I'm pretty sure the only sentient fish in Redwall was the Snakefish. Why? Any ideas?
Mossflower was book 2, and character traits were still being sorted out.
@Jarky Thistlebrush I think it's because some of the animals are carnivorous. That, and Jacques never needed to delve into an aquatic storyline.
*nods*
Quote from: Verdauga on August 25, 2019, 09:49:07 PM
@Jarky Thistlebrush I think it's because some of the animals are carnivorous. That, and Jacques never needed to delve into an aquatic storyline.
??? Explain further, ole' chap.
@Jarky Thistlebrush I haven't checked, but I think badgers are carnivorous, at least. They might not eat fish, but foxes do, as do felines (like wildcats). But on the tack of the storyline, the only fish that could help out the Redwallers' cause was the snakefish. If most of the other fish could not do anything to help, there would be little reason to add characters and dialogue. That's at least my point of view.
Hmm...
It may have just been a plot device for that book. And, frankly, I'm glad he was the only sentient fish. That would add some interesting layers of moral problems, since woodlanders eat fish.
Quote from: The Skarzs on September 01, 2019, 07:19:53 PM
It may have just been a plot device for that book. And, frankly, I'm glad he was the only sentient fish. That would add some interesting layers of moral problems, since woodlanders eat fish.
Yeah, I agree. That's why vermin were the only ones that really ate eggs and birds as well (except in the beginning of course, the first few books were the
wild west of Redwall). Since it was a known fact that birds were sapient, of course woodlanders wouldn't eat them or their eggs, even
if there seemed to be a distinction between sapient and non-sapient birds. Mr. Jacques knew that it wasn't really appropriate in the context.
Quote from: Kade Rivok on October 21, 2019, 09:56:59 PM
except in the beginning of course, the first few books were the wild west of Redwall
This is one of the best ways that I've ever heard to describe this. :P