Taggerung

[Dante8002]

Love the Taggerung is great, but the actual book has got no threat- real threat. I'm disappointed in Deyna for denying that he is the Taggerung.

[Booklover]

In terms of complete and utter black and white, it isn't as bad as Outcast of Redwall, because Tagg being good can just about be explained by the fact that when he grew up with the Juska, it was very peaceful. He never saw war nor was he forced to kill anybody, either in self defence or just for the sake of killing somebody. Sawney seemed to try to keep him from any sort of harm, so he never had reason to hurt anybody, and wasn't hurt himself, and therefore he just didn't see it as right to. What shows how black and white Redwall is isn't so much that Tagg was good, it's that 'vermin' who may, theoretically, have had a similar upbringing - sheltered from evil and never forced, either by desperate circumstances or other creatures - aren't good. Veil is possibly one of those, although without knowing more about his upbringing (a whole other rant) and about him, we can't know why he did what he did.

[Kade Rivok]

Yeah, I agree with you.  One thing that one has to do when reading Redwall books (if one wants to keep their sanity) is to accept that characters in the books, in general, act under strict rules dependent on their species.  There are outliers, of course, but those species generalities hold true throughout.  Woodlanders good, vermin bad.  Otters all love hotroot soup and speak with nautical terms, hares all can pack away vittles like there's no tomorrow and have a flare for gallantry.  That's just how the Redwall universe functions.  As for whether that is good or bad, well, I personally don't mind it, but I can definitely understand why that might annoy some. 

[clunylooney]

I think people need to look at this book with the knowledge that it is a fantasy book.

[clunylooney]

No, that's something someone who doesn't understand children would say. "It's for kids!" isn't an excuse for LAZY WRITING. Also Redwall isn't aimed at young kids, it's aimed at fairly old kids in like the 10-13 range. And anyway kids care about a story that makes sense. Which is why Taggerung and Outcast kind of spectacularly fail. Because they lack any sense of logic beyond "he's good because he's good, and he's evil because he's evil."

I wouldn't call Brian Jaques making an otter raised by vermin be not exactly like them lazy. In real life, there were people raised in places that believed in one thing that disagreed with what the place stood for. I don't think you could at all say it's lazy when it happens in real life. During the civil war, there were people in the south that believed in the north, and vise versa. Not many people, but still some people. Saying it doesn't make sense is not accurate. If you don't like it, then that's your opinion, but I don't think it's nice to call Jaques a lazy writer because of that. Also, about the story, "not making sense" They are literally animals that walk on two legs and talk.

[shisteer of nothing much]

He grew up in relative peace with the Juska, but there were still internal fights and bad attitudes. Sawney Rath ruled by fear just like most vermin leaders and there would have been plenty of negative emotions floating 'round the camp. Then, when he went to sleep, he had this dream about a place of peace and love, where beasts sung and smiled. Even with the relative peace in the Juska tribe, it would have been a stark contrast.
Add that to the inbuilt sense of right and wrong, it's fair enough that he would leave the Juska to look for a better life.

[Jetthebinturong]

No, that's something someone who doesn't understand children would say. "It's for kids!" isn't an excuse for LAZY WRITING. Also Redwall isn't aimed at young kids, it's aimed at fairly old kids in like the 10-13 range. And anyway kids care about a story that makes sense. Which is why Taggerung and Outcast kind of spectacularly fail. Because they lack any sense of logic beyond "he's good because he's good, and he's evil because he's evil."

I wouldn't call Brian Jaques making an otter raised by vermin be not exactly like them lazy. In real life, there were people raised in places that believed in one thing that disagreed with what the place stood for. I don't think you could at all say it's lazy when it happens in real life. During the civil war, there were people in the south that believed in the north, and vise versa. Not many people, but still some people. Saying it doesn't make sense is not accurate. If you don't like it, then that's your opinion, but I don't think it's nice to call Jaques a lazy writer because of that. Also, about the story, "not making sense" They are literally animals that walk on two legs and talk.

Yes but there's no reason for Tagg to be so against the Juska. He's practically treated like royalty from childhood, raised by a fairly loving father, and brainwashed into believing he's some destined warrior hero. People like that don't just grow up without internalising these things. They don't change without great effort. And at the end of the day, that's what characters are supposed to be. People. If your characters don't act like real people and experience complex thoughts and emotions and react to situations in a way that would be realistic then they're no longer people, they're just cyphers used to prop up the author's narrative. And cyphers are boring. And I'm gonna call that lazy writing.

As for the "it's fantasy, it doesn't have to be realistic" argument, I'm not gonna dignify that with a response. Except I am. You can write a grounded story with grounded characters who feel like real people with real problems in real situations. That's what virtually all fantasy authors strive for. It doesn't matter that they're elves or dwarves, or, yes, even talking animals. Anything can be made to feel real. Even in absurdist work, you find complex characters that feel real. That's the essence of writing.

[Kade Rivok]

I disagree that the "essence of writing" can be summed up to mean any one thing.  That may be what you find to be worthwhile and fulfilling in writing, but that's only your opinion.  When people read or write books, they're all looking to get or create something different out of it, and if you don't agree with or don't like whatever that something is, that doesn't mean that they're wrong, it just means that your preferences don't align with theirs. 

So in saying, I don't believe Mr. Jacques was writing in a "lazy" manner, I think that he was simply writing to his audience, which was children.  Children don't need characters with complex emotions; they need things to be more straight forward and easily understandable.  Woodlanders good, vermin bad.  I believe that Jacques wrote exactly as he intended to, and his intent was to spark the imagination of children's minds with magic.  Not magic magic, but the magic of life.  He wasn't aiming for high-brow realism.

You can feel free to have a differing opinion, but please don't act like your way of looking at it is the only way that matters. 

[clunylooney]

No, that's something someone who doesn't understand children would say. "It's for kids!" isn't an excuse for LAZY WRITING. Also Redwall isn't aimed at young kids, it's aimed at fairly old kids in like the 10-13 range. And anyway kids care about a story that makes sense. Which is why Taggerung and Outcast kind of spectacularly fail. Because they lack any sense of logic beyond "he's good because he's good, and he's evil because he's evil."

I wouldn't call Brian Jaques making an otter raised by vermin be not exactly like them lazy. In real life, there were people raised in places that believed in one thing that disagreed with what the place stood for. I don't think you could at all say it's lazy when it happens in real life. During the civil war, there were people in the south that believed in the north, and vise versa. Not many people, but still some people. Saying it doesn't make sense is not accurate. If you don't like it, then that's your opinion, but I don't think it's nice to call Jaques a lazy writer because of that. Also, about the story, "not making sense" They are literally animals that walk on two legs and talk.

Yes but there's no reason for Tagg to be so against the Juska. He's practically treated like royalty from childhood, raised by a fairly loving father, and brainwashed into believing he's some destined warrior hero. People like that don't just grow up without internalising these things. They don't change without great effort. And at the end of the day, that's what characters are supposed to be. People. If your characters don't act like real people and experience complex thoughts and emotions and react to situations in a way that would be realistic then they're no longer people, they're just cyphers used to prop up the author's narrative. And cyphers are boring. And I'm gonna call that lazy writing.

As for the "it's fantasy, it doesn't have to be realistic" argument, I'm not gonna dignify that with a response. Except I am. You can write a grounded story with grounded characters who feel like real people with real problems in real situations. That's what virtually all fantasy authors strive for. It doesn't matter that they're elves or dwarves, or, yes, even talking animals. Anything can be made to feel real. Even in absurdist work, you find complex characters that feel real. That's the essence of writing.

Yeah, I think I was thinking about how much hate Loamhedge gets for having Martha just suddenly walk again (which I hate) while I was writing this so that's why I wrote that, which was stupid. I was kind of venting, sorry! I get what you mean, doesn't mean I dislike Tagg tho!

[clunylooney]

I disagree that the "essence of writing" can be summed up to mean any one thing.  That may be what you find to be worthwhile and fulfilling in writing, but that's only your opinion.  When people read or write books, they're all looking to get or create something different out of it, and if you don't agree with or don't like whatever that something is, that doesn't mean that they're wrong, it just means that your preferences don't align with theirs. 

So in saying, I don't believe Mr. Jacques was writing in a "lazy" manner, I think that he was simply writing to his audience, which was children.  Children don't need characters with complex emotions; they need things to be more straight forward and easily understandable.  Woodlanders good, vermin bad.  I believe that Jacques wrote exactly as he intended to, and his intent was to spark the imagination of children's minds with magic.  Not magic magic, but the magic of life.  He wasn't aiming for high-brow realism.

You can feel free to have a differing opinion, but please don't act like your way of looking at it is the only way that matters. 

Agreed. Each to their own.

[Jetthebinturong]

I disagree that the "essence of writing" can be summed up to mean any one thing.  That may be what you find to be worthwhile and fulfilling in writing, but that's only your opinion.  When people read or write books, they're all looking to get or create something different out of it, and if you don't agree with or don't like whatever that something is, that doesn't mean that they're wrong, it just means that your preferences don't align with theirs. 

So in saying, I don't believe Mr. Jacques was writing in a "lazy" manner, I think that he was simply writing to his audience, which was children.  Children don't need characters with complex emotions; they need things to be more straight forward and easily understandable.  Woodlanders good, vermin bad.  I believe that Jacques wrote exactly as he intended to, and his intent was to spark the imagination of children's minds with magic.  Not magic magic, but the magic of life.  He wasn't aiming for high-brow realism.

You can feel free to have a differing opinion, but please don't act like your way of looking at it is the only way that matters. 

It makes me sad that everyone on this forum underestimates children so much. When I was a kid reading these books the black-and-white morality irked me as much as it does now. And I never read other books that I felt talked down to me. I constantly read children's books as an adult, and I can't think of a single one that doesn't have complex characters. Even Redwall usually did. My problem isn't with Jacques' writing as a whole. My problem is with a few of his books. It's not even a case of woodlanders good, vermin bad really, because there are a few woodlander characters who are evil for no reason, and there are a few vermin characters who are good for no reason. It's just inconsistency.

[clunylooney]

I disagree that the "essence of writing" can be summed up to mean any one thing.  That may be what you find to be worthwhile and fulfilling in writing, but that's only your opinion.  When people read or write books, they're all looking to get or create something different out of it, and if you don't agree with or don't like whatever that something is, that doesn't mean that they're wrong, it just means that your preferences don't align with theirs. 

So in saying, I don't believe Mr. Jacques was writing in a "lazy" manner, I think that he was simply writing to his audience, which was children.  Children don't need characters with complex emotions; they need things to be more straight forward and easily understandable.  Woodlanders good, vermin bad.  I believe that Jacques wrote exactly as he intended to, and his intent was to spark the imagination of children's minds with magic.  Not magic magic, but the magic of life.  He wasn't aiming for high-brow realism.

You can feel free to have a differing opinion, but please don't act like your way of looking at it is the only way that matters. 

It makes me sad that everyone on this forum underestimates children so much. When I was a kid reading these books the black-and-white morality irked me as much as it does now. And I never read other books that I felt talked down to me. I constantly read children's books as an adult, and I can't think of a single one that doesn't have complex characters. Even Redwall usually did. My problem isn't with Jacques' writing as a whole. My problem is with a few of his books. It's not even a case of woodlanders good, vermin bad really, because there are a few woodlander characters who are evil for no reason, and there are a few vermin characters who are good for no reason. It's just inconsistency.

Just for the record, I was agreeing with the opinion thing, not the children not needing complex characters thing. I actually was going to metion that redwall is kind of for older kids and not so much young children like he suggests but I was too lazy so I didn't. I think Jaques wanted to make his world realistic in the sense that there are many different things going on and many different people. I wonder why Jaques wrote in gray characters when he specifically said that the baddies were bad and the goodies were good. But I mean, I love Blaggut and Romsca so, not complaining too much.

[Kade Rivok]

Spoiler

I disagree that the "essence of writing" can be summed up to mean any one thing.  That may be what you find to be worthwhile and fulfilling in writing, but that's only your opinion.  When people read or write books, they're all looking to get or create something different out of it, and if you don't agree with or don't like whatever that something is, that doesn't mean that they're wrong, it just means that your preferences don't align with theirs. 

So in saying, I don't believe Mr. Jacques was writing in a "lazy" manner, I think that he was simply writing to his audience, which was children.  Children don't need characters with complex emotions; they need things to be more straight forward and easily understandable.  Woodlanders good, vermin bad.  I believe that Jacques wrote exactly as he intended to, and his intent was to spark the imagination of children's minds with magic.  Not magic magic, but the magic of life.  He wasn't aiming for high-brow realism.

You can feel free to have a differing opinion, but please don't act like your way of looking at it is the only way that matters. 

[close]

It makes me sad that everyone on this forum underestimates children so much. When I was a kid reading these books the black-and-white morality irked me as much as it does now. And I never read other books that I felt talked down to me. I constantly read children's books as an adult, and I can't think of a single one that doesn't have complex characters. Even Redwall usually did. My problem isn't with Jacques' writing as a whole. My problem is with a few of his books. It's not even a case of woodlanders good, vermin bad really, because there are a few woodlander characters who are evil for no reason, and there are a few vermin characters who are good for no reason. It's just inconsistency.

That's a completely fair point, and I'm not going to say that his writing doesn't sometimes have contrivances or inconsistencies, because it totally does.  Most of his characters tend to have static personalities that more or less stay consistent throughout the story, meaning that if a character is "good" then they're going to be good the entire story.  This holds true for Tagg as well.  As for why he did this, I believe it was because that the focus of his writing in regards to characters wasn't in character development, but rather in what they experience along the journey and how they'll react to it.  What kind of creatures will they meet along the way?  What troubles will they face and how will they overcome them?  So on and so forth.

As for underestimating children, I understand where you're coming from, and I didn't mean that those were my thoughts necessarily, just that I believe those were his intentions.  Though, based on my phrasing in the previous post, I can see why you thought that, so that's my bad.

Spoiler

I disagree that the "essence of writing" can be summed up to mean any one thing.  That may be what you find to be worthwhile and fulfilling in writing, but that's only your opinion.  When people read or write books, they're all looking to get or create something different out of it, and if you don't agree with or don't like whatever that something is, that doesn't mean that they're wrong, it just means that your preferences don't align with theirs. 

So in saying, I don't believe Mr. Jacques was writing in a "lazy" manner, I think that he was simply writing to his audience, which was children.  Children don't need characters with complex emotions; they need things to be more straight forward and easily understandable.  Woodlanders good, vermin bad.  I believe that Jacques wrote exactly as he intended to, and his intent was to spark the imagination of children's minds with magic.  Not magic magic, but the magic of life.  He wasn't aiming for high-brow realism.

You can feel free to have a differing opinion, but please don't act like your way of looking at it is the only way that matters. 

It makes me sad that everyone on this forum underestimates children so much. When I was a kid reading these books the black-and-white morality irked me as much as it does now. And I never read other books that I felt talked down to me. I constantly read children's books as an adult, and I can't think of a single one that doesn't have complex characters. Even Redwall usually did. My problem isn't with Jacques' writing as a whole. My problem is with a few of his books. It's not even a case of woodlanders good, vermin bad really, because there are a few woodlander characters who are evil for no reason, and there are a few vermin characters who are good for no reason. It's just inconsistency.

[close]

Just for the record, I was agreeing with the opinion thing, not the children not needing complex characters thing. I actually was going to metion that redwall is kind of for older kids and not so much young children like he suggests but I was too lazy so I didn't. I think Jaques wanted to make his world realistic in the sense that there are many different things going on and many different people. I wonder why Jaques wrote in gray characters when he specifically said that the baddies were bad and the goodies were good. But I mean, I love Blaggut and Romsca so, not complaining too much.

I didn't really specify older or younger because I feel that either one could enjoy the books.

As for his grey characters, I think the answer is simple.  The world of Redwall has a base set of underlying rules; the woodlanders and goodbeasts are the good guys (go figure), and the vermin are the bad guys.  From there, he tries to pepper the story with interesting characters that may or may not follow those rules for the main cast to interact with or for the reader to enjoy following.  Because of this, the end result can seem inconsistent at times. 

Of course, these are just my assumptions. 

[Steelinghades]

The way I see It, Is that Jacques tries to make It interesting with various characters and new plotlines to add spice to an otherwise black and white world, but really, did he succeed at It? The answer I feel is not as well as he wanted to, so many characters of certain species completely blend together with others of the same species with similar personalities and methods of speech. Hares in particular are hit with this extremely hard, but others like shrews, Otters, squirrels, vermins species and so on, are all hit with this. There are only two species that aren't dragged down by this and that is Mice and Badgers. THey are the only ones that are free of this and thus their characters tend to be more memorable.

As for the discussion of children above, I agree that Children are capable of understanding more then people commonly give them credit for and a lot of modern books that occupy the same age bracket as Redwall--For example the Warriors series and Wings of Fire are two that came to mind--are quite good about making things more grey instead of having their morality Black and White.