Broken Swords and Broken Hearts

[Duxwing]

Martin the Warrior is a book filled with epic themes: love in war, the ethics of lethal force, and the effects of war and slavery upon the mind, just to name a few.  Taken together, these three themes reveal a third: The Indictment of War.  Let us begin with the theme of the ethics of lethal force:

According to the Just War Theory of St. Thomas Aquinas, war, or lethal force in general, can only be applied if doing so causes a net improvement in the number of living people.  Badrang, despite his cruelty, wanted anything but the deaths of his slaves: who else would build Marshank?  And so, when Martin and his companions consider whether the loss of lives involved in assaulting the prison is justified, a mole chimes in with a rationalization about slavery: "It's not life, it's a living death!".  The problem with this view is that enslaved creatures are very much alive and able to gain some meager pleasure from their existence; therefore, killing beasts to rescue others from slavery is unjustified.  Since this idea belies Martin's recruitment effort, which is, in essence, the slogan "Join my army and free the slaves!" Martin's war is rendered unjust.  Yet for Martin himself, the war is more personal.  He wages a vendetta against Badrang in the name of vengeance and the possession of his father's sword, a vendetta revelaed in his scream atop Marshank's ramparts, "Badraaaaang!  I will destroy you, Badrang!".  To put the point succinctly, Martin is not a good beast in the beginning of the story: he is a morally neutral anti-hero whose initial goals border on outright villainy, and the story is quick to punish him and those who join his cause.  When Laterose of Noonvale and Grumm show up, however, their intent is entirely different: they want to quietly rescue a few slaves without hurting or killing anybeast.

To some, Laterose is a Mary Sue--and with good reason.  She is beautiful, talented, compassionate, and brave, and her quest to free Brome is entirely morally sound.  More importantly, she enters the story uncorrupted by Martin's vendetta against Badrang.  In other words, she is an essentially purely virtuous character who contrasts Martin's vices, sometimes healing them, sometimes gaining them herself.  Martin's vices can be said to stem from his time in Marshank, wherein want and violence were pedestrian.  In other words, he is pulled from Marshank's cesspool of cruelty a tainted mouse, and he carries that taint with him wherever he goes, stirring peaceful creatures to unjust violence in a mad quest to kill Badrang and regain his father's sword.  Rose, however, is virtuous almost to a fault.  She grew up in Noonvale, a land so peaceful that swords must be hung when not in use and so secluded that hardly any creature can find it without first having met somebeast from inside its wooded walls.  This contrast and contact slowly turns Rose into a warrior--an occupation that Abbot Mortimer, who, as abbot, is symbolically the definition of what Martin later creates as a response to Rose's death-- finds abhorrent in Redwall.  Yet despite their differences, Laterose and Martin fall in love.

Beyond a doubt, Laterose of Noonvale and Martin the Warrior are enamored during their struggles.  From their warmth in the freezing waves of the North Sea to Rose's attempted rescue of Martin during his scrap with what Basil might term "Bally savages!" their romance could be no sweeter.  But alas, amidst the stress and violence of his war against Badrang, Martin doesn't notice his own feelings for Rose.  Indeed, he is caught up--consumed, one might say-- in his quest to kill the rat and reclaim his father's sword and neglects the one whom he loves most: that indomitable and courageous mousemaid, Laterose of Noonvale.  In his consumption with the quest, we see a twofold demonstration of his taint.  First, the feelings of revenge that drive the vendetta itself, which are the results of his mistreatment in Marshank, and second, his inability to recognize his feelings and consciously set time aside for the mousemaid who loves him so.  At the risk of sounding melodramatic, one might say that Marshank's granite walls turn Martin's heart to stone.

Yet Rose partially melts him.  During his discussions with her, he adds to his list of grievances a quest to free the slaves, and he rescues the babes of the very shrew who imprisons him and his party during his journey to Noonvale.  Importantly, though Rose simply wants to return home to find Brome, Martin, filled with the taint of Marshank, wants to go to this place of peace and raise an army!  To form the quiet creatures of the forest--the same forest in which grew his precious Rose--into a band of skull-smashing, throat-slitting killers.  And he corrupts her, too.  Blinded by love and virtue--loyalty to Martin, courage in battle, and compassion for the slaves--she ignores the taint within her lover and the injustice of his war, joining him on a quest to ruin and demise.  And not only does Rose die in battle, but defending another creature from death.  When Badrang takes her in his cold, hard claws, ordering Martin to drop his sword that she may live, Martin's vicious vendetta, Rose's naive virtue, and Badrang's evil are brought to a head.  In dropping his sword, Martin symbolically accepts redemption--but too late!  Badrang hurls Rose headfirst against the wall of his prison, killing her instantly, acting as the external embodiment of Martin's own evil.

Roaring and weeping, Martin delivers his own brand of poetic justice: complete and total vengeance unto Badrang.  Martin slays him with his father's sword in the very slave pit from which he'd escaped at the beginning of the story.  But this moment of catharsis--the purging of evil from the land--is not enough to dull the heartache of either Martin or the reader, for Rose of Noonvale lies dead.  In her memory, an elegy is written:

"You will find me at Noonvale
On the side of a hill
When the summer is peaceful and high
Where streamlets meander the valley is still
'Neath the blue of a calm, cloudless sky

Look for me at dawn
When the earth is asleep
'Till each dew drop is kissed by the day
'Neath the Rowan and Alder
A vigil I'll keep
Every moment that you are away

The earth gently turns as the seasons change slowly
All the flowers and leaves born to wane
Hear my voice o'er the lea like the wind soft and lowly
And come back to Noonvale again."

To understand this poem, one first must understand the English elegiac tradition.  An elegy is a poem written as a lament for what was once but is no longer, the classic line being, "He is not as you once knew him," and the lament focusing on how what was once was not appreciated while it was still there--almost urging the reader to appreciate their present surroundings lest they not be there tomorrow.  The traditional metaphor for what was once is the English countryside, and Rose's full name, Laterose of Noonvale, is testament to that.

Upon Rose's death, her body is buried on a bluff overlooking Marshank.  The roses planted by her grave bloom late in the summer--indeed, at its very middle, as described by the dying Abbot Mortimer in Redwall.  Yet if Rose is dead, then why is the poem told from her perspective?  Reasoning again from the English elegiac tradition and from the fact that good creatures' spirits go to The Silent Meadows (which are presumably not at Noonvale, but rather beneath the earth, as they are in Jacques beloved Illiad and Oddyssey) we find that Laterose of Noonvale becomes a woodland nymph manifested in The Late Rose of Noonvale, Marshank, and Redwall.  In so being, she has a presence in virtue, vice, and Martin's heart.  The middle element is important: if Rose did not go to The Silent Meadows, then she was evidently insufficiently virtuous.  And how did a mousemaid like her become so corrupted?  Martin.

Indeed, Martin's war brings not only temporary mortal suffering, but a lasting spiritual pain, both in him and in Rose.  She is trapped in the mortal plane, and he forever bears the scars of her death, swearing off fighting and founding Redwall Abbey in an attempt to redeem himself by replacing Rose's virtue with that of the Abbey.  This suffering in turn can be taken as a metaphor for the wounds of war not healing over after battle, but continuing on to eternity and death in the form of deep psychological scars.  And that's just the first stanza.  In the second, the poem becomes far more elegiac, opening with "Look for me..." which implies the traditional elegiac concept of what was once being now unattainable (she mentioned being found before; hence looking for her implies not finding her).  But then Jaques doubles back in a way, invoking the Arthurian vigil in the stanza's last two lines.  The Arthurian vigil is traditionally seen as an afterlife in itself, but in the Redwall universe, a higher form of later existence is available.  Therefore, Rose is shown trapped on earth by her previous errors yet acting virtuously in watching over her love.

In the third stanza, Jacques' tone and rhythm abruptly change to an exposition of Rose's experience in her afterlife and a very French sort of lament over transience, which, given Jacques' previous adherence to the elegiac model, is likely intentional.  Note the important detail in the first line of the third stanza, wherein Rose speaks of the earth turning slowly: she could only know this by literally flying into space and waiting for hours on end.  No living beast could know of the roundness of the earth, and furthermore, Rose's mention of the seasons changing slowly--along with her cry "All the flowers and leaves born to wane"--could very well indicate that she not only lives forever, but sees time passing more quickly and understands the utter transience of her life (for she, after all, is a flower).  The line "Hear my voice o'er the lea, like the wind soft and lowly," further emphasizes transience ("lea" is land used only for a brief time) and her status as a nymph (the voices of creatures in the Silent Meadows are likely inaudible).

The final line, "... Come back to Noonvale again" is, in a word, crushing.  Martin can never come back to Noonvale without breaking down in tears, going to Noonvale is a metaphor for turning peaceful creatures into killers, and in saying it, Rose sourly, ironically, and sarcastically notes how more wars will ravage her beloved home in the future because tainted creatures are everywhere.  One could even say that Rose was "too good for this sinful earth," for her virtues, corrupted by her surroundings, ultimately spell her demise.

-Duxwing

[Romsca]

 

Whoa...

Do you write essays like this for all of the books?

[Duxwing]

I've only written this one, and gaining the necessary understanding of the work took months of contemplation and research.  There's so much more to Martin The Warrior, too: the death of Felldoh encapsulates what ought to have happened to Martin had he not learned the value of friendship and redeemed his struggle by adding to it the objective of ending Badrang's slavery before launching his final assault. 

What's most striking about the work is its ethical depth, scope, and precision.  Martin and Rose are not pure heroes or pure villains.  They are psychologically real: open to the same foibles and wounds as anybeast, driven by underlying values and emotions, and just as able to be epic as tragic.  They are lovers in war, and tender feelings must be armored before the sling and spear: the war keeps their romance from flowering.  And their ideals interact, too, Rose's compassion subtly rubbing off on Martin, Martin's courage bolstering that of Rose.  In this work, the unconscious mind and its feelings, along with the network of implied ideas that connect us all, are just as important as their conscious, explicit counterparts.

One could even argue that Martin The Warrior is a tale that goes against the traditional heroic psychology found in many of Brian's other works.  And in its tragedy, it perhaps proves Brian Jacques' point that the real is not necessarily the best material for fiction--that flawed characters turn what ought to be magical journeys of adventure into heartbreaking tragedies of stirred up feelings, horrific errors, and stomach-turning violence.  In short, he indicts war so that he can write of it in serene music as beautiful as it is terrible, and not in the language of teenage trauma drama, a genre that he thoroughly detests.

-Duxwing

[Romsca]

Wow. I've never thought of any of it like that. Just a Q, what are your thoughts on (my favorite character) Romsca?

[Duxwing]

I'm embarrassed to say what follows.     I only recall that Romsca was a sea otter chieftain.  I remember little of my old readings of Jacques.  I'd need many a season of study to understand him and his story.  Currently, I'm trying to understand what I call the Saga of Heroes: the series formed by a chronological reading of The Legend of Luke, Martin The Warrior, Mossflower, Redwall, and Mattimeo.

-Duxwing

[Tam and Martin]

Actually Romsca is a female ferret corsair from the book Pearls of Lutra.

[Shadowed One]

Yeah, I read that and went wait, a sea otter chieftain? 

[Duxwing]

Actually Romsca is a female ferret corsair from the book Pearls of Lutra.

Yeah, I read that and went wait, a sea otter chieftain?  

Like I said, I recall little of my old readings of Jacques--though I did read Pearls of Lutra.  Otherwise, thanks for the information!   Apart from that little factoid, what do you guys think of my critique?

-Duxwing

[Free Thought]

Well, Duxwing. That was quite the 1000 words.  I must applaud you on your thesis and your extensive research.  That being said, you couldn't be closer and further from the truth if you tried. This is not meant to be seen as criticism; as I said, your work is commendable, but flawed which makes your thesis less plausible. 

First and foremost, Brian Jacques was not a philosopher writing hidden political pieces in fiction such as Voltaire did in during the French Revolution.  Candide's phrase "We must cultivate our garden" was more of a battle cry than the guillotine slice.  But I digress, I'm getting off topic.  Back to Jacques- what I am trying to say is be careful not to read too much into the story that is written.  Not all tales have greater implications, but rather are meant for personal growth and reflection.  I believe that you have read so much into the text you have missed the words for the letters (one of my professor's analogy for "can't see the forest for the trees").  Just be careful that you are not searching for something that is really not there.

For example, in your need for relation of Aquinas (and cudoos for using him by the way), you overlook the simple fact that it is Rose who initiates the idea of Noonvalers aiding Martin's cause and raising an army from there.  It was not Martin who wanted to invoke peaceful creatures to the battle cry.  Also, once in Noonvale, his merely asks the villagers and is not forceful in his recruitment.  Again another female, Aryah Voh, insists on him pleading his cause to Noonvale's folk, probably out of more selfish reasons than is let on.  She knows that Rose will accompany Martin and she will be in danger, however, the more of an "army" Martin has the more potential safety will be given to her daughter.  That however, was not the case.  Furthermore, your contemplation on slavery, or rather the... "quality of life" involving slavery is not justified or theoretically sound.  I encourage you to do a little more research on that subject (specifically primary research) for I highly doubt an person would view being the life of a slave a life worth living just because they could breath.  It is kind of like the old method of having a murder dig his own grave before shooting him.  Please forgive the crude analogy, but really they were figuratively digging their own graves by starvation, whipping and malnutrition.

Yet, you do raise a few good points about Rose, though I personally do not find her one I would call a warrior, but rather as you called her, a virtuous character.  I agree with you on the points of Martin and Rose falling in love (duh, a given), however, I do not feel you have provided sufficient proof that Martin "tainted" her.  One could pose the argument that Rose in fact tainted Martin- gave him friendship instead of "brothers in arms" which inevitably clouded his natural warrior judgement that a "woman" (sorry ladies- but it's true in medieval standards) should not have a place on the battlefield.  But that is another argument for another day.

Moreover, your hypothesis and study of Rose's elegy is incorrect.  Here, I insist you address the facts of the story before you make blatant, yet interesting, analysis and assumptions.  The problem lies in the fact you have based your argument on the fact Rose's apply-named "Noonvale Song" is not her elegy at all, but was a Noonvale folk song that Rose herself sang mid-epic; in other words, it was not written for her.  Though I appreciate your research, I have to again respectfully disagree with your analysis of the poem in general.  It is an eternal, hopeful song/poem; a wistful wish song over the "lea" to all those wishing for love and peace (Rose being the symbol of love and Noonvale the symbol of peace).  Yet, this disagreement can be based off the fact that you have read the words as a elegy, whereas I have read it as a piece of poetry.

Also, I think you greatly miss the ties to Homer's works here in regards to Martin.  He is more of an Achilles type character and Jacques as written him as such.  If you will recall, in The Iliad, Homer's opening word is "Rage."  That is what Martin is when we first meet him and not the villianized "tainter" which this essay has made him out to be.  He was not written as such, but rather is written in the way that produces character growth.

In closing, I compliment you on your work and encourage you in your further studies and research, but stress the importance of according analysis and hypothetical function.  With that I would like to end with a quote which may invoke some contemplation when it comes to the characters of Martin the Warrior:

“For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them.”
- Sir Thomas More, Utopia   

[Duxwing]

You know that sinking feeling you get when someone blows your argument to pieces, and you can tell just from the first few words?  I got that.  >_<  If I use humor, then it is only there to lighten the mood.

Well, Duxwing. That was quite the 1000 words.  I must applaud you on your thesis and your extensive research.  That being said, you couldn't be closer and further from the truth if you tried. This is not meant to be seen as criticism; as I said, your work is commendable, but flawed which makes your thesis less plausible. 

Closer and further, interesting.

First and foremost, Brian Jacques was not a philosopher writing hidden political pieces in fiction such as Voltaire did in during the French Revolution.  Candide's phrase "We must cultivate our garden" was more of a battle cry than the guillotine slice.  But I digress, I'm getting off topic.  Back to Jacques- what I am trying to say is be careful not to read too much into the story that is written.  Not all tales have greater implications, but rather are meant for personal growth and reflection.  I believe that you have read so much into the text you have missed the words for the letters (one of my professor's analogy for "can't see the forest for the trees").  Just be careful that you are not searching for something that is really not there.

Right.  Right.  Musn't assert that he meant it.  Literary Criticism 101.  >_<

For example, in your need for relation of Aquinas (and cudoos for using him by the way),

I use JWT because Mortimer and Mordalfred both implicitly adhere to it almost perfectly--especially in Mordalfred's stunningly unexpected argument in favor of surrender to the crows during Mattimeo--and I assume that Redwall Abbey and its policies are the standard of "Good" behavior for the rest of Jaques' Redwall series.

you overlook the simple fact that it is Rose who initiates the idea of Noonvalers aiding Martin's cause and raising an army from there. 

Right, but at what point?  Once they get to Noonvale, or before?  So you're saying that it goes like this?

Martin: (leaving Marshank with Rose)  By the fur, that was close!  Where to?
Rose: Back to Noonvale to find Brome.
Martin: But I want to kill Badrang and get my father's sword.
Rose: Bah!  Think bigger: let's kill Badrang, get your father's sword, and free all the slaves.
Martin: Yeah, we and what army?
Rose: (pointing to Noonvale) We and that army.

It was not Martin who wanted to invoke peaceful creatures to the battle cry. 

Hmmm.  Chink in the old armor, eh wot?  I'll have to reconsider my idea.

Also, once in Noonvale, his merely asks the villagers and is not forceful in his recruitment. 

I never said that he was.

Again another female, Aryah Voh, insists on him pleading his cause to Noonvale's folk, probably out of more selfish reasons than is let on.  She knows that Rose will accompany Martin and she will be in danger, however, the more of an "army" Martin has the more potential safety will be given to her daughter.  That however, was not the case.

So Martin just wants to make a break for it?  Wow. O.O

Furthermore, your contemplation on slavery, or rather the... "quality of life" involving slavery is not justified or theoretically sound.  I encourage you to do a little more research on that subject (specifically primary research) for I highly doubt an person would view being the life of a slave a life worth living just because they could breath.  It is kind of like the old method of having a murder dig his own grave before shooting him.  Please forgive the crude analogy, but really they were figuratively digging their own graves by starvation, whipping and malnutrition.

I highly doubt that Badrang would have killed his slaves or worked them to death.  Getting more slaves requires hard work and risk: it's easier to keep the ones that you have by feeding them and allowing them to breed.  However, Badrang could have been mad or seen no use for his slaves after constructing Marshank, but such a case is tenuous at best: what about having them do something else for him?  Badrang was evil, but by no means stupid.  Yet the question is ultimately factual.  Did Badrang intend to keep his slaves alive after building Marshank?  I don't recall anyone mentioning that he didn't, but you may remember something that I've missed.

And incidentally I have done primary research on slavery, in particular the comparison of Spanish enslavement of Central Americans and their enslavement of Africans.  The Spanish worked the Central Americans to death because they could easily be drummed up in droves with little to no fighting due to the devastation of Central America by smallpox and the Spaniard's vastly superior technology, but such a system was unsustainable: every few years, more slaves were needed just to maintain output.  Eventually, the stock ran out, and once it did, the Spaniards turned to African slaves, whose rather high price necessitated their preservation.  In other words, you'll take better care of your Pinto despite it being a Pinto if getting a new one will cost you a pretty penny.

Yet, you do raise a few good points about Rose, though I personally do not find her one I would call a warrior, but rather as you called her, a virtuous character.

Rose is most definitely a warrior, especially if she was the one who argued that Martin ought to raise an army.  She not only charged a monster that, from her perspective, looked like it could very well have eaten Martin, but organized the other two members of her party to take its flanks while she charged the center.  She was ready to put her sword in the back of a savage who was fighting Martin. She even fought as infantry in the assault on Marshank and died while defending another creature.  Rose was most definitely a warrior.

I agree with you on the points of Martin and Rose falling in love (duh, a given),

At least I didn't miss that!

however, I do not feel you have provided sufficient proof that Martin "tainted" her.  One could pose the argument that Rose in fact tainted Martin- gave him friendship instead of "brothers in arms" which inevitably clouded his natural warrior judgement that a "woman" (sorry ladies- but it's true in medieval standards) should not have a place on the battlefield.  But that is another argument for another day.

Female beasts were on the battlefield all throughout the Redwall series: many of Jacques' stories featured warrior heroines, not to mention Constance, whose capability for destruction was unparalleled in her weight class.  Moreover, as I've already pointed out, Rose was no weakling: she killed seagulls with a sling!  Therefore, Martin would have been wise to let a female fighter of Rose's caliber join his troops, and not letting her join while the badger of the Rambling Rosehip players was risking her neck rescuing dozens of slaves would have been a tremendous sign of distrust and disrespect.  Also, Martin gains not friendship but love from Rose--he just doesn't realize it until she's dead, hence my mention of the network of unconscious forces and the elegiac nature of Rose's death poem.

Moreover, your hypothesis and study of Rose's elegy is incorrect.  Here, I insist you address the facts of the story before you make blatant, yet interesting, analysis and assumptions.  The problem lies in the fact you have based your argument on the fact Rose's apply-named "Noonvale Song" is not her elegy at all, but was a Noonvale folk song that Rose herself sang mid-epic; in other words, it was not written for her. 

It was not written for her by anybeast--no creature actually does anything in a book--it's all the writer's fingers, and as such, one can consider such effects as foreshadowing and irony; I was unclear in having written "in her memory, an elegy is written".  I meant to say that Brian Jacques wrote it, and allow me to explain what I was thinking.  A character singing a first-person elegy about themselves mid-epic is quite unsettling, and, upon a second reading, a reader would see the cruel, sour irony in her having sung it.  Hence, it is an elegy for Rose, but the reader doesn't expect it.

Though I appreciate your research, I have to again respectfully disagree with your analysis of the poem in general.  It is an eternal, hopeful song/poem; a wistful wish song over the "lea" to all those wishing for love and peace (Rose being the symbol of love and Noonvale the symbol of peace).  Yet, this disagreement can be based off the fact that you have read the words as a elegy, whereas I have read it as a piece of poetry.

How is it hopeful?  Rose dies and Martin melts down.

Also, I think you greatly miss the ties to Homer's works here in regards to Martin.  He is more of an Achilles type character and Jacques as written him as such.  If you will recall, in The Iliad, Homer's opening word is "Rage." 

I'd disagree that Martin is similar to Achilles:
Martin's goal is revenge.  Achilles is angry.
Martin unconsciously loves Rose.  Achilles knows and wants Helen just for her looks.
Martin survives his lover.  Achilles dies in Troy and never meets Helen for long.
Martin gets a cut on his face and doesn't notice it until it's pointed out to him.  Achilles cries over a tiny spear wound.
Martin grits his teeth and overcomes adversity through grit.  Achilles throws a fit over not getting a prize and sits in his tent while is brothers in arms are slaughtered.

The real tie-in to Achilles is Felldoh.
Felldoh is filled with rage (as opposed to Martin's desire to right a single wrong, Felldoh is consumed by rage against slavers).  Achilles is filled with rage.
Felldoh dies in combat.  Achilles dies in combat.
Felldoh slays many, a terror to his foes.  Achilles slays many, a terror to his foes.
Felldoh dies by trickery.  Achilles dies by trickery (a poison arrow to the heel).

That is what Martin is when we first meet him and not the villianized "tainter" which this essay has made him out to be.  He was not written as such, but rather is written in the way that produces character growth.

I didn't say that he was a villain.  I said that he was an anti-hero.  The difference is very, very important.  A hero wants to do what Rose suggested: free the slaves.  An anti-hero wants to do what Martin did: slay the foebeast and take back what is his.  And he is not only a 'tainter,' he is also a great fighter and eventual hero to many.  Please don't think that I don't see Martin's shining glories, his courage, his strength, his virtue.  He just drags Rose into his ways and gets her killed.

In closing, I compliment you on your work and encourage you in your further studies and research, but stress the importance of according analysis and hypothetical function.  With that I would like to end with a quote which may invoke some contemplation when it comes to the characters of Martin the Warrior:

"For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them."
- Sir Thomas More, Utopia

Ow!  Hey!  I can take a jab, but you needn't veil it in philosophy.

-Duxwing

[Free Thought]

Okay so I typed out a response and the stupid website kicked me off as I went to post it- ERASING ALL MY WORK AND REPLIES!!!! OH the ANGST!!!!!!

Ugh.  Duxwing, you talk about the sinking feeling when someone contradicts your argument- it's nothing to technology ERASING all of it on you!!!!! But I digress.

In a nutshell... no I can say that; I addressed every single piece in detail. Ugh.  So angry right now.  Now I'm Achilles' ragin'.  Again, I stray.  Sorry.

Well, I'll have to write it out later when I have time again, but my post was not meant as a smash-up of your thesis, but a constructive criticism that when view as such could help you strengthen your arguments further and with greater detail. 

Oh and the end quote was not meant that you were ill-educated.  It was meant to inspire thought when looking at the characters.  Like, if you make slaves, what do you expect to get but a bunch of Martins and Felldohs....

Ugh, still so incredibly mad at the site right now for kicking me off and ERASING my work!!!!! AHHHHH!!!!!!

Anyways, I'll get back to it later- promise

[Romsca]

It's too bad nobody really thinks this much about Romsca.... but oh well... 

*sighs*

[Duxwing]

Okay so I typed out a response and the stupid website kicked me off as I went to post it- ERASING ALL MY WORK AND REPLIES!!!! OH the ANGST!!!!!!

Ugh.  Duxwing, you talk about the sinking feeling when someone contradicts your argument- it's nothing to technology ERASING all of it on you!!!!! But I digress.

In a nutshell... no I can say that; I addressed every single piece in detail. Ugh.  So angry right now.  Now I'm Achilles' ragin'.  Again, I stray.  Sorry.

Well, I'll have to write it out later when I have time again, but my post was not meant as a smash-up of your thesis, but a constructive criticism that when view as such could help you strengthen your arguments further and with greater detail. 

Oh and the end quote was not meant that you were ill-educated.  It was meant to inspire thought when looking at the characters.  Like, if you make slaves, what do you expect to get but a bunch of Martins and Felldohs....

Ugh, still so incredibly mad at the site right now for kicking me off and ERASING my work!!!!! AHHHHH!!!!!!

Anyways, I'll get back to it later- promise

O.O  Need a hug?

-Duxwing

[Free Thought]

O.O  Need a hug?

-Duxwing

No, but perhaps a tissue would have been a nice offer.

Aright.  Well, let's get into it shall we? *crackles knuckles with literary enthusiasm*

Like I said in the prior post, my true response to everything is gone, but I will try to remember the main points I made. *sigh for lost work*...

1.  "Closer and further, interesting." -Yes.  You make a good effort of a classical literary critique, however do some oversight and over-reading you have pushed your thesis further than the work went, landing you on the other side, thus "further."  There is a very fine line between brilliant insightfulness and misinterpretation when writing a critique and this literary tightrope as it were can only be learnt by practicing (ie continued writing of literary interpretation and accepting "constructive criticism" when it is given as it only makes us better writers.

2.  "Right.  Right.  Musn't assert that he meant it.  Literary Criticism 101.  >_<" -Yikes.  Ugh... if he, being the author, didn't mean it, then why are you writing a paper arguing he did? Essay writing 101- argue what the author meant, not about what you think he should have meant.

3. "I use JWT because Mortimer and Mordalfred both implicitly adhere to it almost perfectly--especially in Mordalfred's stunningly unexpected argument in favor of surrender to the crows during Mattimeo--and I assume that Redwall Abbey and its policies are the standard of "Good" behavior for the rest of Jaques' Redwall series." Funny.  I thought we were discussing MTW?  While using other books as a reference can strengthen one's argument (sometimes), it is only relevant when it relates to the work of discussion.  What I mean by this is do not imply that Jacques meant this because he used it in other books... make the reference to MTW specifically.  If you can't find it in the primary text, then the argument does not exist.  To further that, you have already cited that MTW was pretty much it's own book in diction and technique, therefore to tie it to another in the series regarding said diction and techniques previously deemed differential makes your thesis unfounded.  Yes?

4.  "Right, but at what point?  Once they get to Noonvale, or before?  So you're saying that it goes like this?

Martin: (leaving Marshank with Rose)  By the fur, that was close!  Where to?
Rose: Back to Noonvale to find Brome.
Martin: But I want to kill Badrang and get my father's sword.
Rose: Bah!  Think bigger: let's kill Badrang, get your father's sword, and free all the slaves.
Martin: Yeah, we and what army?
Rose: (pointing to Noonvale) We and that army."

Now, now.  Don't get defensive.  Just look at the facts from the narrative.  Start with your character sketches.  Rose is Martin's foil.  Therefore... ahem... it would map out something similar to this:  Escape.  Martin wants to stay at Marshank and fight/ Rose sways him to flee. Martin would have fought alone with Felldoh/ Rose convinces them they need more help... etc. etc. etc....
I had another argument to go along with this, but I have forgotten it.  Must have been that profound and insightful 

5. "So Martin just wants to make a break for it?  Wow. O.O" -Again, look at the facts.  He asks to recruit creatures from Noonvale and is told no by Urran Voh.  Only after Aryah's intervention is he allowed to ask for aid.  All those willing to help are welcomed to his theoretical standard.  I think if it had been Urran's way, Martin would have just left on his own as be know him to be respectful to the chieftain (though they do not agree most... okay 99.9% of the time).  That being said, Rose and co. probably would have stolen away with him.

6.  "I highly doubt that Badrang would have killed his slaves or worked them to death.  Getting more slaves requires hard work and risk: it's easier to keep the ones that you have by feeding them and allowing them to breed.  However, Badrang could have been mad or seen no use for his slaves after constructing Marshank, but such a case is tenuous at best: what about having them do something else for him?  Badrang was evil, but by no means stupid.  Yet the question is ultimately factual.  Did Badrang intend to keep his slaves alive after building Marshank?  I don't recall anyone mentioning that he didn't, but you may remember something that I've missed." -Now to these slave points I had an extensive opinion, but alas, we will have to make do with the short version... *shakes fist at cpu and RAF*  For this I encourage you to look back on your notes during the "slave" scenes.  Martin's grandmother is vaguely referenced as dying during her time as a slave and Martin saves Barkjon the squirrel from a lashing that certainly would have finished him off in his weakened state.  This is reaffirmed by Felldoh thanking Martin for saving his dad.  Moreover, Jacques does not directly address the issue, but remember this is a children's story... toting the "they're gonna build me a fort and then I'm going to line them up and kill 'em" isn't really in the cards as it were... flashback to Romanov murder scene... yuck.

"And incidentally I have done primary research on slavery, in particular the comparison of Spanish enslavement of Central Americans and their enslavement of Africans.  The Spanish worked the Central Americans to death because they could easily be drummed up in droves with little to no fighting due to the devastation of Central America by smallpox and the Spaniard's vastly superior technology, but such a system was unsustainable: every few years, more slaves were needed just to maintain output.  Eventually, the stock ran out, and once it did, the Spaniards turned to African slaves, whose rather high price necessitated their preservation.  In other words, you'll take better care of your Pinto despite it being a Pinto if getting a new one will cost you a pretty penny." -Here, I encourage you to expand on your research and look for sources more relevant to the text themselves, such as Egyptian slavery accounts.  Why do you ask?  Well, Badrang didn't pay for his slaves.  He stole them and ripped them from the homes and happiness.  They cost him nothing save the logistics to feed and house them.  They were there to get as much work out of them as possible and if they died, he'd just send out a raid to go get more.  He didn't need them for the future, just for the present.  Furthermore, and this loosely ties into the above argument(s), the text told you it wasn't a good life, but a "living death." Period.  Don't argue against the text when it blatantly tells you what it wants you to know. Also, if Badrang made life... "liveable" for them as slaves, why did they all feel the need to revolt? And if he truly valued his slaves he would not have strapped Martin to a wall between posts as gull's food; if he "cost" him that much, or a pretty penny, one could deduce that he would have simply kept him under tighter guard or changed positions in the slave line.  I think you see where I'm going with this one...

7.  "Rose is most definitely a warrior, especially if she was the one who argued that Martin ought to raise an army.  She not only charged a monster that, from her perspective, looked like it could very well have eaten Martin, but organized the other two members of her party to take its flanks while she charged the center.  She was ready to put her sword in the back of a savage who was fighting Martin. She even fought as infantry in the assault on Marshank and died while defending another creature.  Rose was most definitely a warrior." -Agree to disagree.

8.  "Female beasts were on the battlefield all throughout the Redwall series: many of Jacques' stories featured warrior heroines, not to mention Constance, whose capability for destruction was unparalleled in her weight class.  Moreover, as I've already pointed out, Rose was no weakling: she killed seagulls with a sling!  Therefore, Martin would have been wise to let a female fighter of Rose's caliber join his troops, and not letting her join while the badger of the Rambling Rosehip players was risking her neck rescuing dozens of slaves would have been a tremendous sign of distrust and disrespect.  Also, Martin gains not friendship but love from Rose--he just doesn't realize it until she's dead, hence my mention of the network of unconscious forces and the elegiac nature of Rose's death poem." -Again, deal directly with the text in question and do not stray to other works to try and prove a point.  Yes, Rose wields a sling with impressive aim.  Good for her.  So did children ages 4-5 in the medieval world, such as the world Jacques writes in.  And oh, Duxwing.  Martin most certainly knew he was in love with Rose prior to her death.  Again.  Look at what the text outright tells you: Martin's realization comes after Rose "saves" them from the bees- he could listen to her voice forever; also, he tells Aryah he will take care of Rose during the battle.  Martin knows he loves Rose, but does not know how to articulate it.  And Rose recognizes this in a touching seen during the feast when she wipes cream off the end of Martin's nose.  No, no one screamed "I LOVE YOU!" but did they really need to?

8. "It was not written for her by anybeast--no creature actually does anything in a book--it's all the writer's fingers, and as such, one can consider such effects as foreshadowing and irony; I was unclear in having written "in her memory, an elegy is written".  I meant to say that Brian Jacques wrote it, and allow me to explain what I was thinking.  A character singing a first-person elegy about themselves mid-epic is quite unsettling, and, upon a second reading, a reader would see the cruel, sour irony in her having sung it.  Hence, it is an elegy for Rose, but the reader doesn't expect it." -But its not a elegy.  Its a folk song and yes you are correct in its foreshadowing, but it does not foreshadow a death per se.

9.  "How is it hopeful?  Rose dies and Martin melts down." -The last line is shrouded in hope- "Oh, please come home to Noonvale again."  That is hope.  Pure, clean hope.  I do not have the time or space to offer up a full poetic interpretation of the song right now, but perhaps I will eventually.  Then you can flame me all you like

10.  "I'd disagree that Martin is similar to Achilles:
Martin's goal is revenge.  Achilles is angry.
Martin unconsciously loves Rose.  Achilles knows and wants Helen just for her looks.
Martin survives his lover.  Achilles dies in Troy and never meets Helen for long.
Martin gets a cut on his face and doesn't notice it until it's pointed out to him.  Achilles cries over a tiny spear wound.
Martin grits his teeth and overcomes adversity through grit.  Achilles throws a fit over not getting a prize and sits in his tent while is brothers in arms are slaughtered.

The real tie-in to Achilles is Felldoh.
Felldoh is filled with rage (as opposed to Martin's desire to right a single wrong, Felldoh is consumed by rage against slavers).  Achilles is filled with rage.
Felldoh dies in combat.  Achilles dies in combat.
Felldoh slays many, a terror to his foes.  Achilles slays many, a terror to his foes.
Felldoh dies by trickery.  Achilles dies by trickery (a poison arrow to the heel)."

OKay, I'm not going to touch this one with a ten foot pole until you read up on your Greek history and throw out the shady Coles Notes you pulled off the internet.  #1- Achilles is not there for Helen, nor is he in love with her.  Helen is Menelaus' wife and Achilles is there to fight out of an alliance and the pure simple reason that he loves war.  And uh, Martin gets scratched in the face (deeply yes, but scratched).  Achilles suffers a spear thrust.  Ouch.  And Achilles mourns the loss of his lover(s) just as Martin mourned Rose.  By silence.  Furthermore... it wasn't a poison arrow.  It was a plain, everyday common flint that did in the demi-god.  For me, Felldoh is more of a Hector.  Hector who was enraged by the destruction the Greeks were imposing needlessly on his home of Troy.  He, like Felldoh, goes out to single-handedly deal with the slaver (yes the Greeks make the Trojans "slaves to the war-like" society) and dies at the hand of Achilles.  Again, I had more on this before, but... meh, ya get the point.

11.  "I didn't say that he was a villain.  I said that he was an anti-hero.  The difference is very, very important.  A hero wants to do what Rose suggested: free the slaves.  An anti-hero wants to do what Martin did: slay the foebeast and take back what is his.  And he is not only a 'tainter,' he is also a great fighter and eventual hero to many.  Please don't think that I don't see Martin's shining glories, his courage, his strength, his virtue.  He just drags Rose into his ways and gets her killed." - Then you had better make a stronger argument about this "anti-hero" theory of yours, because it's not strong.  Going off what you have defined as a hero, that's what Martin is, because his primary objective is to free the slaves. During his discussion with Aryah at the waterfall this is disclosed.  He wants to free the slaves from Badrang.

12.  "Ow!  Hey!  I can take a jab, but you needn't veil it in philosophy." -I addressed this in my previous post, but it bears repeating.  This quote was not a jab at you, but a quote to usher new thought onto your arguments.

There.  My very much shortened, but still long winded post.  I hope you will read this as constructive criticism and literary banter between two bookies and not the snub-nosed flaming you took it as before.  Just wait until you get to the table to defend your real thesis in university with three professors staring you down that can quote almost any work from any genre like the drop of a hat.  Now that, my friend, is unnerving.

Cheers,
FT

[Free Thought]

Oh, and I just wanted to add that I greatly enjoy this more in depth topic posted on the board.  It is much more rewarding and enjoyable to read than the plain, "who do you like better" and "what if" scenarios.  Though they are fun to read sometimes, this form of topic is much more... well... it's just better.  It inspires more thorough examination of the works in general and in specific tenses. 

Cudoos to Duxwing for initiating it.