And here it is...the topic that we've all been avoiding in Redwall.
Romance.
Now, in Redwall the little romance that there is is all very downplayed. There are some that are obvious, like Martin and Rose, but others leave us wondering if it's a romance or not--Like Dandin and Mariel.
These are the romances that I think are pretty obvious: Martin and Rose, Tarquin and Rosie, Rakkety Tam and Sister Armel, Gorath and Salixa.
Did I miss any?
Also, are Redwall brothers and sisters allowed to marry or not? I feel like there were different things said in different books...
I believe they were allowed. It would be more like a real life third order religious where they take vows of poverty and obedience, but not chastity.
As for romance. . . Heh.
You know, it wasn't really clear if Mariel and Dandin were romantically engaged.
I'm not saying we should be going all sappy talking about our favorite romance and the cutest couple, etc. It's just romance is approached rather uniquely in Redwall and I think we should discuss that approach, why Brian chose it, when it worked, when it didn't work, how the approach differed from case to case, etc.
I didn't make a thread just to say which Redwall ship is your OTP, or whatever. (Although if you'd like to use this thread for those purposes there is nothing I can do to stop you)
Just thought I'd clarify. ;)
I think Brain chose this approach because he was writing books for children of all ages and backgrounds, and because his focus was on the adventures and the characters and the world-building more than anything else. The approach sometimes worked and sometimes didn't, as illustrated by the aforementioned fact that sometimes it was unclear whether a relationship was platonic or not.
Quote from: Maudie on October 04, 2017, 05:49:01 AM
These are the romances that I think are pretty obvious: Martin and Rose, Tarquin and Rosie, Rakkety Tam and Sister Armel, Gorath and Salixa.
Did I miss any?
Mr. and Mrs. Churchmouse, Matthias and Cornflower, Gonff and Columbine...
Riggu Felis and his wife, Urgan Nagru and his...
I would list Swartt and Bluefen but she didn't exactly want to be his wife.
Jabez and Rosyqueen Stump, Yoofus and Didjety, Inbar and Grath.
I don't remember any of them...
THAT PAINTED ONE COUPLE WHERE THE HUSBAND WAS MURDERED BY TUGGA BRUSTER AND THE WIFE AVENGED HIM WAS PRETTY COOL.
Quote from: Maudie on October 04, 2017, 03:40:22 PM
I think Brain chose this approach because he was writing books for children of all ages and backgrounds, and because his focus was on the adventures and the characters and the world-building more than anything else.
That's basically how I see it. And he might've thought that the target age wouldn't be too interested in a more developed romance -- and to generalise a tad -- especially the male readers.
I've not been bothered about the lack of romance. Nevertheless, I have thought about it a few times and perhaps a more developed one could have been interesting in at least one book.
Robin Jarvis does this really well in the Deptford Mice series. While maintaining focus on the action and plot, he allowed the main character to get herself tangled up in a really complicated romance with one of the heroes--without making it the center story.
So while the mice are off fighting evil and the rats are concocting spells, there is still something going on in the background.
I think it would work for Redwall.
It seems like a decent guideline for stories not focused on the relationships.
Lord of the Rings did it with Eowen and Feamir, introducing the romance slightly, then giving it a conclusion/future at the end to finalize it.
Magic Kingdom For Sale: SOLD did something similar. The romance was a little more present since the one character insisted they were meant for each other, and while it was clear they wanted it, it wasn't the focus of the story. More of an always-present connection until the end of the book where they were married.
I think the strength in the Dandin/Mariel dynamic is that it's never said exactly what it is. Could be romantic or more like a regular friendship. I think the latter. :)
The Redwall MUCK has romance crop up sometimes, being essentially a Redwall soap opera in a few ways. Sometimes it's really soppy, sometimes not. ;)
I used to think Tiria and Leatho were something, but after reading High Rhulain again, it looks like Leatho is much, much older than Tiria (in my head I think of the ages as 16 or 17 vs. 30 or so).
I guess Brian never had romance at the center of his stories because that just wasn't what he wanted the focus to be. The few hints he drops here and there are enough to keep the reader satisfied for the most part. Though too much romance can definitely spoil the story and take away from the main conflict.
Indeed. Also, with the Tiria and Leatho thing, they are two different species.
Adding a little romance was one thing, but different species romance was not going to happen here!
What's wrong with that? They're both otters.
A mouse and a squirrel can be in love, they just can't have children.
I, uh, suppose it would be the equivalent of being gay. . .
No it would be the equivalent of an infertile straight couple.
As far as the "sea otter" thing goes, that's merely a difference in moniker in this case, not species. While there is a species of otter called a "sea otter" which is distinct from the river otter, they don't live in Britain. They're half a world away in the Pacific. Wikipedia states that Eurasian otters are sometimes called "sea otters" based on their choice of residence, and that is the case here.
Oh.
Quote from: Jetthebinturong on October 17, 2017, 01:32:02 AM
No it would be the equivalent of an infertile straight couple.
*Shrugs.*
Well, dat should be obvious.
Gaah! Got signed out just as I was submitting the post.
Quote from: Ashleg on October 16, 2017, 11:35:44 PM
What's wrong with that? They're both otters.
Ohh. Blame Skarzs for that confusion; I had quite forgotten and assumed they were completely different species from what he said. :P
So: whatever the intention for '
sea otter', in the Redwall universe I believe two different otters species would be acceptable for romance. :)
How about Song and Dann couldn't they had something if Song didn't become Abbess?
Hey, don't blame me about the otter thing; we have sea otters AND river otters over here . . .
Quote from: Krantor the Brutal on October 17, 2017, 10:13:22 PM
How about Song and Dann couldn't they had something if Song didn't become Abbess?
I believe it could still work. Unless the order takes vows of chastity it is still acceptable for them to be married, much like third order religious in real life.
Which I doubt (Rakkety Tam).
Yeah.
Pretty sure Song and Dannflor are canon.
I hope so, it was good to root for.
Quote from: The Skarzs on October 17, 2017, 01:27:38 AM
I, uh, suppose it would be the equivalent of being gay. . .
Which there is absolutely nothing wrong with. What's your point?
Mod: This was already discussed. Also, the "Romance in Redwall" thread is not the "Argue about your thoughts on homosexuality" thread.
I think Brian prefers themes of friendship and comraderie to romance - which are some of my favorites, equally to or perhaps more than romantic plot line. Personally, I prefer my romantic fiction to webcomics or anime rather than novels - the aesthetic and style is quite different.
Personally I'm glad Brian didn't have much romance in the series. If he did have more I would be quite frustrated at the lack of LGBTQ+ representation, but because it's such a non-focus I can't blame him for it.
Personally I headcanon Rakkety, Wild Doogy, and Rakkety's Partner (forgot her name) as a queerplatonic (meaning people in a relationship that is partially platonic and partially romantic, usually done among polyromantic people, and totally healthy fyi) polyromantic relationship. I think Brian quite possibly meant to have Rakkety and Doogy in a sort of queerplatonic relationship.
Quote from: James Gryphon on October 29, 2017, 02:34:51 AM
Mod: This was already discussed. Also, the "Romance in Redwall" thread is not the "Argue about your thoughts on homosexuality" thread.
Okay, noted
Or, you know, there's always the answer that needs less explaining.
Completely platonic best friends.
Quote from: Ashleg on October 29, 2017, 03:36:26 AM
Or, you know, there's always the answer that needs less explaining.
Completely platonic best friends.
Yes. :P
That's not really a good bit of logic, and I did say Brian /possibly/ did that, not that's what he surely meant.
Anyways, it's more of a headcanon that I share with some LGBTQ+ Redwall friends of mine, not something I believe Brian did intentionally. Btw, I don't want to sound rude, but it's rly not-cool to deny LGBTQ+ their LGBTQ+ headcanons and character theories unless there's actually something that makes it really, really wrong and/or has legit no basis. And there's plenty of basis for Rakkety x Doogy (x Rakkety's Wifey?)
Of course if one doesn't like the poly bit, they can always be headcanoned as former boyfriends who still platonically love each other, as opposed to their former romantic feelings.
To clarify, it's not-cool because LGBTQ are ignored so often in such things, and headcanons, theories, and ships are good ways for us to provide ourselves with our own representation and a good coping mechanism for us. It gets annoying when so many cis-hetero people constantly shoot us down when we're trying to do such things. It's also a big part of our modern online 'aesthetic genre' community.
Um. . . Okay?
Personally I do not see anything that could possibly indicate the ships that you speak of, Blaggut. For one thing, Brian Jacques was a pretty traditional guy, as far as that sort of thing goes (he literally imitated the ideals of "courtly romance" in Redwall)- so the idea that he intended any such thing is pretty much out of the question. As far as subtext goes, I still fail to find anything supportive. Doogy and Tam's relationship is equivalent to pretty much all the warrior camaraderie we see throughout the entire series.
If by traditional you mean he wasn't supportive of LGBTQ+ people, I disagree. Are you using "traditional" to sugarcoat beliefs that are anti-LGBTQ? Just say homophobic or anti-LGBT or LGBT-hating or something. And saying that because some or most romance in Redwall is 'courtly' or old timey doesn't mean it can't be LGBTQ, because Redwall constantly takes historical inspiration but heavily changes it. You don't see the Redwallers or Salamandastron doing Inquisitions or talking about sins. The point is invalid. To say that he "intended any such thing is out of the question" is quite silly in my opinion.
And anyways, it is a headcanon for me. I think potential LGBTQ+ representation in Redwall is most likely found somewhere else in the series, but I find this headcanon and ship quite nice.
Anyway, can we not have a debate every time someone mentions LGBTQ+ stuff in Redwall or even in general? Its quite a pestilence.
This image describes what I'm trying to say about how people always decide to debate or share opinions or argue when LGBTQ+ stuff is brought up, and moderators of forums treat it like it's some sensitive, argument starting content and delete or attach warnings to it despite 12 percent of the population being LGBTQ+
https://68.media.tumblr.com/b58878643a5e94e7cf5b44761632bb50/tumblr_orxugbZ8sU1tpmf3mo2_500.jpg
Yes, I mean traditional in that way: I doubt Brian even considered the idea when he was writing. This is not a stretch of the imagination. You said Brian could have possibly intended it, I am merely saying that is highly unlikely. You brought up a possible ship, I am discussing the merits of it. Namely, the lack of evidence to support it.
While I don't particularly care to imagine romance in Redwall, as it wasn't something Brian was all that good at, I don't see what benefit begrudging people their headcanons has to anyone.
As to the issue of Brian's stance on LGBT issues, we have literally no idea. He was Catholic and old, so it's possible he was against that sort of thing. On the other hand, there are plenty of old Catholics who have no problems with LGBT issues, so it is impossible to determine on which side he fell without explicit confirmation from him. And since that isn't going to happen, it's better to drop the issue entirely because speculating on someone else's beliefs holds no purpose.
Also, Brian's stance on LGBT issues is 1. completely irrelevant, and 2. a veil for your own personal objection to the topic, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
If someone wants to headcanon LGBT relationships in a ridiculous fantasy series about talking British animals, then they should be allowed to do so without conservative Christians jumping on them just because the idea makes them uncomfortable.
That is what happened here. It is ridiculous, it is rude, and it is petty.
*Exercises extreme willpower to avoid continuing an obviously unproductive discussion*
Returning to the main topic of discussion. Personally, I always like the understated way Brian did romance in Redwall. I particularly liked the "courtly romance" style he used in Redwall. The tying of the handkerchief to the arm, for example is a practice rich in symbolism, and while it is unlikely to happen in this day and age it is good to see it again in a more modern work. I also think the minimal portrayal of romance allows us to appreciate the characters more fully individually, whereas in many works we consider characters with their relationship status as a main facet of their identity.
What do you mean by the handkerchief thing?
Quote from: Jetthebinturong on October 29, 2017, 05:41:15 AM
While I don't particularly care to imagine romance in Redwall, as it wasn't something Brian was all that good at, I don't see what benefit begrudging people their headcanons has to anyone.
Also, Brian's stance on LGBT issues is 1. completely irrelevant, and 2. a veil for your own personal objection to the topic, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
If someone wants to headcanon LGBT relationships in a ridiculous fantasy series about talking British animals, then they should be allowed to do so without conservative Christians jumping on them just because the idea makes them uncomfortable.
That is what happened here. It is ridiculous, it is rude, and it is petty.
// slams the recorded clapping track button //
In Redwall, Cornflower tied her handkerchief to Matthias' arm. This is a practice from Mediaeval times:
(http://www.jwpitt.com/images/favor.jpg)
Oh, I thought she just did that 'cause he was injured. What does it signify? Is it like an ancient wedding ring or something?
Not quite. The practice stems originally from tournaments, where the champion would receive a "favor" from the from the Princess- the most beautiful noble lady in attendance- as a reward for his prowess. Later, the receipt of the handkerchief moved from designating the winner of a tournament to the other meaning of champion: a martial representative. In effect, the lady claimed the knight as her own personal warrior. The knight was expected to perform honorably in her name, and carried the handkerchief as a physical reminder of her affection. It was also a very personal gift, in that the lady usually embroidered her own handkerchiefs. Thus, she gave him what is in effect a piece of herself. The practice of keeping the handkerchief tied on the arm was the knight announcing that he was fighting "in the name" of someone else.
Of course, a large amount of this is literary and may or may not reflect actual practices in Mediaeval society, but it is beautiful nonetheless.
Oh, so Maid Marian and stuff. Got it.
I read over the thread, remembered something, continued reading, and now I'm not bothering to go back to find the post so this makes sense because it's morning and I'm lazy.
Someone mentioned something about whether or not the Abbey order took vows of chastity, and I don't think so. A lot of older couples with Dibbuns pop up in the series, although they're not strictly Sisters or Brothers I
think. (Speaking of Dibbuns, where the heck do the majority of them come from? There isn't nearly enough couples. Is staying together a rare thing in Redwall? Or are the parents not mentioned and they just dump their kids to the Badger Mum to be raised and a few don't and therefore are weirdos? Are there really that many orphans wandering around in Mossflower?)
Anyway. Back to my point. In
Doomwyte (I may not be remembering correctly, haven't read it in ages, don't jump me) at the end,
Spoiler
don't most of them end up together? The black otter and the . . . Skipper? Those other people? Pretty sure one of them in the books ends up the Abbess and she had a husband and a kid. I loved that end scene, just 'cause it was so different 'cause it showed all the couples and how happy they were and their cute little kids.
Yeah, that's right. There were a lot of couples in that book. . .
Redwall #23:
Redwall Abbey - the Garbage Can for Woodland Children
But then why?
It would be explained in that book.
Quote from: Cornflower MM on October 30, 2017, 02:50:29 PM
I read over the thread, remembered something, continued reading, and now I'm not bothering to go back to find the post so this makes sense because it's morning and I'm lazy.
Someone mentioned something about whether or not the Abbey order took vows of chastity, and I don't think so. A lot of older couples with Dibbuns pop up in the series, although they're not strictly Sisters or Brothers I think. (Speaking of Dibbuns, where the heck do the majority of them come from? There isn't nearly enough couples. Is staying together a rare thing in Redwall? Or are the parents not mentioned and they just dump their kids to the Badger Mum to be raised and a few don't and therefore are weirdos? Are there really that many orphans wandering around in Mossflower?)
Anyway. Back to my point. In Doomwyte (I may not be remembering correctly, haven't read it in ages, don't jump me) at the end, Spoiler
don't most of them end up together? The black otter and the . . . Skipper? Those other people? Pretty sure one of them in the books ends up the Abbess and she had a husband and a kid. I loved that end scene, just 'cause it was so different 'cause it showed all the couples and how happy they were and their cute little kids.
The dibbuns/kids appear to be communally raised- a system that appears to be similar to the one described in Plato's Republic. For the most part the dibbuns sleep together in the dormitories, go to school together, play, eat together etc... you don't really see any evidence of private family life for the most part. The only exception I can think of would be with Mathias, Cornflower and Mattimeo- they lived together as a family in the gate house and had their own private living quarters. But otherwise than that all the other families seemed to live communally- i.e. their children slept in the dormitories and little evidence of private family life was present.
TBH its really only the gatehouse keepers and perhaps to some extent the cellar keepers who consistently throughout the entire series had what could be akin to their own private living quarters.
Uhum, I know this night seem a bit out of place buuuut:
Vermin call each other 'mate' a lot don't they? I know that its English for friend but has anyone considered that some of them are together? I mean... Those hordes need to come from somewhere.
I notice, though, that Mossflower creatures typically called their partner "wife" or "husband", even vermin. Not mate.
Quote from: Ashleg on December 19, 2017, 05:30:40 PM
I notice, though, that Mossflower creatures typically called their partner "wife" or "husband", even vermin. Not mate.
Fair enough, but do we see many vermin couples?
There was one case in The Sable Quean that the husband of a vermin was killed and the wife wanted revenge.
Swartt Sixclaw had a wife.
We know several others who obviously had partners, but they weren't present.
Don't forget that otters also commonly used "mate".
Sigh... Now I shall wallow in the shame of my inatentive reading. XD
It was a good idea, though. It's possible that some may be referring to each other that way because they are together, but evidence suggests it's more of an off-handed remark.