Redwall
y'all ready for shots to be fired?
Today I am reviewing Redwall, a 1986 book by Brian Jacques (which I learned is pronounced Jakes). It's the first in a series of 22 novels, plus two picture books. The series is very foundational to the genre of "small mammals with swords" and, as attested to by the large number of books, it's a popular one. This one centers on Matthias, a mouse monk who becomes a warrior to protect an abbey called Redwall from a rat bandit named Cluny the Scourge. I'll get into details, so beware of spoilers.
I need to be upfront about this: I didn't hate this book, but I didn't think it was very good. I'm accustomed to reminding myself that a book's intended audience is children. I'm used to books that are simply bizarre because they don't follow the conventions of modern children's books. Regardless... this just didn't land for me.
Is it because I don't have nostalgia for it? I read a couple Redwall books around late middle school, but by then I was past the intended age. Rodents only became a special interest for me at the end of high school, so oftentimes when I review a book on this blog it's my first time reading it. Maybe I just don't relate because it's English animals and not the ones I'd see here in New England.
Anyway... I'm going to try to make this a compliment sandwich. I enjoyed this book, and not only because it's in my wheelhouse. It's not hard to read because of its short chapters and writing style. I also liked a few of the characters, such as the cat Julian (he's pescatarian and kind of a soyboy), Basil Stag Hare (he's a weird rabbit with a big personality) and Jess Squirrel (she's a loving mother and also very competent in climbing and fighting). And I love the big badger Constance. She's a big strong lady. What more could I want? I also liked Shadow, who is this all-black expert in stealth. No one even knows if he's a rat, a weasel, or a bit of both.
Now, some questions/notes on worldbuilding. The way they talk about time implies that they live human lifespans. They're presumably a little extra anthro to be able to wield swords and ... sometimes wear clothes? It's unclear. There are some "wild" animals, and then there's the ones who talk and live indoors. There's explicitly some species bias between the mustelids and the rodents in Cluny's horde. But it's not often brought up elsewhere.
They usually seem like they are the same size as actual animals would be. But the story also kind of forgets that at points. Most notably, at one point a fox has to swing a bag at an elderly mouse to get past him. How does that work? A fox should be able to eat most of the characters in a single bite.
Hand in hand with the size question is their buildings. There seem to be no humans (although there are just enough Christianity references to make you go "huh?"). But... here's the thing. Redwall Abbey must be the size of a human building, right? For one thing that's way cooler, and for another there's an entire civilization of sparrows living in their loft. But they have the plans to the abbey, and at one point they pull apart some stairs which seem to be sized for small animals and not humans. Apparently later books detail the construction of the abbey. It's not like I've never encountered this strange "what size are they really" question, but it's still weird. One small note: they've got a beaver. Awesome! I love beavers! It's notable because beavers were only officially reintroduced to the UK around 2009. (Again, I'm no expert on UK beaver populations, but that's what I've read.) But despite showing up in multiple chapters, the beaver has no name. Why is there one single beaver? Does it talk? What is that guy's deal?
Now for some of my actual gripes. I'm not the first to say this, but: the book is so heavy-handed! Subtlety is dead. It's "Matthias bravely" this and "Cluny evilly" that.
Writing advice 101 is "don't use adverbs", right? And then I've seen pushback against the pushback. It's not as simple as adverbs being bad. But this book reminds me why that's a thing in the first place.
It's very simple morally, as well. I think that's my biggest distaste with this book. Not only is it always "bad guys are ugly and stupid and disfigured and also vermin", but... it insists that Redwall is the good guys even though the main characters aren't much more heroic.
Part of why I liked Constance the badger was that she does lie and deceive people, and also actively tries to murder Cluny because she doesn't believe in redemption for him. It makes her feel like an actual person.
Meanwhile: Matthias is treated as this pure hero. But he attacks the sparrow Warbeak by surprise, while she's restrained, and almost kills her. At the end of the book, Cluny the Scourge has a hostage as Matthias is at the top of a bell tower. Matthias says to let go of the hostage and then he promises to come down. Oh no, Cluny's going to take advantage of Matthias' warrior honor. It's going to be the classic "good guy wins even though the bad guy cheated", right? Well, Matthias cuts the bell and kills Cluny, and then he comes down the stairs and says he kept his promise. For the climactic moment in a book about good triumphing over evil... it's so cynical!
Cluny is a cool character in some ways. He's got a bat-wing cape, and a fearsome tail with a poison barb, and an almost supernatural ability to survive injury. But also, he's got some Team Rocket energy because he's failing over and over and over again.
(The pacing is not very good, either. It's weirdly episodic, where sometimes Cluny tries out a new plan, and then sometimes the Redwall people have plans of their own. But then Matthias is looking for the sword of Martin the Warrior all the while. Sometimes it's triumphant and funny, sometimes it's tragic. It's weirdly semi-episodic, but it's also a novel. It's a jumble of A and B and C plots.)
I know it's the genre, I know it's the genre, I know it's the genre... but it was hard to put up with the number of times Matthias wins through main character energy. He's a dunce for, like, one chapter and then suddenly this mouse child is infiltrating the bandit camp and being a master tactician and winning fights against adult rats. Again, it's hard to be threatened by the villains if they're this incompetent.
If I read this more critically (which I'm kind of forced to, because the text is opinionated and screams "unreliable narrator") ... yeah, we have rats, weasels, stoats and similar animals laying siege to this peaceful abbey. But it's kind of suspicious that the abbey doesn't have any of those creatures in it. What's going on with that?
And no, I'm not just whining because rats are the bad guys.
Is this because I was reading an N. K. Jemisin book at the same time, and her books actually do a good job grappling with themes like the price of social order? I don't think so, because at the end of the book the Abbot declares that both the sparrows (who are good now because Matthias' friend is their queen now) and the shrew group that Matthias met will have access to the Abbey. So, hold on, you're saying shrews weren't allowed into Redwall before? Obviously these are children's books, but there are kids books that do show nuance in what animal species are bad guys.
Also, I feel like I'm nitpicking, but this bit was surprising enough to make me go "WHAT" out loud when I read it. So, I don't think we ever get an age for Matthias, but I was imagining him as a tween. And this book explicitly happens within the span of one summer.
Matthias has a cute little mouse crush on this girl Cornflower. They're nice. Good for them. It's pretty clear that they didn't really know each other at the start of the book.
Now, by the end, the Abbot is giving some final decrees as he dies from poison. Triumphantly, he says Cornflower will be Matthias' wife. What? It was very unexpected. Can you imagine a dying guy being like "you've been making eyes at each other for like two months, my children. Get married". That would chill my New Relationship Energy so hard. I know it's the genre, but... Matthias is clearly an audience stand-in! He's a little boy! And somehow, in the one-year-later epilogue, they have a child??? Excuse me? Can you imagine celebrating your one year anniversary with the birth of your son?
Alright, alright, I've lost some composure. Let me end with a few more things I liked.
I like the gore and the myriad deaths. The simple truth is that it's cool. Of course young readers would gravitate to that, because other stories don't give it to them.
And, truly, I do understand why these books are popular. The premise is excellent. And I know they were foundational to a lot of stories that came afterward, and a lot of people. I've just read this first one, and I hear there's more complexity in the later books.
I am not in a hurry to read more of these books, though.
I absolutely understand how and why people love this series. I thought a lot of elements of this book were good! I'm definitely inspired by it and I want to make stories like it. Unless you already love Redwall, though, I would not recommend this book. The main perk is "the ability to say you've read Redwall". Minus the violent deaths, I think that Mistmantle does what this book does, better. And if someone thinks this book is well-written, I'm very curious to hear their perspective.
My personal rating of how much I enjoyed it: 3.5 My overall rating: 2