This is a big topic of debate among some Redwall fans. On one side of the argument, you've got people who think the main characters are just too darn good at everything (solving riddles, fighting, etc...) While on the other side, you have people who say that the main characters need to have a lot of skills if they want to get anything done, and that they're actually pretty balanced when compared with the main villain.
I'm kind of in the middle as far as physical strength goes. I think BJ might've made some of his main characters less physically powerful, but at the same time, I think lots of strength might've been needed for some situations. The main characters can't all be weaklings, right?
Now, with Mary Sues, I'm afraid that I lean toward the hater side. I think that many characters are Sue-like, and I don't see why they really have to be. The plot could work out fine, as far as I'm concerned, without annoying mammals who know (or seem to think they know) everything, and always look amazing, and are entirely incapable of doing anything the wrong way. I'm not saying all of the characters are like this-- most aren't actually, but the ones that are annoy me.
With moral drones.... they irritate me, to say the least. What is a moral drone, you ask? They're those characters who only do things for the sake of benefitting the good, and never actually do anything to benefit themselves. Basically, they're robots whose only purpose in life is to help the good side. While it would make sense for some characters to be like this, (A nice old abbot, for example, who hasn't anything better to do with his life), it doesn't make sense for everyone to just want to help the good, and not want anything else.
I think that Martin... MARTIN too perfect.
I think a lot of them were pretty perfect. Some were really perfect, but lots of times the main villain is so powerful you don't really notice it.
Maybe, I noticed for example that most badgers are insane along with several other creatures. the thing that really gets me though is chefs and abbey creatures who are peaceful can pick up a broom or a spoon and become unbeatable warriors facing others who have been fighting their entire lives. I know some of the good guys are trained by professionals but the abbey beasts aren't, they had maybe one or two days of training and their fighting better then any vermin that has been training it's entire life.
Hahah, yeah. It's not really too realistic when it comes to that.
But that's the fun of it! Sometimes, having that one awesome warrior is what gives the tales a bigger sense of magic. Though I can see why some of you may say that certain characters were sues and may take character development or significance away from others, we should keep in mind that these sort of 'superhero' characters are what made the series. If you wanted to strip that quality away from the stories and make it all as realistic as possible, a lot of the magic would leave, too.
Some characters were Mary-Sues, but at the same time, a lot of villains were ridiculously vicious and evil; it seems like it was a bit of a balancing act. Mariel and Gabool are good examples, Mariel being very Sue-like, and Gabool nearly the point of a demon.
eh. Badger lords would be perfect with out to bloodwrath (so technically russano)
Consider the dibbun Thumble I think his name was, you know from Salamandastron the one fighting crows ha. or maybe the one friar from the one book that knocked out Graypatch with his apron strings and a vegetable. Its like whaaaat?
Some of my favorite characters were actually some of the "villains" because their flaws made them more believable and relatable.
Quote from: PluggFiretail on December 17, 2014, 03:02:03 AM
Some of my favorite characters were actually some of the "villains" because their flaws made them more believable and relatable.
Same. It's one of the reason why I like most of the lesser villains. Some aren't all just plain evil nor are they perfectly nice.
Most of them were far too perfect.
Admitedly, some characters, like Martin, had to have the majority of their qualities good, since they're a major character and pivotal to the whole series. My favorite non-perfect character was Matthias.
Quote from: Starla1431 on January 08, 2015, 05:45:13 PM
Quote from: PluggFiretail on December 17, 2014, 03:02:03 AM
Some of my favorite characters were actually some of the "villains" because their flaws made them more believable and relatable.
Same. It's one of the reason why I like most of the lesser villains. Some aren't all just plain evil nor are they perfectly nice.
I think Flinky the stoat is a good example of this. Sure, he's with Badredd's horde, and he has flaws, but he's actually a pretty nice character. I wish there had been more vermin (and woodlanders) like him.
Quote from: Izeroth on December 15, 2014, 06:16:19 AM
This is a big topic of debate among some Redwall fans. On one side of the argument, you've got people who think the main characters are just too darn good at everything (solving riddles, fighting, etc...) While on the other side, you have people who say that the main characters need to have a lot of skills if they want to get anything done, and that they're actually pretty balanced when compared with the main villain.
I'm kind of in the middle as far as physical strength goes. I think BJ might've made some of his main characters less physically powerful, but at the same time, I think lots of strength might've been needed for some situations. The main characters can't all be weaklings, right?
Now, with Mary Sues, I'm afraid that I lean toward the hater side. I think that many characters are Sue-like, and I don't see why they really have to be. The plot could work out fine, as far as I'm concerned, without annoying mammals who know (or seem to think they know) everything, and always look amazing, and are entirely incapable of doing anything the wrong way. I'm not saying all of the characters are like this-- most aren't actually, but the ones that are annoy me.
With moral drones.... they irritate me, to say the least. What is a moral drone, you ask? They're those characters who only do things for the sake of benefitting the good, and never actually do anything to benefit themselves. Basically, they're robots whose only purpose in life is to help the good side. While it would make sense for some characters to be like this, (A nice old abbot, for example, who hasn't anything better to do with his life), it doesn't make sense for everyone to just want to help the good, and not want anything else.
I object! I like moral drones... They are nice.
Plus, calling them drones is not considerate.
Too perfect? Good question. What one may call too perfect another may call too flawed. . . . It's a matter of opinion, and we could probably stand here until Doomsday arguing about it. But my opinion is no, they aren't 'too perfect.' You just have to find the flaws, and some may not have the patience or time to do that. And some may just plain not care.
Calling them moral drones may not be considerate, but it's true. I would've liked to see more variation-- maybe a few goodbeasts who don't just fight the bad guys because it's "the right thing to do," and actually have other ambitions.
Excuse me? What about Florian Duggawoof Wilfachop? His only motivation was food. Come to think of it, most hares only wanted food..
Forget florian. Think Scarum.
Quote from: Izeroth on January 11, 2015, 02:29:04 AM
Calling them moral drones may not be considerate, but it's true. I would've liked to see more variation-- maybe a few goodbeasts who don't just fight the bad guys because it's "the right thing to do," and actually have other ambitions.
True, but I think Martin was writing to his primary audience-children. He could have pulled more of a Don Bluth sort of thing, though, I think, and shown us heroes who came to be good somewhat reluctantly or over time. Think All Dogs Go to Heaven for example.
Yes, some of the characters probably are a bit too perfect - but it can be a problem with lots of characters from other novels and series, too. The fact that people notice and comment on this shows that it does feel a bit too unrealistic for people in terms of like as a 'role model' - or perhaps a bit unfair in my eyes because I know I'd never be as brilliant as these characters seem to be at everything they put their paws to!
At least there are a few of the warrior types and other goodbeasts who do seem to have some flaws. Like the most greedy hares, Matthias's clumsiness, and the grouchy, jealous mousemaid who later became the head nurse or abbess (something like that, anyway). Admitted the last two do grow out of it...