and some who think that they're more anthropomorphic and more close to human sized, like on classic cartoon films like Disney's Robin Hood. And don't even get me started on trying to figure out the anatomy of these animals; 'claws' are used in place of the word 'fingers' or 'digits' so often that it evokes a bit of a scary body horror image if you think about it too long. *shudder*

The Redwall Order: I'll go against the grain here; I think the series is better without it. I find that, in universe, Redwall isn't the most interesting of the locales. I think dropping the idea of the Order allowed the series to open up to more ideas of other areas, and allowed characters to be more of their own character than a typecast. Had the Order been more prevalent in the series, I feel it may have been a bit more restrictive; mice are the Wise Religious Leaders, the shrews are ruffian mice, badgers are basically paladins, and perhaps what would have been most egregious, all of the vermin are the typical Take Over The Church baddies from older media.

I agree with Fyri that sometimes those types of things, like the Redwall Order, can give a book series a bit more structure, like the Clans in Warrior Cats. However, I think it's better for the health of the series that this was dropped because of the religious undertones; the Warrior cats have their own religion in StarClan, and it's pretty easy to see what it may be based upon, but it's far enough removed from anything in the real world that it can still be inviting for everyone. Redwall and it's Redwall Order would have tread a little closer to real life depictions and may have alienated readers; I may as a reader effectively understand that a StarClan chosen medicine cat is basically a traditional RPG cleric, but it doesn't use wording specifically attached to something in the Real World, like 'abbot,' 'brothers/sisters,' 'church,' 'abbey,' etc.

Plus, I personally just like the idea that the beasts living in Redwall are kind and generous out of a sense of humanitarian efforts are the right thing to do, not through some sort of calling!

Names: I'm not super partial to either; Redwall definitely had a very human naming scheme (and was almost assuredly written as a stand alone, due to the amusingly simple last names). As the series evolved, we definitely saw a tip towards more classic fantasy names. I think this may also be in part due to what I mentioned in the section above, though I don't want to talk too much about that, I think it was more towards the themes; those very human names fit with the very close tread to the Real World, and giving the villains more fantasy names made it much more clear for the reader who they were meant to identify and feel for. Similarly, villains in the series are only very rarely given surnames; only the really important villains have them, to further that ease of moral identification, I think.

Some of the later books also dropped some of the fun last names, too. I would like to say that I think DAB over the years has done well by the series as a whole; some members chose to go with more human names, some a bit more silly and fanciful, some choosing to go with single first names alone and some picking something longer. I think it could be said that our members over the years could probably have their favorite book called out by how they've chosen to develop their characters on site, really!

[Celebes]

Nice thoughts!  I think it was rather harsh for an interviewer to call parts of the first book "mistakes", but an interesting find.  To follow up on:

The Redwall Order:  I'm not sure that keeping the Order around would promoted any more type casting of species that already happened in the series.  After all, it seems to be one of the more frequent complaints of the series that good beasts and vermin are locked into their good and bad roles, with Tag and Veil not really helping the equation.  Badgers are still either mums or fighters, shrews are generally rough backwoodsers, rabbits are impeccable British gentleman or goofballs, otters like curry and slings, squirrels like bows and flirting, etc.  I don't see the structure set up in Redwall any different in that particular regard from the rest of the series.  Indeed, the only big difference it seemed to be was splitting out the types of mice into abbey dwellers, field, and church, and apart from the field mice being noted archers, there really wasn't any difference between them.

I can see where some readers might be annoyed that there is a belief system in a book, but I personally don't think that constitutes a majority of readers.  It is a very common aspect in fiction, even in children's fiction, like the other series that have been mentioned.  I'd even wager that moves such as retconing St. Ninian's Church into a house that ain't Ninian's(or however it went?) may have irked just as many people on the other side of the religious divide, but again, I believe both sides are a small minority of the general readership.

I think I agree with Fyri in that losing the Order watered down the world building of Mossflower somewhat, perhaps contributing it to be a less interesting locale.  It's more of a pacifistic apartment complex than place with a purpose.

---

And, just to throw in another difference into the fray:

Humanity: Crystal M. V. Rosepaw already brought it up, but to take another direction with it besides the eternal scale problem, it's interesting how the geography of Mossflower was in the same world as ours would work.  Cluny was Portuguese, and terrorized villages by starting animal stampedes, and stole carts.  From a world building perspective, that makes it interesting to figure out where in the world Mossflower is (England), and also gives the story a bit more liberty to make references to human concepts or ideas.  I do think its interesting in stories, like Watership Down, where creatures repurpose items humans use for their own use, though outside of the human sized cart, it seems like the beasts in Redwall had their own tools to scale, down to the cutlery and furnishings.  It also restricts the geographic variety a lot more, because if this was really England then a mouse can only conceivably travel so far, even on a toy boat, so the whole series would be in the same forest.  Then again...the rest of the series pretty much is always in a forest or a beach near a forest, so maybe this wouldn't have made a huge change.

I think the flexibility of having a unique world built on an as needed basis, so to speak, outweighs the creative situations coming into contact with humanity could bring.  And of course, dodges the terrible scale problem.

[Fyri]

Interesting thoughts! To go into them a little more.

This one ties into the animal variety but also the question of humanity and geography: The beaver was mentioned as a 'mistake' as well, and thinking about it, and looking it up since I wasn't sure, it seems most likely that this was because beavers don't live in England (though they are being reintroduced it seems). With Redwall being set in England, the presence of a beaver would seem out of place and thus be labelled a 'mistake'. However, in that case, it seems strange to not have them appear again after the series was lifted from its real world geography into a purely fantasy world.

Geography: To continue on with that thought, the series didn't take full advantage from this world, as far as I know (again, haven't read everything) and the places that are visited can indeed be reduced to a select few. Which is a pity, of course, when you have an entire uncharted world at your disposal. Keeping the series rooted in actual real life terms like 'Portuguese' and England and such, does strongly evoke the idea that there are humans still living in that world as well. I think it was for the better, or at least easier to handle, for this notion to be removed. To go back to my previous two other examples, Warrior Cats and Watership Down, here humans are very much present and it works, but neither the kitties nor the bunnies go about building yellow brick roads and red stone abbeys, nor walk around on two legs, carrying sharp, pointy objects and wearing all but trousers. To have humans and anthropomorphic animals in the same world, it raises a whole new library worth of questions and problems and things to be handled. And I can see how Jacques did not feel like dealing with any of those. I'm quite glad he made that decision, personally, as the idea of such a mix doesn't sound too appealing to me personally either.

Now, that being said

I think the flexibility of having a unique world built on an as needed basis, so to speak, outweighs the creative situations coming into contact with humanity could bring.

those two don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. If we're talking about human items and such, seeing how they handle these can also occur if it takes place in a world that was once inhabited by humans. The beasts discovering giant ruins and strange machines is a very interesting premise, I think. Like a people discovering ancient hi-tech things and figuring out what they are, how to use them, etc. Seeing this with the little people-- err I mean the Redwallers or any other beasts would have been interesting.

Names: On the names, I can see how the shift to more fantasy names would contribute to adding to the shift to a more fantasy world as well, though not all fantasy worlds use random letters to create a name, nor are the later names all like this as well. I don't think, or at least I don't hope this was the intent, that the names being more normal or fantastical had any bearing on the moral depiction, or on helping guide a child's experience on who to feel for or root for. In a way, I find the notion rather limiting to the reader's experience and even slightly insulting, as if they need to be held by the hand and guided through reading the book in the "correct" way.

The series already is pretty on-the-nose with its black-and-white good-and-evil depictions, being reflected, in general, downright to the species to the point that even here on DAB it needs to be specified you're playing a 'good' wildcat, not just a wildcat. Good against evil makes for a nice cliche fun adventure experience and I don't think the reader, be they child or not, need to be told who they want to root for. If they like the villains, then that should be fine too. It doesn't mean they think raiding villages and murdering innocents is okay.

They might start stealing carts for joyrides though!

[Celebes]

Good points Fyri! What you brought up on the names does remind me of another difference in Redwall, regarding

The Horde: One thing that strikes me as interesting is that Redwall to my knowledge is the only book that doesn't treat all rats and such as perpetual and always vermin.  One clear example at the beginning of the book occurs when the brothers and sisters of the Abbey are discussing Cluny's imminent arrival.  Constance is concerned that the rats are bad news, however a fair share of the mice are quick to reprimand her that she was just "giving rats a bad name."  It's only later in the book when Cluny does in no uncertain terms announce that he intends to take over the Abbey that they see him as a cruel warlord, not as an inherently evil rat.  This stands in sharp contrast to later books, including the much more on the nose "Outcast of Redwall", where everyone automatically assumes all ferrets are all vermin and all evil all the time.  Even the "gray" ferret at the end isn't gray after all, and his "mother" acknowledges he is just vermin like the rest.

On the other paw, Cluny's hoard, after suffering its initial losses, refills its ranks not by going down to the local vermin hangout and rounding up some thugs, as more or less happens in later books, but by press ganging every rat they can find in the countryside.  Some were indeed already criminals, but the rest were basically told to join or die.  And this was after Cluny's rats had torched their farms and smashed in their homes so that they had nothing to return to.  Having to forcefully conscript a bunch of rats out of the countryside stands in contrast to the idea that rats are all just sitting around waiting for the nearest charismatic leader to lead them off to plunder.

[Madeline]

All vermin are evil
Actually..... there's Blaggut the good rat in The Bellmaker, and in later books, especially The Rogue Crew, it shows many of the vermin openly (but not when their captians and chiefs were around because it sounds like mutiny) lamenting and singing songs of regret about their life choices. I believe there are a few other examples that are slipping my mind at the moment. There is also the idea that all woodlanders are good, which is shown to be untrue in later books (**side eyes the crazy hedgehogs who try to kill and/or enslave others**).