FOR REDWALL!

[flamedance58]

...that's all...sorry had to say it.

[mj0331]

^_^

[Duskerz]

Yes finally someone else that's read it!

[GrandMajora]

Originally posted by Duskerz:

Yes finally someone else that's read it!

I saw the whole series on Youtube. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbUe_Jiyk7Q&list=PLwKXg8dlwRBODgBbamoxo2eki9PtJXcSy

[catsmoke]

Brian Jacques didn't think Redwall through thoroughly enough, before he set pen to paper. Many of the ways that he fails could have been easily avoided, but it's exceedingly common for fantasy authors to make similar mistakes (George R. R. Martin being a prominent recent example). And J. R. R. Tolkien has provided such a clear template of how to effectively build a fantasy universe, it's a mystery why so many talented writers botch their creations' foundations (and why so many editors also seem to be clueless).

For example, sometimes the Redwall universe is portrayed as being the same as our real world, except that animals have societies and a civilization that is parallel to, and derivative of, those of ♥♥♥♥ sapiens. Yet, at other points (even within the same novel), Redwall seems to be a world where animals have developed their societies and civilization as an analogue of mankind's, without the material presence and influence of human beings. Jacques switches between these conceptions, mixes and matches them, and blurs elements of both to create other unique variants of the Redwall cosmos, all on the fly, during the course of his texts. He raises important questions which he leaves unanswered, and his premises don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny. Many fundamental aspects of his Redwall universe are indefinite, or inconsistent, and as a whole his worldview lacks continuity.

Brian Jacques has a great imagination, and he's a good storyteller, and I love the spirit of his tales. He is a major contributor to the literary genre of animal fiction. But his vision is incohesive and his work is fatally flawed.

[Concrete Galoshes]

Reminds me of a Mouses Tail for some reason.

[Gryffe]

Originally posted by catsmoke:

block

Yeah, but that didn't bother me as much. I only read the first book, but even then I ended up scratching my head a couple times.

The red wall abbey itself seems to have been build and used by humans (even the staircases are giants, you have moles digging a secret tunnel under one of the step !), but a few chapters later you learn that it was actually built by the animals of the forest. The trees around the abbey are apparently "normal-sized" for our heroes, yet the apple tree in which the grumpy owl is nesting is suddenly "human-sized". And I still can't explain the cart scene. Like, who the heck built it and attached a horse to it if there's no human in sight ?

But hey, it's less of an epic and more of a fairy tail, so I just let it slide. It doesn't have to make sense as long as it looks cool.

[LupisVolk]

Originally posted by Duskerz:

Yes finally someone else that's read it!

I have to thank my highschool libary for having them.

[Gryffe]

Originally posted by LupisVolk:

Originally posted by Duskerz:

Yes finally someone else that's read it!

I have to thank my highschool libary for having them.

It's sold on smartphone too for a miniature price, that's how I got mine !

[ɛpнıɛ]

I always wanted a Redwall MMO, but for now I'll play this :D

[CyanDoomdragon]

Originally posted by catsmoke:

Text Here.

Originally posted by Gryffe:

Text Here 2.

To quote a comment I saw somewhere "I stopped reading when I realized you could tell if someone was a good guy or a bad guy by what animal they were.".

[Brutal]

Eulaliaaaaa!

[flamedance58]

Originally posted by Freelancer400:

Eulaliaaaaa!

“I am that is, my sword shall wield for me.”

[Supahz]

Originally posted by catsmoke:

Brian Jacques didn't think Redwall through thoroughly enough, before he set pen to paper. Many of the ways that he fails could have been easily avoided, but it's exceedingly common for fantasy authors to make similar mistakes (George R. R. Martin being a prominent recent example). And J. R. R. Tolkien has provided such a clear template of how to effectively build a fantasy universe, it's a mystery why so many talented writers botch their creations' foundations (and why so many editors also seem to be clueless).

For example, sometimes the Redwall universe is portrayed as being the same as our real world, except that animals have societies and a civilization that is parallel to, and derivative of, those of ♥♥♥♥ sapiens. Yet, at other points (even within the same novel), Redwall seems to be a world where animals have developed their societies and civilization as an analogue of mankind's, without the material presence and influence of human beings. Jacques switches between these conceptions, mixes and matches them, and blurs elements of both to create other unique variants of the Redwall cosmos, all on the fly, during the course of his texts. He raises important questions which he leaves unanswered, and his premises don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny. Many fundamental aspects of his Redwall universe are indefinite, or inconsistent, and as a whole his worldview lacks continuity.

Brian Jacques has a great imagination, and he's a good storyteller, and I love the spirit of his tales. He is a major contributor to the literary genre of animal fiction. But his vision is incohesive and his work is fatally flawed.

I doubt all the 12-year olds out there will be very interested in your points. I'm mildly positive about the series... you sound like you're trying to write a research paper. Most readers of a children's fantasy series aren't going to be too bothered if the author's "worldview lacks continuity" and all that other blah blah you mentioned. Anyway, I'll be using this the next time I'm suffering from insomnia.

[Gryffe]

"It doesn't matter if it's ♥♥♥♥ because we're targeting children" is the line of thought that end up with the street fighter movie[www.rottentomatoes.com]. If anything, we should be even more cautious BECAUSE it's aimed at children.

Doesn't really matter in Redwall's case tho, because those inconsistencies are here to set the scene and the tone, it's not done with a malicious purpose.

[5onic]

red wall was the ♥♥♥♥