Something to consider that I hope seemed odd to more than just me.

[Ashleg]

Does anybody else find it unnerving/slightly off that Woodlanders, the good guys, don't seem to even be the tiniest bit upset when they kill a vermin, with the exception of Brome, Abbots, and a couple others in-between? (I'm talking about post-Mattimeo, here.)
The "Oh, but they're in battle, blah..." thing doesn't really cut it when it all boils down.
Even when they aren't fighting, the Woodlanders have this attitude of "But they're just vermin!"

And it seems like an unfitting trait for some of these guys because they're so friendly throughout the majority of the book. I understand that the warrior characters (Martin, Ranguvar, bloodwrathy Badger Lords, similar.) would be like this because that's how they are, but for it to be pretty much all of the good guys?

Maybe I'm being too specific.
What I'm trying to say is, Woodlanders don't give a flying cow when they kill somebeast.
In other books I've read, a good character usually has this "You don't need to kill to win a battle" outlook and will only do it if it's absolutely neccecary. And then, when it does happen, they're shocked/phased by it.
When the Woodlanders don't care it always seems to make them less real to me.
And the only reason I'm not picking on vermin about this is that they're the bad guys.
But if I was, you'd notice that "normal" vermin, not the horde leaders or the super bad ones, will be kind of shocked/scared when they kill somebeast. Or in some situations, happy. But there's still an emotional reaction there whereas the Woodlanders seem completely poker-faced.

There was even an incident in Taggerung where a shrew or at least, what I think was a shrew. I forget his name. killed a stoat that Tagg had taken as an unarmed prisoner.
Talk about contradiction! I thought they were against that?

I just...I don't know...did any of you ever think about this?

[Gonff the Mousethief]

Well, sometimes it can come from either the Vermin attacking the Abbey or attempting to and the Woodlanders track them down. Then, they know they are on a mission and killing is the way to complete it. However, all of the Redwallers know that vermin are bad from either being taught that or listening to account form a Skipper for example. Shrews for instance live in the wild and have to survive, so they adapt techniques, and they gotta know how to kill and fend off attackers. Long Patrol Hares are pretty self-explanatory.

In all, My guess is that they just know that vermin are dangerous and something that can harm them, and just knocking them out won't do the trick. Plus, if they kill someone they love earlier on, then they would really want to kill them (Take in Pearls of Lutra when the dormouse burned the Church down when some crows murdered the kid). But, maybe the Woddlanders are really just nicer vermin. Who knows?

[Ashleg]

Well, sometimes it can come from either the Vermin attacking the Abbey or attempting to and the Woodlanders track them down. Then, they know they are on a mission and killing is the way to complete it. However, all of the Redwallers know that vermin are bad from either being taught that or listening to account form a Skipper for example. Shrews for instance live in the wild and have to survive, so they adapt techniques, and they gotta know how to kill and fend off attackers. Long Patrol Hares are pretty self-explanatory.

In all, My guess is that they just know that vermin are dangerous and something that can harm them, and just knocking them out won't do the trick. Plus, if they kill someone they love earlier on, then they would really want to kill them (Take in Pearls of Lutra when the dormouse burned the Church down when some crows murdered the kid). But, maybe the Woddlanders are really just nicer vermin. Who knows?

In some places this is completely correct.
But wouldn't any emotionally healthy person be at least a *tiiiny* bit disturbed they just killed a guy?
Most heroes would only go that far if they absolutely needed to.
Or maybe not even, but at least they'd have emotion.
Some of these guys are so stoic about it and then once whoever it is is dead it's like nothing happened.


Everyone needs lessons from the Abbots and Brome, seriously.

[The Skarzs]

It's one thing that has rubbed me wrong in the books after I started to reread the books. Before, I always thought "Well, they're the bad guys!", but after I was about thirteen or fourteen, I started thinking. . . There is little to justify the woodlanders' unprovoked hostility. Of course, it doesn't help that the vermin are all, with very few exceptions, bad. It's something you just need to take with the books.

One such case very recently was when I was reading Salamandastron, and Arula the mole was talking about Thura and Dingeye, saying "Yurr, they'm were bad 'uns" (or to that effect), despite the only "bad" thing they did at Redwall was an accident. Not sure how she came to that conclusion when there was only one bad thing they did; the rest they did was just silly stuff and harmless.

[Ashleg]

If Dingeye and Thura were squirrels and the same thing happened, she'd say, "It was an accident so I forgive them. They didn't mean it!" 

You're so right.
It's actually fine with me that pretty much all vermin are villains, I like it actually, but it bothers me that sometimes the Woodlanders seem like the true villains in contrast.
And it becomes more like this the later in the series you go.
I still love the books nonetheless, it's just an interesting subject.

[James Gryphon]

Does anybody else find it unnerving/slightly off that Woodlanders, the good guys, don't seem to even be the tiniest bit upset when they kill a vermin... but for it to be pretty much all of the good guys?

From what I remember, "pretty much all of the good guys", or the majority of them that fight, are warrior-types. Otters, shrews and hares all fit into this category. Many squirrels have a martial background as well. In fact, the main beasts I can really think of off the top of my head that aren't like this are inhabitants of Redwall (or Noonvalers). Even so, there are several cases where Mr. Jacques goes into great detail showing some of these protagonists' first reaction to a kill. Tammo is the first one that comes to mind; after that, Flib, from Sable Quean.

And as far as Redwallers go, claiming that they never get shocked or have any feeling related to their kills is simply incorrect. There's at least two of them in the series (I'm hard-pressed for names right now) that break down, talk to the deceased's bodies, and flee the battlefield. It's not at all infrequent, either, for one to have to be given the 'fighting to defend our friends and family' speech from some hardened vet when they're first getting started.

I think this is an issue that's blown out of proportion and taken out of context, and saying that the protagonists 'seem the true villains in contrast' is over the top.

and Arula the mole was talking about Thura and Dingeye, saying "Yurr, they'm were bad 'uns" (or to that effect), despite the only "bad" thing they did at Redwall was an accident.

From what I remember, nobody saw what happened except for the stoats. So, the Redwallers had no way of knowing that it was an accident. They gave Samkim the benefit of the doubt since he had grown up there, but I think it's a definite stretch to assume they would do the same for any random woodland creature that drops in. The Grumpy Watervole, for instance, didn't get that kind of a treatment.

Maybe they judged the stoats a little harshly, but put yourself in their shoes... you invite a scruffy-looking stranger off the streets over to stay the night at your house. A family member or friend happens to be out in the backyard target-shooting with a gun. When you wake up in the morning, someone in your family is lying dead in the backyard with a bullet hole in their chest, the stranger is gone, and the gun and several valuables are missing.

What are you going to think? If you claim that your first thought would be "it was an accident", you're lying.

[Jetthebinturong]

Dingeye and Thura didn't steal anything except some scones.

Anyway, yes this is one of the many things that bothers me about Redwall. It doesn't seem odd per se, it's just downright unrealistic. If you think someone attacked you and you killed them in self defense, you wouldn't react, you're either wrong or a sociopath. No matter where you come from or what your background is (Redwaller, shrew, Long Patrol hare) you're going to have some kind of reaction - most realistically a mental breakdown - after at least your first kill.

To counter James' point, miscellaneous background characters don't matter. We want to see reactions from the stone-faced protagonists. 

[James Gryphon]

Dingeye and Thura didn't steal anything except some scones.

They stole Martin's sword.

To counter James' point, miscellaneous background characters don't matter. We want to see reactions from the stone-faced protagonists.

Tammo was the lead protagonist, and Flib was in the second tier of main characters -- not as much time as Buckler or his sidekick, maybe, but as much as anyone else. Besides, the main characters you mention are frequently the warrior types, who've done it for some time.

If y'all like, I can go through my Redwall book collection, skipping Redwall and Mossflower since Ash said "post-Mattimeo", pick out every time a protagonist is depicted as killing somebody, and categorize it. That would help give us some information about whether this is the case or not. My collection doesn't include every book, but if this trend is as widespread as some claim, it should be possible to pick some out at random and still find it at work.

[LT Sandpaw]

Does anybody else find it unnerving/slightly off that Woodlanders, the good guys, don't seem to even be the tiniest bit upset when they kill a vermin.

There is an explanation. And it comes from studying just how soldiers feel while fighting, you see there is a wild joy in destruction, the wicked power that you have to kill, and when that adrenaline rush kicks in most soldiers don't feel when they fight, they just act, and for the most part there is no compassion or overall concern for others, just excitement and survival instincts.

A pilot who fought in Vietnam once said something along the lines of, "I would napalm entire villages, burning huge portions of the jungle. I never regretted it, I loved it."

I think a great example of this delayed shock happens in Rakkety Tam during the crow scene when the LP rush through a pine grove. Following their exit from the trees all the young hares begin bragging about their accomplishments, and Tam along with one of the hare officers mention that in a while all the young recruits would cry themselves to sleep in remembrance of what happened.

In the same book there was another great example when a hedgehog smashes some vermin's head in, and the shock is very fast in coming. He sits down beside it and starts apologizing.

So yes there are some strange instances where characters seem very unaffected by killing vermin, the otter sue from High Rhulain comes to mind, but for the most part, I think that the shock of killing comes slowly, and that is why it seems that the woodlanders aren't overly affected by it, at least not a first.

[The Skarzs]

Some of that also has to do with HOW the fight went on. A lot of the fights that Redwallers went through were from the wall top, shooting down at indistinct figures mostly in the ditch. Close-quarters combat is different on the mind than ranged combat. The danger is different, the fighting style is different. You can't see faces or give identity to just one more body in the masses. If you see a body that you killed, who was just alive a moment before, and see what you did, there will be a reaction as you feel a connection.
It's like going through a crowd and seeing some people get on a bus; you didn't know any of them, but if you hear that the bus was in an accident and the passengers died, while you will be saddened to hear of deaths, you aren't likely going to feel much because you didn't know them and only saw them for a short time. However, if you are in the bus, and the person you were just talking to dies, THEN you will feel something, because that close contact will create an identity of that person in your mind, and suddenly they aren't alive any more.

From what I remember, nobody saw what happened except for the stoats. So, the Redwallers had no way of knowing that it was an accident. They gave Samkim the benefit of the doubt since he had grown up there, but I think it's a definite stretch to assume they would do the same for any random woodland creature that drops in. The Grumpy Watervole, for instance, didn't get that kind of a treatment.

Maybe they judged the stoats a little harshly, but put yourself in their shoes... you invite a scruffy-looking stranger off the streets over to stay the night at your house. A family member or friend happens to be out in the backyard target-shooting with a gun. When you wake up in the morning, someone in your family is lying dead in the backyard with a bullet hole in their chest, the stranger is gone, and the gun and several valuables are missing.

I thought I had mentioned something about that.

Yeah, I do agree that they had no idea of knowing, and evidence suggests that they did do the deed, but, using Jet's words, it seems unrealistic to call them all-out "bad beasts". I will agree that the deceased was a close friend to all, so that would affect their judgement, and the vermin were foolish enough to take something as important as Martin's sword. Despite this, the only word I can use to describe the pair is "Fools", but not "bad ones". Because fools are what they were.

[Ashleg]

What about Veil?
He attempts and fails to poison somebody, and Bryony still believes he's good although in that moment, he was determined to be anything *but* good.
Not to mention that they labeled him as evil while he was a baby.

Then, later, in a fight with his dad, he does a heel-face-turn and dies for her.
And she goes home and tells everybody that "Veil was truly evil".
What?!
And nobeast back at the Abbey seemed too upset that this kid/teenager/(whatever Veil was) that they raised since he was an infant just died. It's not an instance of Woodlanders killing somebeast in a fight, but still, they hardly care.

As for what James said...
Yeah.
There are quite a few that seem surprised after their first time--and whenever that happens I'm probably sitting there looking like this: :'D
But after that?
They seem unaffected.

Even the Warriors, excluding Bloodwrathy ones, should have some kind of guilt, right? Because they get all upset when vermin kill their friends, but flip the tables and it doesn't matter.

[LT Sandpaw]

 
Well, we did see what segregation, discrimination, lies and propaganda could do rather awfully here in the US. People had it really ingrained in their minds that blacks weren't real people, and would easily kill them, allow them to suffer, and not give a, what was it you said, a flying cow, about them.

Just look at the Jim Crow laws, that stuff was horrible. Good, respectable people came up with that sort of stuff, simply because they had been taught from birth that blacks were lesser beings.

So if segregation and race discrimination was potentially allowed to go on long enough then the woodlanders, so called goodbeasts, might not even consider the vermin type real animals with real lives, and *Cheesy moment* real feelings.

I mean they even call them vermin. That's an almost blatant Redwall version of the 'N' word.

So maybe Woodlanders have a messed up view of vermin, and I gotta say, vermin never really helped their case very much with all the attacks and villainy they do.

[Ashleg]

I bet they do it just to spite them. ):3

[Wylder Treejumper]

I've always had a bit of trouble with this one. It's not exactly surprising or even really bad that woodlanders "discriminate" against vermin. Vermin have an overwhelmingly poor record in their favor; they are almost completely the aggressors in all interactions. Furthermore, while the woodlanders often kill vermin, it is almost entirely due to actions taken by the vermin against the woodlanders. So far as I can recall, there is nowhere in the books where a woodlander meets a vermin and kills them outright with no provocation. In addition, there are many instances where in my view the vermin should have been killed but were allowed to go free (Wicky and Burgog from Triss come to mind).

In the great majority of circumstances, vermin do nothing other than raid, pillage, plunder, and kill. Furthermore, most of them don't show "real emotions" other than fear or anger and occasionally loyalty (Notable exceptions in Triss and a few other books, however) and even seem incapable of it. For example, Dingeye and Thura expressed no remorse for killing a Redwaller than a regret for the loss of their own more comfortable circumstances.

In addition, I think most people overestimate the psychological impact of killing. To kill another human may have some psychological impact, but when it is kill-or-be-killed or especially execution of justice it tends to be either muted, delayed or nonexistent. It is not necessarily or even usually a traumatic life-changing experience. Furthermore, Skippers and Guosim would be used to battle as a matter of survival and therefore conditioned. As a result, it would probably take no effect whatsoever.

I believe that most of the woodlanders treatment of vermin is justified or even somewhat too lenient. Simply put, the cost in life and freedom is too high to permit murderous vermin to roam freely.

[Blaggut]

I believe the shrew science you are talking about is in Salamandestron. And shrews are more brave and battle hardened than Abbey beasts. When abbey chaps kill, they get very emotional from what I have seen. One if the most tragic scenes was when the cellar hog in rakkety tam killed a stoat with a hammer, and broke down crying and apologizing to the slain beast's corpse.