Bryony's Conclusion? (Outcast of Redwall; spoilers)

[Tam and Martin]

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.

[Ungatt Trunn]

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.

[Wylder Treejumper]

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.

[Grond]

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".

[Ashleg]

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.

[Mike]

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!!!

[The Skarzs]

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.

[The Grey Coincidence]

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?

[Ashleg]

There is only one man who can answer this.

Sir Jaques himself...

[The Skarzs]

I am currently rereading The Outcast of Redwall, and trying to look at Bryony and Veil's relationship, and the events that took place, through a different lens.

Certainly, there is the suggestion that Veil was inherently bad, because he was a vermin. But many of us don't like that explanation, so I would like to put forward my own.

Firstly, from what I can tell, there is no one person or thing to blame for the series of events that happened.
I happen to support the idea that Veil had a type of psychosis. There was no reason for him to steal, as everything in Redwall was pretty much free to have, so that may explain where his bad habits started from.
From there, it was up to Bryony to correct him on his behaviour as his adoptive mother. There was probably bias against vermin from other people, but I believe that made Bryony always defend him, pampering him in her naivety. Because this method of correction didn't work, he ended up falling further down the bad path.
This brings me to another point: Why did they even have Bryony take care of him? She had no experience as a mother, she was probably only around twelve when she first got him, and was not given much direction.
Unfortunately, the environment he was brought up in probably didn't help. While he may have been shown kindness, because of the tendency for Redwallers to disgust him, and the stories he doubtlessly heard about vermin, along with his mental disorder, would make him think he could never be anything but what he was told vermin were.

With all these variables, it seems it was a compound effect that would have lead nowhere else.

[Nadaz, voice of the host]

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".

This is perhaps the best theory to explain veil's behavior that I have ever seen.

[Ashleg]

Me likey.

[Grond]

I am currently rereading The Outcast of Redwall, and trying to look at Bryony and Veil's relationship, and the events that took place, through a different lens.

Certainly, there is the suggestion that Veil was inherently bad, because he was a vermin. But many of us don't like that explanation, so I would like to put forward my own.

Firstly, from what I can tell, there is no one person or thing to blame for the series of events that happened.
I happen to support the idea that Veil had a type of psychosis. There was no reason for him to steal, as everything in Redwall was pretty much free to have, so that may explain where his bad habits started from.
From there, it was up to Bryony to correct him on his behaviour as his adoptive mother. There was probably bias against vermin from other people, but I believe that made Bryony always defend him, pampering him in her naivety. Because this method of correction didn't work, he ended up falling further down the bad path.
This brings me to another point: Why did they even have Bryony take care of him? She had no experience as a mother, she was probably only around twelve when she first got him, and was not given much direction.
Unfortunately, the environment he was brought up in probably didn't help. While he may have been shown kindness, because of the tendency for Redwallers to disgust him, and the stories he doubtlessly heard about vermin, along with his mental disorder, would make him think he could never be anything but what he was told vermin were.

With all these variables, it seems it was a compound effect that would have lead nowhere else.

I agree. I recently re-read Outcast just now and I have some things I'd like to add to this post and the previous one I made. I definitely think that Veil had mental health issues and disorders. The obvious one is kleptomania but there was probably some type of psychosis as well. Correcting my previous post he intended to poison Friar Bunfold, a mouse, but accidently ended up poisoning Myrtle the hedgehog. I had thought Bunfold was a hedgehog as well. Anyway given that Bunfold went immediately after Veil for the missing honey pot, it is likely that they had a history of antagonism. Hence, it may be possible that Bunfold was the biggest stressor or antagonist in Veil's life. Given Veil's impulsivity it is possible he thought that all of his problems, both real and even imagined could be solved by killing or getting rid of him.

Another kind of interesting side fact is that Redwallers where kind and tolerant, almost to a creature, to each other because more or less everyone behaved and didn't really break any laws for the most part. But given the treatment that Orkwill received for petty theft- banishment, which was advocated by certain beasts and opposed by others, they would also dish out serious punishment for transgressions. The voices who called for a more serious punishment for Orkwil may have been analogous to Friar Bunfold in Outcast. The season long banishment was essentially a compromise the Abbot came up with- which some considered to harsh and others too lenient.  Now, Orkwill had virtually spent his entire life, since early infanthood in the Abbey. Banishing him into the wilderness of Mossflower, with which he had minimal experience could easily turn into a death sentence- and nearly did on a few occasions. Now Veil was not banished or severely punished for petty theft likely because Abbess Merriam was much kinder or softer and probably wouldn't allow it for petty theft. But there might have been some like the Friar who would have supported it and shown severe contempt for Veil because of him being a vermin and due to his actions. Also at this point the Redwallers didn't have a precedent to go by where a member of their order engaged in bad behaviour, and that this behaviour could be changed. This may have aggravated Veil's mistreatment at the hands of certain Redwallers and the disdain they showed for him, throughout his adolescence.