Broken Swords and Broken Hearts

[Romsca]

I'm not nearly this good at analyzing things...

Would it be to much to ask for someone to write an essay like these on Romsca?

[Duxwing]

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

*cracks neck* *cracks back* *does an elaborate dance to crack his knee*  Nyah.  

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.

OK.

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.

If Jacques meant nothing, then why are we arguing?  

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.

We are discussing MTW, but not only MTW--and with good reason.  MTW exists within a canon of other works, Luke the Warrior being a convenient example, and to ignore the canon would be to leave MTW a much poorer work.  For example, think of the grand irony of Martin being enslaved while his father was off hunting slavers; it cannot be understood without reading both works as a chronological history of Jacques' Redwall universe.  Hence, I reference other works in the series.

If you can't find it in the primary text, then the argument does not exist. 

If you mean to argue il n'y a pas hors de texte, then you've misunderstood Derrida.  The "texte" is everything: The world, ourselves--everything.  Hence, nothing can exist outside the text because the text includes everything already, and the outside world must be considered in understanding a work of art.  For example, Huckleberry Finn is a very different work when examined in light of the Civil War despite that war not ever having been mentioned therein.  To hold that no information except the markings on the pages matter, then, would be to deprive oneself of greater understanding.  But even outside of Deconstruction, the relevance of other works in a chronological series that employs stable moral constructs is intuitive.

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?

When did I say that it was it's own book in diction and technique?  I just found its moral insight stunning.

Now, now.  Don't get defensive. 

At the risk of creating an infinite recursion: When did I sound defensive?  I was just asking the questions.

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  [/i]

But would that not be Martin's desire for revenge turning Rose--who had planned a stealthy rescue--to war?

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, for we 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.

That's what I thought.

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.

--Old people die all the time, both in Redwall Abbey and in Marshank.  
--Barkjohn was quite old, and one can't expect Badrang to keep everyone alive; however, these deaths are rounding error compared to the casualties of an assault.
--To the contrary, toward the end of Redwall, Cluny wanted to slay everybeast in Redwall Abbey.  And if it were true, then why on earth would Brian not want to reveal such a threat?  His heroes would be all the more heroic, and his villains all the more villainous.

Here, I encourage you to expand on your research and look for sources more relevant to the text themselves, such as Egyptian slavery accounts. 

Could you give me an overview so that I know what to look for?

Why do you ask?  Well, Badrang didn't pay for his slaves.  He stole them and ripped them from the homes and happiness. 

He paid for them in sweat and blood: shlepping around Mossflower Wood and the North Shore looking for slaves costs time, effort, rations, and troops--not every creature goes peaceful into the night.  Thus Badrang faces the choice: "Humping through desert, forest, and beach, dodging slings, arrows, and javelins, or grocery shopping?"  Maybe Cluny would have been crazy enough to kill them all and hunt for new slaves, but Badrang is quite intelligent.

They cost him nothing save the logistics to feed and house them. 

Old slaves eat no more than new slaves, and they make additional slaves free of charge--in fact, letting them make more slaves makes them like you more and quiets unrest.

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. 

Would you rather ##:1057 hundreds of miles through woodlands packed with creatures who want mount your head over their hearth, or go grocery shopping?

He didn't need them for the future, just for the present. 

If he doesn't need them, then he can always sell them to the highest bidder.

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.

Whoa, whoa, slow down, Constance--you're biting off the wrong head!  My point was that slavery, though not a good life, was better than death.  Hence, the rest of my argument.

Also, if Badrang made life... "liveable" for them as slaves, why did they all feel the need to revolt?

Non-sequitur. The slaves' being reckless to the loss of their own lives doesn't justify the deaths of Martin's troops.

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...

Badrang wanted to make an example of him--Badrang's evil, after all.

Agree to disagree.

This is an important point of the discussion.  Can I at least hear your argument before we close it off?

Again, deal directly with the text in question and do not stray to other works to try and prove a point.

MTW is part of a canon and should be analyzed as such.

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. 

I seriously doubt that a 4 year old child could perform a feat equivalent to that of Rose: kill a flying elephant with a headshot from three hundred yards away.

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?

So in other words, he thinks, "I love Rose, but I don't know how to tell her."?  Or does he think, "When I see Rose, my palms get clammy, my heart races, and I feel like warm marmalade is pouring through me.  By the claw, what's wrong with me!?"?

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.

Nobeast intended it to be an elegy, yes, but the fact that it foreshadows anything at all means that its interpretation needn't be anchored to a chronological context; consider how well it fit as an elegy for Rose in the TV series.  And if fits as an elegy for Rose, then her singing it mid-epic would therefore foreshadow her death.

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

I hardly intend to flame you.  You're quite friendly.    But that version of the last line doesn't fit with the meter of the third stanza--unless it is a single refrain at the end.

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. 

Actually, I keep an English translation of the Illiad by my bedside and was reading it just a few nights ago.  Here's a passage whose bathos I found quite funny:

And Hera said to the father of men and gods,
"Dread Lord, how can you not be angry at Ares
for killing so many noble Achaean soldiers--
a brutal, indecent slaughter; it breaks my heart--
while Apollo and Aphrodite look down at the fighting,
happy that they have let this manaic loose?"

Just in case you think I'm bluffing, the ISBN is 978-1-4391-6337-5, the translator is Stephen Mitchell, and the passage is located on lines 687 to 692 of Book 5, Page 89.  If you find this passage on the "Look Inside!" of this book's Amazon profile, then just ask me for another passage from a section not featured and compare it to that found in your own copy of the Illiad.

#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. 

Helen's is the face that could launch a thousand ships; Achilles is there 'for her' just like every other Danaan.  And if Achilles loves war--which he does--then Martin is hardly a good comparison to him.  Though he is driven by rage, Felldoh relishes the sight of every slain stoat, rammed rat, and vanquished vermin that he sees.  Martin isn't nearly so bloodthirsty.

And uh, Martin gets scratched in the face (deeply yes, but scratched).  Achilles suffers a spear thrust.  Ouch. 

Martin is mortal.  Achilles is nigh-indestructible but figuratively cries for his mommy anyway.

And Achilles mourns the loss of his lover(s) just as Martin mourned Rose.  By silence.

Point taken.

Furthermore... it wasn't a poison arrow.  It was a plain, everyday common flint that did in the demi-god.

That depends on the version that you read.  Heck, even the explanation of Achilles not being completely invincible isn't kept straight.  In some tellings, his mother dunks him in the river Styx but, as a goddess, cannot touch its waters, and thus leaves his heel unprotected (though one wonders why she didn't dunk him, pull him out, dry him off, and then dunk the un-soaked parts of him) while in another, more humorous telling, she douses Achilles with ambrosia and was burning the mortality out of him by holding him over a fire when her husband walked in.  A total meltdown ensued, and Achilles was pulled from the spit medium-rare.  In yet other tellings Achilles is just such a bad-apple that for him, "Pain don' hurt" and a poison arrow was necessary to kill him.

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.

But Hector was trapped, the beaches by his city bristling with spears like the back of a porcupine bristles with quills.  Felldoh could have just left.

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.

And Achilles dies by the bow of Paris when trying to kill him in single combat.

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.

Don't you remember the beginning of the story, wherein Martin screams "Badrang!  I will destroy you, Badrang!"?  Martin may turn to goodness throughout the story, but at the beginning he just wants Badrang's head and his father's sword.

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. 

I didn't take it as such.  I took it as a piercing, well-thought-out criticism.  If I thought that you were flaming, then I would have responded in kind.

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

Yikes!

-Duxwing

[Duxwing]

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. 

Thanks, FT.    I'm glad that you enjoy this.  If only I'd known of this forum when I was still (more of a) dibbun!  Perhaps I could have been introduced to the idea of literary criticism sooner: I learned about the idea of works having themes in tenth grade, and the experience, coupled with copious consumption of TV Tropes articles, has mostly ruined my ability to become immersed and emotionally invested in a narrative.  Aesthetic distance is nice, but it can feel soul-crushing at times.  I miss the days of thinking "Come on!  Come on!  Put that sword through yonder head, Martin!".  Now I think "Let us consider the ethics of this violence, the potential alternatives, and the emotions that led up to, along with its aftermath."  Uugggh!

-Duxwing

PS: It's "Kudos," just in case you were wondering.

[Duxwing]

I'm not nearly this good at analyzing things...

Would it be to much to ask for someone to write an essay like these on Romsca?

Why is everyone so interested in Romsca?

-Duxwing

[Free Thought]

"PS: It's "Kudos," just in case you were wondering."- Meh, I prefer 'Cudoos' and claim poetic licencing hahaha

And I have no idea why everyone is so interested in Romsca, but she seems to be a popular topic on this board...

1. "If Jacques meant nothing, then why are we arguing?" - I dunno.  You're the one who said, and I quote... "Musn't assert that he meant it.  Literary Criticism 101."

2. "We are discussing MTW, but not only MTW--and with good reason.  MTW exists within a canon of other works, Luke the Warrior being a convenient example, and to ignore the canon would be to leave MTW a much poorer work.  For example, think of the grand irony of Martin being enslaved while his father was off hunting slavers; it cannot be understood without reading both works as a chronological history of Jacques' Redwall universe.  Hence, I reference other works in the series." -Ah, yes.  The infamous- but it's in other works therefore it must be in this one too!  Though some themes can reoccur in various works, do not assume it will exist in all.  Furthermore, your essay begins with specifically naming MTW as the book of discussion.  To alter this, where you have MTW, switch it up for "In the Redwall series by Brian Jacques," or "In the works of Brian Jacques," then introduce your points of argument.  At this point you can highlight those points specific to each book you want to reference them from.  For example... identify point A... blah blah blah, "as is evident in the novel MTW," or "as seen in MTW," or what have you.

3.  "If you mean to argue il n'y a pas hors de texte, then you've misunderstood Derrida.  The "texte" is everything: The world, ourselves--everything.  Hence, nothing can exist outside the text because the text includes everything already, and the outside world must be considered in understanding a work of art.  For example, Huckleberry Finn is a very different work when examined in light of the Civil War despite that war not ever having been mentioned therein.  To hold that no information except the markings on the pages matter, then, would be to deprive oneself of greater understanding.  But even outside of Deconstruction, the relevance of other works in a chronological series that employs stable moral constructs is intuitive." -Hahaha, no I simply meant- if you can't find a theme in the text your arguing, don't go looking for the theme in another one to make an argument about the work in question!  There you go, reading too much into things again   I am joking with you a bit here- sorry, I have a dry sense of humour- but I'm serious also.  Let me explain. 
We all want to think our ideas are profound and will stun the literary world with our brilliance.  We all as literary bugs want to think that we have found a tie, a clause, a message in a work that is so surreal that we will render the world silent with contemplation.  More often than not, this is not the case however.  I remember in my... oh 2nd or 3rd year of university, I did a study of James Joyce's "The Dead" and got completely hung up on the symbolism of the "snow" (of all things).  I thought I was the most insightful person in the room as I strapped on my imaginary super-lit's cloak and marched to the front of the class (of 150 peers) to give my analysis. HA.  Ya.  I should have just sat down, pulled the hood of that imaginary cloak over my head and cringed.  Oh I wasn't completely wrong, but I did get challenged by many fellow students on my thesis, and my own professor.  I managed to somehow scrape an A- out of the flop, but it was based purely on my other insightfulness (which was taken out of the text, point blank) and my argumentative and debating skills.  My professor at the time complimented me on my tenacity and faith I had in my ideas, but cautioned me on my over analysis and reading too far into something that was right there in front of my face.  I remember he pulled me aside and said that authors are not treasure maps or combination locks: They want you to find the meaning of the work.  They want you to see it from their prospective and they want you to understand the work from their point of view.  In other words- don't loose sight of the letters for the words.   Sorry a bit of random "history" lesson there, but I just trying to pass along his words of wisdom I suppose.
Anyways, back to our discussion.  Yes, you can read works from different points of view and extract different themes that relate to specific periods of time and reflect the eras in which they are written in.  Huckleberry Finn is an example of the Civil War, you are correct.  Tom Sawyer and The Scarlet Letter are examples of objectivity in post colonial America, "The Lady of Shallot" by Lord Tennyson is a reflection of the Industrial Revolution, the "Lost Generation" writers (Fitzgerald, Sinclair, Hemingway) relate to the traumas and silent cries for help and "loss" amongst post WWI/II victims, Tolkien reflects the world wars, CS Lewis the Bible (or rather need for resurgence of Christian morals in society), L'Morte D'Arthur (Malory) depicts the need for chivalry and reflects on the troubadour era, thus bridging the gap between the Medieval era and the Renaissance. (Can you tell you hit on my particular area of study? ) However, last I checked, Jacques was not writing under these circumstances.  An interesting argument could be made that he was in fact trying to usher in a form of chivalry and bring awareness to the idea of bravery, but that is an idea for another day.

4.  "But would that not be Martin's desire for revenge turning Rose--who had planned a stealthy rescue--to war?"- I suppose I will have to include this with that character deconstruction you want me to do of Rose...

5. "--Old people die all the time, both in Redwall Abbey and in Marshank. 
--Barkjohn was quite old, and one can't expect Badrang to keep everyone alive; however, these deaths are rounding error compared to the casualties of an assault.
--To the contrary, toward the end of Redwall, Cluny wanted to slay everybeast in Redwall Abbey.  And if it were true, then why on earth would Brian not want to reveal such a threat?  His heroes would be all the more heroic, and his villains all the more villainous."
- Now here we get into a bit of psychology.  From a young age, children are able to identify and accept death.  For them, it is simple. The person is gone, they are not coming back.  It is when they start asking "why" that death becomes complicated for them.  In society, war and illness are common grounds for death.  Their causes are understandable.  Run through with a sword- well, you died; got a fever no one could cure- your body couldn't fight anymore and died.  Those are plain cause/effect that children can relate to.  Now, coldhearted murder and death by slavery need explanations to justify the cause; explanations that Jacques I believe tried to avoid.  Yes he infers to these kinds of death through the series, but never addresses them head on.  But I digress again...
Back to your point, I think that to you are justified to say it would heighten the heroics, but in this specific work, MTW, I think it would detract from the novel- it is after all a love story at the heart of it.

6.  "Could you give me an overview so that I know what to look for?"- I'll have to go searching through my old notes for the names of the correct sources.  I admit it has been a while so I don't remember them.

7.  "Old slaves eat no more than new slaves, and they make additional slaves free of charge--in fact, letting them make more slaves makes them like you more and quiets unrest." -So... Badrang was starting a breeding program then?

8.  "Would you rather ##:1057 hundreds of miles through woodlands packed with creatures who want mount your head over their hearth, or go grocery shopping?" -Nope, online shopping.  Ebay has everything nowadays AND free shipping if you spend over a certain amount.  Sorry, I couldn't resist. 

9.  "If he doesn't need them, then he can always sell them to the highest bidder." - Good point.

10.  "My point was that slavery, though not a good life, was better than death.  Hence, the rest of my argument." -I doubt you will find slaves under these conditions who would view it as such.  Remember these are not colonial house slaves sweeping floors and mending sheets.  These are rock labourers.  Whipped and half starved.

[Romsca]

I'm not nearly this good at analyzing things...

Would it be to much to ask for someone to write an essay like these on Romsca?

Why is everyone so interested in Romsca?

-Duxwing

I think I'm the only one who's probably REALLY interested in Romsca (hence the username)

[Free Thought]

Sorry, was about to time out so had to sign back in...

Oh and Duxwing- how many points did you bring up?  

Alright what are we on now... 11?

11. "This is an important point of the discussion.  Can I at least hear your argument before we close it off?" -I'll deconstruct Rose's character at a later time.  Yep, I'm getting lazy- been typing for a long time now...

12.  "MTW is part of a canon and should be analyzed as such." -Then analyze the canon and use MTW to highlight examples of your themes.  Do not use MTW to highlight themes throughout the canon- and no, it's not the same thing!!!

13.  "So in other words, he thinks, "I love Rose, but I don't know how to tell her."?  Or does he think, "When I see Rose, my palms get clammy, my heart races, and I feel like warm marmalade is pouring through me.  By the claw, what's wrong with me!?"?" - Interesting point.  A bit of both actually.

14.  "Nobeast intended it to be an elegy, yes, but the fact that it foreshadows anything at all means that its interpretation needn't be anchored to a chronological context; consider how well it fit as an elegy for Rose in the TV series.  And if fits as an elegy for Rose, then her singing it mid-epic would therefore foreshadow her death." Ugh.  Don't bring up the bad stuff TV series they did of it.  They slaughtered the book.

15.  "I hardly intend to flame you.  You're quite friendly.  Smiley  But that version of the last line doesn't fit with the meter of the third stanza--unless it is a single refrain at the end." -You're right.  It doesn't.  It was meant as a standout phrase.  It breaks from the poem, which addresses the collective, and speaks to a direct person.  That is the phrase/line/sentence of Rose speaking directly to Martin.  That is the hope.  "Come back to Noonvale again."  Be the warrior, be the hero, but I, love, will be waiting.  Be brave, be courageous, be fearless, but come home to peace again."  I'll say more when I deconstruct the poem at a later date.

16.  "Actually, I keep an English translation of the Illiad by my bedside and was reading it just a few nights ago.  Here's a passage whose bathos I found quite funny:

And Hera said to the father of men and gods,
"Dread Lord, how can you not be angry at Ares
for killing so many noble Achaean soldiers--
a brutal, indecent slaughter; it breaks my heart--
while Apollo and Aphrodite look down at the fighting,
happy that they have let this manaic loose?"

Just in case you think I'm bluffing, the ISBN is 978-1-4391-6337-5, the translator is Stephen Mitchell, and the passage is located on lines 687 to 692 of Book 5, Page 89.  If you find this passage on the "Look Inside!" of this book's Amazon profile, then just ask me for another passage from a section not featured and compare it to that found in your own copy of the Illiad."

Ah, yes.  Hera highlighting that humans were the playthings of the Gods.  The important thing dear Duxwing is how you relate this passage to MTW, not that you have a copy of "The Iliad" or can pull a quote from it or figure out the translator.  How does this passage, which gives a plethora of Greek God family dynamics and myths, relate to the text in question?  That is what you must strive to extract.

17.  "Helen's is the face that could launch a thousand ships; Achilles is there 'for her' just like every other Danaan.  And if Achilles loves war--which he does--then Martin is hardly a good comparison to him.  Though he is driven by rage, Felldoh relishes the sight of every slain stoat, rammed rat, and vanquished vermin that he sees.  Martin isn't nearly so bloodthirsty." - Ah good. You know your Marlowe.  He was a better playwright than Shakespeare anyway.  Yes.  Helen was the face that launched a thousand ships, but Achilles was not there for her, as you put it.  Achilles was there as an Achaean soldier under the command of Agamemnon who took to sail to help win his brother Menelaus' wife back out of brotherhood and the oath sworn to all Helen's failed suitors that should she become to danger, they would all go to her aid.  As for Felldoh, he is bloodthirstier (is that even a proper word?) than Martin at that point, but one could argue Martin might have reacted in the same way had he been in the situation.

18.  "But Hector was trapped, the beaches by his city bristling with spears like the back of a porcupine bristles with quills.  Felldoh could have just left." -And Hector could have grabbed Helen and dragged her back to her real husband by her hair.  I'm actually surprised after ten years of warfare no one did. But that's a different argument all it's own.

19.  "Don't you remember the beginning of the story, wherein Martin screams "Badrang!  I will destroy you, Badrang!"?  Martin may turn to goodness throughout the story, but at the beginning he just wants Badrang's head and his father's sword." -Yes, and by destroying Badrang, would that not be abolishing his slavery?

20.  Okay this has to be it because I can't type anymore; like literary and figuratively.  My brain is mush and my laptop has no battery left!  

Soooo, everyone has heard Duxwing and I go at it for a bit on the subject.  Anyone else have any thoughts???  There's gotta be a person out there dying to jump in on this....

[Shadowed One]

WOW. HOW DO YOU DO ALL THESE ARGUMENTS? AND HOW DID THE SUBJECT JUST BECOME THE ILIAD?

[Duxwing]

I dunno.  You're the one who said, and I quote... "Musn't assert that he meant it.  Literary Criticism 101."

Which was in response to your saying that I musn't look for authorial intent.

Ah, yes.  The infamous- but it's in other works therefore it must be in this one too!  Though some themes can reoccur in various works, do not assume it will exist in all. 

Yes, certainly, not every book will cover every theme.  Nevertheless, do you mean to say that the ethical standards to which we hold the "goodies" of each story ought to be rederived each time?  Just imagine, for a moment, the humor in seeing Jacques fundamentally altering his series with each book; he doesn't, of course.  Slavers are still baddies, Redwall is a place of good creatures, etc.  If you really want to tangle with logic, then we can say that gravity doesn't exist in Redwall because it isn't explicitly mentioned, and things just 'happen' to fall down.

Furthermore, your essay begins with specifically naming MTW as the book of discussion.  To alter this, where you have MTW, switch it up for "In the Redwall series by Brian Jacques," or "In the works of Brian Jacques," then introduce your points of argument.  At this point you can highlight those points specific to each book you want to reference them from.  For example... identify point A... blah blah blah, "as is evident in the novel MTW," or "as seen in MTW," or what have you

You're right.  I should have included those.

Hahaha, no I simply meant- if you can't find a theme in the text your arguing, don't go looking for the theme in another one to make an argument about the work in question!  There you go, reading too much into things again   I am joking with you a bit here- sorry, I have a dry sense of humour- but I'm serious also.  Let me explain.

And why not?  Ignoring the other works would be like ignoring Darth Vader's past life as Anakin Skywalker when watching the first three Star Wars movies: a blunder.

We all want to think our ideas are profound and will stun the literary world with our brilliance.  We all as literary bugs want to think that we have found a tie, a clause, a message in a work that is so surreal that we will render the world silent with contemplation.  More often than not, this is not the case however.  I remember in my... oh 2nd or 3rd year of university, I did a study of James Joyce's "The Dead" and got completely hung up on the symbolism of the "snow" (of all things).  I thought I was the most insightful person in the room as I strapped on my imaginary super-lit's cloak and marched to the front of the class (of 150 peers) to give my analysis. HA.  Ya.  I should have just sat down, pulled the hood of that imaginary cloak over my head and cringed.  Oh I wasn't completely wrong, but I did get challenged by many fellow students on my thesis, and my own professor.  I managed to somehow scrape an A- out of the flop, but it was based purely on my other insightfulness (which was taken out of the text, point blank) and my argumentative and debating skills.  My professor at the time complimented me on my tenacity and faith I had in my ideas, but cautioned me on my over analysis and reading too far into something that was right there in front of my face.  I remember he pulled me aside and said that authors are not treasure maps or combination locks: They want you to find the meaning of the work.  They want you to see it from their prospective and they want you to understand the work from their point of view.  In other words- don't loose sight of the letters for the words.   Sorry a bit of random "history" lesson there, but I just trying to pass along his words of wisdom I suppose.

Danke, Dr. Freud.  Though your advice rings true, I (luckily) felt nothing of the sort as I wrote my review.

Anyways, back to our discussion.  Yes, you can read works from different points of view and extract different themes that relate to specific periods of time and reflect the eras in which they are written in.  Huckleberry Finn is an example of the Civil War, you are correct.  Tom Sawyer and The Scarlet Letter are examples of objectivity in post colonial America, "The Lady of Shallot" by Lord Tennyson is a reflection of the Industrial Revolution, the "Lost Generation" writers (Fitzgerald, Sinclair, Hemingway) relate to the traumas and silent cries for help and "loss" amongst post WWI/II victims, Tolkien reflects the world wars, CS Lewis the Bible (or rather need for resurgence of Christian morals in society), L'Morte D'Arthur (Malory) depicts the need for chivalry and reflects on the troubadour era, thus bridging the gap between the Medieval era and the Renaissance. (Can you tell you hit on my particular area of study? ) However, last I checked, Jacques was not writing under these circumstances.  An interesting argument could be made that he was in fact trying to usher in a form of chivalry and bring awareness to the idea of bravery, but that is an idea for another day.

But is history alone in being allowed in analysis, yet separate from the text?  Surely a series should be evaluated as such.

I suppose I will have to include this with that character deconstruction you want me to do of Rose...

*raises an eyebrow* Hmm?

Now here we get into a bit of psychology.  From a young age, children are able to identify and accept death.  For them, it is simple. The person is gone, they are not coming back.  It is when they start asking "why" that death becomes complicated for them. 

Perhaps asking why isn't such a good idea, then.  After all, meaning is a human construct.

In society, war and illness are common grounds for death.  Their causes are understandable.  Run through with a sword- well, you died; got a fever no one could cure- your body couldn't fight anymore and died.  Those are plain cause/effect that children can relate to.  Now, coldhearted murder and death by slavery need explanations to justify the cause; explanations that Jacques I believe tried to avoid.  Yes he infers to these kinds of death through the series, but never addresses them head on.  But I digress again...

To the contrary, in Redwall Cluny bellows his intention to slay every beast in the titular Abbey.  How much more explicit could Jacques have been?

Back to your point, I think that to you are justified to say it would heighten the heroics, but in this specific work, MTW, I think it would detract from the novel- it is after all a love story at the heart of it.

A love story cut short by violence that couldn't be justified under the morality laid upon Jacques' 'goodies'; hence, I suspect, Rose's death and Martin's grief.

I'll have to go searching through my old notes for the names of the correct sources.  I admit it has been a while so I don't remember them.

Many seasons good fortune to the one who digs them up!

i]So... Badrang was starting a breeding program then?

Nope, he just had to let the slaves raise families, just like slaveowners in the American south did.

Nope, online shopping.  Ebay has everything nowadays AND free shipping if you spend over a certain amount.  Sorry, I couldn't resist. 

Hehehehehe!  See?  Badrang would have been a fool to kill all his slaves.

Good point.

See above.

I doubt you will find slaves under these conditions who would view it as such.  Remember these are not colonial house slaves sweeping floors and mending sheets.  These are rock labourers.  Whipped and half starved.

Were they actually referred to as half-starved?  I do recall that one beast—oh, seasons, his name escapes me—who betrayed the slave revolt in Marshank wolfing down the food that the slavers gave him, but I don't recall the slaves having been described as underfed.  Feeding one's slaves well is in one's interest because the exercise of rock breaking, when supported by adequate nutrition, causes muscles to grow in strength.  Strong slaves do more work faster and longer than weak ones.  However, one must take care not to let one's slaves grow too strong... Hmph!  Quite a riddle!

-Duxwing

[Duxwing]

Sorry, was about to time out so had to sign back in...

Oh and Duxwing- how many points did you bring up?  

Discussions meander like streams in a valley.

(see what I did there?  )

I'll deconstruct Rose's character at a later time.  Yep, I'm getting lazy- been typing for a long time now...

OK

Then analyze the canon and use MTW to highlight examples of your themes.  Do not use MTW to highlight themes throughout the canon- and no, it's not the same thing!!!

Such bad logic on my part. 

Interesting point.  A bit of both actually.

Oi, we're in the thick of the woods now, aren't we?

Ugh.  Don't bring up the bad stuff TV series they did of it.  They slaughtered the book.

But guess what, if you saw Rose's song being used as an elegy, then you watched the entire thing.    Nevertheless, you may not like the series, but that doesn't make its use of Rose's song as an elegy any less fitting.

You're right.  It doesn't.  It was meant as a standout phrase.  It breaks from the poem, which addresses the collective, and speaks to a direct person.  That is the phrase/line/sentence of Rose speaking directly to Martin.  That is the hope.  "Come back to Noonvale again."  Be the warrior, be the hero, but I, love, will be waiting.  Be brave, be courageous, be fearless, but come home to peace again."  I'll say more when I deconstruct the poem at a later date.

She won't be waiting for squat, though: Rose dies in battle.  And this irony brings me back to my thesis of Rose getting entangled in Martin's quest.

Ah, yes.  Hera highlighting that humans were the playthings of the Gods.

Color me uncultured, but I just found Hera's use of the word "maniac" in the context of inter-deity conversation very funny.  Nevertheless, your point stands, too.

The important thing dear Duxwing is how you relate this passage to MTW, not that you have a copy of "The Iliad" or can pull a quote from it or figure out the translator. How does this passage, which gives a plethora of Greek God family dynamics and myths, relate to the text in question?  That is what you must strive to extract.

I have no idea how that quote relates to MTW; I just opened my book and copied it in to prove that I wasn't reasoning from Coles Notes (what are Coles Notes?) but from (almost) source text.

Ah good. You know your Marlowe.

Unfortunately, I just happened to remember that line from somewhere.  I had no idea who Marlowe was until you told me that he was a playwright. 

He was a better playwright than Shakespeare anyway.

The bard is burned critic nigh! 

Yes.  Helen was the face that launched a thousand ships, but Achilles was not there for her, as you put it.  Achilles was there as an Achaean soldier under the command of Agamemnon who took to sail to help win his brother Menelaus' wife back out of brotherhood and the oath sworn to all Helen's failed suitors that should she become to danger, they would all go to her aid.

I think that Achilles would have fallen for Helen's beauty had he been around her long enough.

As for Felldoh, he is bloodthirstier (is that even a proper word?) than Martin at that point, but one could argue Martin might have reacted in the same way had he been in the situation.

My memory is foggy here.  Felldoh is ticked off about something specific, and I just can't remember it.  Nevertheless, unlike Felldoh, Martin is not consumed by his rage: note the difference in the way that they treat the fallen.  Felldoh tries to use the deaths of his brothers and sisters in arms to rile the others up, while Martin does not use the dead as political instruments.

And Hector could have grabbed Helen and dragged her back to her real husband by her hair.  I'm actually surprised after ten years of warfare no one did. But that's a different argument all it's own.

Assuming that some overly eager Achaean archer did not slay him on the way.  Ten years of warfare also spills oceans of blood, much of it bad.

Yes, and by destroying Badrang, would that not be abolishing his slavery?

Rose had to convince him that ending Badrang's slavery was a good goal.  Taken fresh out of Marshank, Martin wanted Badrang's head as a mantlepiece.

Okay this has to be it because I can't type anymore; like literary and figuratively.  My brain is mush and my laptop has no battery left!  

Aw.    *hands Free Thought a cup of Mint Tea spiked with hotroot* This ought to wake you up.

Soooo, everyone has heard Duxwing and I go at it for a bit on the subject.  Anyone else have any thoughts???  There's gotta be a person out there dying to jump in on this....

To put your request in the language of our oft-quoted Iliad:

Are we to wage this war of words alone?
What hardy spearmen stands--sturdy shield
and shining helmet of bronze upon him--
ready to take up a side?  Where are the shining
points of Achaea, the towering heroes of Thebes?
Gone like dogs thumped by their masters,
tails between their scraggy legs; whimpering
of a bone they'd like to chew.



-Duxwing

[Duxwing]

*thumps his shield with his spear*

Hooargh! Coom on, ye meadahcream marms!  Hooargh!  Coom to ee deathmoler! 

-Duxwing

[CrazyPug37]

*thumps his shield with his spear*

Hooargh! Coom on, ye meadahcream marms!  Hooargh!  Coom to ee deathmoler! 

-Duxwing

Sounds like a certain Axtel Sturmclaw from The Sable Quean.

[Duxwing]

Sounds like a certain Axtel Sturmclaw from The Sable Quean.

You understood the reference!  Yay!  And have you ever thought about how "Deathmoler" sounds like "Deathmauler"?  Pretty intimidating. 

-Duxwing

[AbbotPlumble]

"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."

According to St. Augustine of Hippo, tyranny is certainly a reason for a just war.  Badrang was indeed a tyrant.  It is also fair to point out that even if the slaves have some meager pleasure as you say, that does not make the war unjust.  Slavery in itself has become cause for a just war.  We have to remember than throughout certain periods of history slavery was commonplace....but we have come far as humans and now know that slavery is without a doubt wrong and unjust.

Martin, I see as a hero and not an anti-hero.  He is himself a freed slave and on a quest to free other slaves.  Badrang is an exemplar of evil who has his father's sword and oppresses the goodbeasts.  Martin declaring to defeat Badrang with his battle cry is not a selfish declaration but a statement that good will triumph over evil.

As pointed out by others, Jacques did not have hidden philosophical messages.  He was quite clear in the statement of hero and villain.  Just as he was a Catholic and you can certainly see the influence, but he stated that he kept religion out of his books.  Hence, why the abbey is just a building of good beasts and not an abbey in the traditional sense and abbots and abbesses are just titles without any religious significance within the books.

[rachel25]

WOW!