The Predictability of the Redwall "Formula"

[DanielofRedwall]

One thing I was thinking about recently was just how predictable the "formula" for the "Redwall" series grew to be, especially in the later novels. When you think about it, much of these novels were pretty much the same story but with different characters- there's a central hero/heroine, a warlord attacking the abbey, some sort of a quest, a series of riddles leading to some sort of discovery etc. Also, there's a definite black-and-white factor when it comes to the "good" and "bad" species, and very few characters break this mould or fit into a "grey" area. When I think about it, this is probably the main reason I favour early novels such as Mossflower and Martin the Warrior; because this whole structure hadn't been as established and set in stone, the novels were much more dynamic and interesting.

That's not to say the later novels were completely awful or without their charms, or even that they were all exactly the same. I never actively disliked any of the books at all, I just found the earlier novels of the series more interesting in general. Also, I think Brian still went out of his way to introduce certain aspects to set each novel apart- for example, the raven warlord in Doomwyte or the land-ship in The Rogue Crew. However, more often than not, the novels were very predictable and stuck closely to set troupes, which is perhaps why I wasn't as interested in books like The Sable Quean or Loamhedge. I found the whole formula quite limiting and thought that if Brian just shook things up a bit more the results would be far more engaging.

However, I know a lot of people didn't find this sort of thing frustrating at all, and think this "formula" is what makes the "Redwall" books, well, "Redwall" books. So, what are your thoughts on this? Did you also find this frustrating, or were you not bothered about it? Do you think it actually made the series better? What could Brian Jacques have done differently to "shake things up" a bit in later novels while still keeping them a quintessential "Redwall" novel?

(Also, I remember a topic James Gryphon posted with some ideas for a fan fiction that was purposefully meant to break this "mould", I found that quite interesting.)

[The Skarzs]

I have been looking for a proper thread to post a thought on this for a bit, actually. Perfect opportunity.

  I did find those later books to be repetitive and rather black-and-white for what I prefer writing in, but I did still enjoy them. Now, what I think may have been part of that cause was what Mr. Jacques said himself: He would not read a book of the same genre because he did not want to get ideas from them. Yes, that is, in a way, a very commendable writing choice, but by that same reasoning, very few new ideas may come at all! Not to be demeaning or anything, but I guess the saying "can't teach an old dog new tricks" is slightly relevant here. Grasping new ideas and using them are hard, as I have witnessed when trying to tell older folks about blacksmithing processes (quite frustrating, they're very stubborn sometimes).
  I myself have read many different books: Watership Down, the Redwall series, Lord of the Rings, Percy Jackson and the Olympians, web comics, extensive research into ancient history, Kingdom of Landover series and some of the same author's Shanarra series, etc. While I do get some ideas from them, the sheer amount of books I have read almost doesn't allow me to "steal" their story. Yes, there are aspects of some books in my writing, but they are clearly different from the inspirational material.

[Maudie]

My siblings and I were just talking about this a couple days ago. (Well, I was talking and they weren't really listening...)

I really just realized this last week! I'm sure my subconscious brain knew it long before that, but my conscious brain is kind of slow on the uptake.

I think that when we read them as children, we usually don't realize that they've all got the same basic plot. This may be because Brian took the time to build up a different setting for each book, or it may be because as children we aren't worried about the fine points of writing. (Honestly, I didn't know there was punctuation other than periods until I was 8 or 9.)

I do find the later the books (Doomwyte, Sable Quean, Rogue Crew) more simplistic than the other books. Also, when I think of what books are most like other books, those three come to mind as being very similar to each other. They all share the same theme.

Haha! I think I've hit upon it! what sets most of the books apart, what makes them feel different from the others is that many of them do not have the same theme. Do you agree? Or do you think it's something else?

To be honest, that's just a random idea I caught and it may or may not be so. It takes me a bit of thinking before I can find the theme of a book, so it's really just an idea right now.

[DanielofRedwall]

Haha! I think I've hit upon it! what sets most of the books apart, what makes them feel different from the others is that many of them do not have the same theme. Do you agree? Or do you think it's something else?

Hmmm. Interesting. This thought definitely has some grounds to it, but I'm not quite sure it hits the mark. I find most of the "Redwall" books tend to explore pretty much the same themes (good triumphing over evil, heroism and the "packages" it comes in etc.). Honestly, apart from these major themes that he obviously meant to communicate, I believe Brian wasn't so much trying to make any big thematic statements in his novels rather than just tell good stories. I think this is probably where little things that can bug readers creep in; the simplistic view of morality, for example, isn't meant as a statement but just for the sake of a good, generally uplifting story. I could be wrong here, of course,  but I think I vaguely remember something in the Ask Brian things that hinted at this...

I think the thing that generally sets each one apart are the few little "tweaks" to the formula Brian added here and there, such as the ones mentioned in the original post. That's perhaps what was the main reason for this frustration- those small tweaks aren't quite enough to satisfy me. All that said, I definitely enjoyed all the books when I read them years ago, these issues are just more things I've picked up on in hindsight as I've grown older and, hopefully, matured and grown more analytical.

[Wylder Treejumper]

Yes, it is true that the books were somewhat formulaic. Of course, this is not unique to Brian Jacques in any case- ever read Jane Austin? Basic formula can be found in most authors, genres, literature time-periods, etc. Brian's formula was an imitation of your standard epic. However, while I noticed it, it never greatly displeased me except in his poorer novels (most notably Loamhedge). I found that the characters, settings, and sequence of events were different enough to satisfy my tastes. Because of Brian's immense skill as a story-teller, his ability to create in-depth immersion in the story world,  and his memorable characters, I did not feel the formula was detrimental. To a less proficient author, it would have been a death knell- but Brian pulled off his stories with such flair that the "sameness" of overarching plot never dominated the story.

[Jukka the Sling]

I do think that some of the later books were kind of within tried-and-true boundaries, without anything really wild or unexpected (though Razzid's land-ship might count).  I'm actually rereading Outcast right now, and surprisingly (because I thought I'd kind of burnt myself out on Redwall), it's more interesting than I expected.  Maybe that's the problem with the later books; they're all centered around the Abbey and Salamandastron, with the hero(es) from one or both of those places, instead of branching out and trying something a bit different.

[Matthias720]

I think the "formula" is one of the series' strong suits. Some young readers may be a bit freaked out by the violence of the good vs. evil battles that crop up in each book. By having a formula, those young readers can take some comfort in knowing that the good guys will always win. However, for older readers, who may try to figure out how the story will play out, the expectation of the formula can lead wonderfully to moments where your theories of "the plot twist comes here" or "this character will probably die" are turned on their heads by an unexpected change in the formula.

[LordTBT]

there's a central hero/heroine, a warlord attacking the abbey, some sort of a quest, a series of riddles leading to some sort of discovery etc.

Is this not why we read the novels? Because that's what we want?

If you don't want Redwall Abbey residents defending themselves against a villain, while a young hero takes on the baddie  while others solve riddles, you're reading the wrong book series.

The books definitively are not recycled plots with different characters. Anyone who believes that would have stopped reading new books.

[Jewel Thief]

there's a central hero/heroine, a warlord attacking the abbey, some sort of a quest, a series of riddles leading to some sort of discovery etc.

Is this not why we read the novels? Because that's what we want?

If you don't want Redwall Abbey residents defending themselves against a villain, while a young hero takes on the baddie  while others solve riddles, you're reading the wrong book series.

The books definitively are not recycled plots with different characters. Anyone who believes that would have stopped reading new books.

To quote a series that is in itself also an epic, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes".
I know that I myself have recognized certain plots that might be described as "recycled" long before I got my hands on the later books, and yet I've read them all and enjoy each one.
Despite wishing they had a little something more, Redwall shall remain to be one of my favorite book series of all time.

[The Skarzs]

To quote a series that is in itself also an epic, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes".

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
"Hold on, what?"
"I said, 'Only a-'"
"No, I know what you said. 'Only a Sith deals in absolutes.' That is an absolute. So by your reasoning you must be a Sith."
". . . ? . . . !"
"Heck, I must be a Sith because I think that's absolutely idiotic."

Sorry.
A recipe like the one used in these books must be used carefully; otherwise it will not be read. However, the Redwall books were written well enough and given enough diversity, however predictable they may be, that they are enjoyable.

[Lutra]

As we got more and more books, I was less a fan of the predictability of the "Redwall formula" as its known.  You could almost predict who would be dead by the end of the novel once you got through the first four chapters and figured out all the main characters.  The journey to each death was slightly different, but it did get dull if you knew the ending before you got very far, and that's one reason there's a good many Redwall books I've still yet to read, and may never read them.  The closest to throwing surprises was the very last book - The Rogue Crew.  I had no clue we were going to lose poor Swiffo. 

I felt that Mr. Jacques was considering maybe changing things up earlier on when he came out with Veil Sixclaw or the Taggerung, or the evil voles (forgot the book they were in).  Disappointed he didn't try to work with these plotlines more often to make things more...unpredictable.