Chapter 2 – The Freak

Bonesplinter was pretty freaky…. But it’s not him we’re talking about this time.

We start with a cliched scene of some schoolyard bullies. The leader is a teenage boy named Chet Hawkins. He’s the typical bully through and through: he calls his gang losers to their faces, has apparently been held back a grade, is bulky, and has freckles. He and his lackeys are putting some soapy water on the floor boards and waiting for someone.

“Gimme that.” Pete Lampson, a gawky, twelve-year-old boy with greasy black hair and a neck like an underfed turkey, yanked the mop from Squint, the smaller boy standing next to him.

Squint is such a beautiful name. Everything about these kids is clichéd and unoriginal. They’re mean, unhygienic, and stupid. Seems there’s a trend with the antagonistic characters thus far- all of them have been physically repellent/unattractive/unkempt. While we’ve not seen the protagonists yet, I’m willing to bet all or most of them are much, much more attractive and polished.

Chet reveals that the person they’re trying to prank is disabled and forced to be in a wheelchair. They’re pretty cruel, aren’t they? We get some cheesy dialogue between the bullies.

“Don’t forget,” Chet whispered. “As soon as the kid comes through the door, Pete and I will grab him while you two throw his wheelchair down the stairs.”

“Then, pow!” Squint said, punching his fist into his palm with a nasty giggle.

“Right.” Chet nodded with a wicked grin. “Everybody gets a shot at him. Just make sure I get the first punch.”

No teenage guys I have ever known talk like this. What was Savage thinking when he wrote this? Having once been a teenager himself, I would expect that Savage could write a scene between a couple of boys like this better. And why do they keep giggling and smiling evilly? We get that what they’re doing is wrong. We don’t need to be hit over the head again and again with their Evilness.

Suddenly a squeaky wheelchair is heard and all the boys go and hide. We learn that Chet beats up every newbie at the school they go to. The text is unclear, but I’m assuming they’re currently at the school right now. We get an info dump about how this disabled kid has been able to avoid their pranks several times before this. He had gone into a room when they were waiting for him, then simply disappeared once he was out of sight. How that’s possible when he’s in a wheelchair that squeaks, I’m not sure. But there you have it.

The plan was to grab the kid as he came out of the dormitory. They’d push his chair down the stairs, give him a major beating, and tell everyone it had been an accident. They’d been mopping the floor when the wheels of the kid’s chair slipped in the soapy water and he fell out of his chair. Oops.

Do groups of boys at this school usually spend their free time cleaning floors? Wouldn’t they usually do that as an, I don’t know, punishment? Which would mean they should have a teacher or other adult watching over them, making sure they get it done. Which also leads to another question. How have these kids managed to beat up every new person at their school and still be under so little suspicion as to have a convincing argument for how they just happened to be mopping when the disabled new kid comes along? Also, beating someone up tends to leave different marks than if they just fell down the stairs. These kids (or Savage) must be too stupid to realize this.

See how the baby will get around with his wittle chair broken in a dozen pieces, Chet thought. And if the freak gives us any trouble this time, he might go over the stairs right behind it.

I don’t think anyone really thinks this way. Also, Chet is supposed to be sixteen. Just thought I’d put that out there.

All the while this internal monologue is going on, the squeaking of the wheelchair is getting louder and louder. Suddenly the wheelchair appears in the hallway and the bullies throw it down the stairs, only to realize after they’ve done that that the boy who it belongs to wasn’t in it. They decide he must have hidden in the dormitory and pushed it toward them, so they head for the dorm room. They don’t see the kid, so they look under the beds but don’t find him.

“He ain’t there.”

“That’s impossible,” Chet said, cracking his big red knuckles. “What the-” he began. Before he could complete his sentence, something hard cracked against the back of his head. He turned in time to see a mop handle rise high in the air and swing toward him again. This time the mop caught him squarely on the nose, creating a flash of purple and yellow light before his eyes.

A mop beats him up. A mop. Am I the only one who is reminded of that scene in the Disney movie Fantasia where Mickey Mouse enchants a bunch of brooms that go crazy and start attacking him? I wonder if Savage intended for the reader to think of that.

The chapter ends there. For suspense, I imagine.

Tagged as: , ,

Comment

  1. LoneWolf on 8 April 2012, 19:25 said:

    He had gone into a room when they were waiting for him, then simply disappeared once he was out of sight. How that’s possible when he’s in a wheelchair that squeaks, I’m not sure. But there you have it.

    Am I the only one who is reminded of that scene in the Disney movie Fantasia where Mickey Mouse enchants a bunch of brooms that go crazy and start attacking him? I wonder if Savage intended for the reader to think of that.

    No, he intended (well, he actually most likely didn’t intend) for us to think of the beginning of Harry Potter, where Harry manages to mysteriously evade Dudley and his gang because Harry has magic. I’m surprised that you didn’t pick up on it.

    I still like Alana Terence more then Chet Hawkins.

  2. LoneWolf on 8 April 2012, 19:51 said:

    Although, Chet really needs to start calling his gang “The Gothic Movement”. It will be hilarious if Chet dies in the beginning of second Water Keep book.

  3. BlackStar on 8 April 2012, 19:59 said:

    Ohh you know, now that you point that out, you’re absolutely right. It’s been a long time since I read Harry Potter- but it really is similar. “The Gothic Movement” would be absolutely hilarious.

  4. swenson on 8 April 2012, 21:52 said:

    Alana vs Chet, FIGHT!

    Anyway, I really loathe stories where it’s like “hurr, do they have magic or don’t they? Aren’t we so clever?” Just say they have magic, or at least reveal it in a more interesting way than this. Beating up on bullies is so cliche.

  5. Fireshark on 8 April 2012, 23:40 said:

    Alana practically killed Maya, engaged in “occult” rituals, and was attacked by levitating knives and run over by a car. That’s setting the bar pretty high for a YA bully.

  6. Mingnon on 9 April 2012, 02:04 said:

    Who wants to bet that Chet’s mother may have been doing the salsa dance behind his back?

  7. Pryotra on 9 April 2012, 08:49 said:

    Seems there’s a trend with the antagonistic characters thus far- all of them have been physically repellent/unattractive/unkempt.

    Because Beauty Equals Goodness! Didn’t you know that? The problem is I never see where people who look average fit. Maybe they’re just NPCs who get the plot moving but little else?

    I’m starting to think that these bullies are really just a sign that the author’s read Stephen King. Only…the dialog sounds like something that a teenager could conceivably say.

  8. LoneWolf on 9 April 2012, 09:25 said:

    Oh, bullies who torment our heroes are a common YA fantasy stereotype, from Harry Potter to Maradonia.

  9. Danielle on 9 April 2012, 15:01 said:

    Oh, bullies who torment our heroes are a common YA fantasy stereotype, from Harry Potter to Maradonia.

    I think it’s because the heroes need training. How can they fight the Evil Overlord if they haven’t first practiced by firing witty one-liners at the bullies, and then tattling on them to get them in trouble for the things the heroes are routinely praised for?

    Once, just once, I’d like to see a hero who is actually affected by the bullying he suffers. I was bullied in middle school, and while it wasn’t as severe as what some other students suffered, it took me a long time to tell my parents everything. I felt as though I deserved the bullying. I’d like to see a hero who actually suffers from what a bully says or does to him. Don’t give me another Harry Potter, glibly making sarcastic remarks at a taller, buffer Draco Malfoy and getting him in trouble with the teachers while he gets away with murder. Give me a truly unlikely hero who actually struggles with being bullied and has to overcome all the emotions involved in being tormented on a daily basis.

    I’ve known people who can be bullied and walk away from it unscathed. But they are so rare they may as well be an endangered species. Heck, even my brother, who is far more socially adept than I am, was bullied as a kid, and it was a HUGE blow to his self-esteem.

    TL;DR: There are too many Harry Potters in fantasy fiction. Give me a Neville Longbottom, goshdangit!

  10. LoneWolf on 9 April 2012, 15:24 said:

    Well, writers want readers to sympathize with their poor abused heroes, but actually portraying effects of abuse would make books too dark and depressing. Besides, authors want their heroes to be spunky and not afraid of anything, which doesn’t mesh well with being a realistic abuse target.

  11. Oculus_Reparo on 9 April 2012, 15:43 said:

    Beauty is truth, truth beauty; that is all
    Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

    There—Shelley said it, so it must be true.

  12. Danielle on 9 April 2012, 15:45 said:

    Well, writers want readers to sympathize with their poor abused heroes, but actually portraying effects of abuse would make books too dark and depressing. Besides, authors want their heroes to be spunky and not afraid of anything, which doesn’t mesh well with being a realistic abuse target.

    I may be alone in this, but I believe that would actually make books better. To take the Harry Potter example a little further, I sympathized with Harry because of what he’d gone through, but by the end of the first few books, I felt more sympathy toward Neville because the heckling he endured actually affected him. And it wasn’t just from the Slytherins; even some of the other Gryffindors looked down on him for his lack of talent and overall klutziness. THAT reminded me more of the bullying I went through; even some of my friends made fun of me when I socially misstepped.

    And this may sound odd, but by the end of the series, the character I sympathized with the most was Draco. I know he was a jerk for the first five books, but the abuse he suffered, though never explicitly shown, was handled in a far more realistic way than the stuff Harry went through. Draco began the series as—pardon my French—an arrogant little prick, but he ended it as a frightened teenager who had been beaten up, broken down and driven to the end of his rope by his own flaws. I ended up liking him more than I liked Harry, an effect I doubt Rowling wanted.

  13. Requiem on 9 April 2012, 18:48 said:

    I always liked Snape, and I didn’t much enjoy being forced to read the Harry Potter books. How come the heroes in books are never 35 year old, gruff, soldiers of the past…like Auron from FFX for instance. Sure it might be hard to relate to a drunkard ronin but depending on what they failed to do might make them more sympathetic. Why must we always have teenagers as heroes, and arrogant ones at that?

  14. LoneWolf on 9 April 2012, 18:51 said:

    Well, there’re adult heroes in “darker” fantasy fiction (Martin, G. G. Kay). YA-style fantasy, though, has teen heroes. Nothing surprising!

  15. Prince O' Tea on 10 April 2012, 07:03 said:

    I probably would be a fan of Harry Potter (or at least not dislike the books so much), but Harry is probably one of my disliked main characters ever. I would see the only MC I dislike more is Bella Swan.

    Whil I dislike the books a lot, there are a lot of characters I do like. I certainly like Luna and Neville far more then Team Hell, I prefer Cho to the main three, but that’s mainly because the poor thing got a really raw deal from Jojo. I really didn’t like the Ginny character shilling at her expense, especially since most of the “This is why Ginny is a better girlfriend then Cho!” moments came off as pretty shallow and superficial, like Ginny being better at sports. Plus Cho is one of the few characters who actually calls Harry out on his bullshit, which is cool.

    While we’re on the subject on bullying… I can definitly identify with Luna. A lot. If you’ve ever been pegged as the “unpopular one” in a snooty performing arts school, then it’s mostly behind your back with people who hate you being perfectly sweet and even affectionate to your face, and saying the most awful things about you when you’re not there. So you don’t get to stand up for yourself, and you don’t really know who is on your side, if anyone. What I did see of Luna did show that alienation very well.

  16. LoneWolf on 10 April 2012, 10:25 said:

    I like many aspects of Harry Potter and read an occasional fanfic, but Harry himself leaves me cold. HP contains quite a lot of different themes – it’s a flaw, since JKR doesn’t manage to pull them all together – but it makes it a great fanfic material.

  17. Danielle on 10 April 2012, 15:52 said:

    I like many aspects of Harry Potter and read an occasional fanfic, but Harry himself leaves me cold. HP contains quite a lot of different themes – it’s a flaw, since JKR doesn’t manage to pull them all together – but it makes it a great fanfic material.

    There are some portions that I absolutely love. I love Snape and his justification, and I loved pretty much all of the third book. DH was a great ending, but there were some things I thought Rowling should have changed—things I won’t derail this conversation to address.

    The one thing I hated more than anything was how manipulative and callous Dumbledore was throughout the series, but in the last two books especially. He was all fine and dandy toward Harry and the other Gryffindors, but he treated most of the Slytherins like something he’d stepped in. What bugged me about that portrayal was that there was nothing ambiguous about it. If Rowling had decided to make Dumbledore’s treatment of the Slytherins more of a moral grey area—“what he did may not have been right, kiddies, but it was during wartime so it makes sense”—she made him out to be this wonderfully wise person who was nearly always right, so his actions were portrayed as nearly always right. The message I got was that if a group of people has done something wrong, then it’s okay to keep punishing them for as long as you deem fit. (Isn’t that the attitude most bullies take—that their victims are outsiders and deserve harsh treatment?)

    And that, I think, is a too-common trope in fantasy fiction: that there are groups of people who are Just Plain Nasty, and there’s nothing you can do about it but avoid them or draft some of the halfway decent ones onto your side. That seems to be what Savage is moving toward in this book, at any rate. I’d love to see more nuanced portrayals of good and evil, but why bother when bashing the nasties is so much easier? [/sarcasm]

    Anyhow, that’s my rant. I agree that it makes great fanfic material, but there are some scenes in the books that I skip entirely because they’re so black-and-white.

  18. Prince O' Tea on 10 April 2012, 17:46 said:

    Yeah. One of my major dislikes about the series was that so much of it… well despite people like Dumblydore insisting that it’s what we do rather then our birth that truly defines us… very little of the plot actually supported that. People were mostly defined by birth circumstances or their place in society rather then anything else.

    The whole magicians are born not made thing for a start. Magic is something you are born with, not something you can achieve through hard work. And if you’re a Squib, god help you! YOu will be despised and your disability will lead you to be viewed as a family freak and a disgrace even by dumpling-hearted Molly Weasley and her tight-knit clan (even though Harry and chums think it’s really bad when the Bad Guys do such things, it’s totally different when the good guys do so.)

    Then there’s the whole sorting hat thing, where people are lumped together into groups based on rather simplistic personality traits. If you’re a Gryiffindor you’re one of the heroes, the Hufflepuffs and the Ravenclaws are destined for a life of medicocrity as far as the plot is concerned (except Luna, and Cho extremely briefly), and the Slytherins are bad bad hopeless evil and that is that.

    I really hated how Jojo went out of her way to make us dislike the Death Eaters, and actually squashed whatever chance of redemption they had in the plot. The final battle was an especially bad example of this… since she actually has the entire Slytherin house evacuate rather then standing and fighting. She tells us that Slytherins are good guys and not all of them are bad… and fails to give us any examples in the plot. Pretty much every “good guy” Slytherin we’ve seen is at best, a deeply flawed and messed up human being.

  19. Danielle on 10 April 2012, 18:16 said:

    Amen. What infuriated me the most about Dumbles was how he gave lip service to second chances and how good choices need to be praised no matter who makes them….and then did the opposite. Like his celebrated “support” of Snape’s change of heart. He welcomed him back not with open arms, but with condemnation for wanting to save only Lily. Then, when Dumbles decided to bid the earth farewell, he made Snape do the deed. He forced an ally to destroy his own reputation and alienate himself from the Order because he was tired of living.

    While we’re on that topic…..he knew Draco was trying to kill him. He knew the kid didn’t have a choice. And he waited until the last second to say “Hey, dude, we can help you.” Dumbly waited until a freaking BATTLE to offer Draco a second chance. The kid didn’t have time to say yes, though Rowling made it appear he was going to.

    And he’s portrayed as wise and merciful. Psh. No wonder the Slytherins sided with Voldemort.

  20. Pryotra on 10 April 2012, 18:39 said:

    I have to say that I didn’t like Snape. I wanted to like him, but I just…didn’t. Yes, I know he had a justification, but it didn’t change the fact that he had still killed and tortured and unknown number of Muggles or Muggleborns and we are never shown that he feels anything about that. For all we know, he still agrees with Death Eater ideals, he’s just angry with Voldemort for not sparing Lily. At least, I don’t remember him ever saying anything.

    While it’s terrible that he was bullied, he also came across as a person who was just as capable of dishing it out as of taking it. He flat said that James Potter wouldn’t face him unless all the Marauders were with him, and why’s that? In the short story were James was actually present, he didn’t strike me as the cowardly type, so Snape was probably just as nasty as they were.

    Snape is too ambiguous for me to ever really like or fully sympathize with, and he never changes in the series. To me, I would have had to know more about Snape to have really felt sorry for him.

    I agree with Dumbledore though. His actions without the entire series were really horrible. Also, it was kind of hinted in the books that he was directly responsible for his sister’s death. Once again, this isn’t ever really gone into. JK just pushes this out and then Harry says how he completely trusts Dumbledore. It was really annoying to read.

    And yeah, the issue with Slytherin was just badly done. It was like JK was going ‘Oh, look! See! See! You shouldn’t sympathize with the Slytherins! You should sympathize with my characters!’

  21. Prince O' Tea on 10 April 2012, 20:42 said:

    Agreed. The Battle of Hogwards was her chance for her to show that when it came down to the crunch, that there were good Slytherins like she had been insisting there were at that point, but she actually went out of their way to make sure that that not a single one actually stayed to fight by having every last one leave. None of them were against Pansy Parkinson/Ruby Rubella/Myrtle Meningitis or whatever she’s called as well. It really annoys me when Jojo insists one thing in her text, and completely contradicts herself in interviews. If I remember correctly it was stated that some Slytherins actually joined the Death Eaters straight way, just in case she wasn’t done beating us around the head with the “ALL SLYTHERINS ARE EVIL NO EXCEPTIONS” hammer.

    “Even boring old Hufflepuffs who never do anything interesting and swotty old Ravenclaws who are slightly less boring but still aren’t worth paying attention to are STILL much better then any of the Slytherins!”

    One thing that really bothered me about the books was that it was pretty obvious who were her pets (Harry, Ginny, Gryffindors) and who were her whipping boys/girls (Cho Chang, Slytherins). Well hey. Would you look at that. I actually found the one thing that NK Stouffer could have sued Jojo over.

  22. Danielle on 10 April 2012, 22:13 said:

    The whole thing reminded me of Outcast of Redwall. The back promises a “complex view of good and evil,” but the message is really “well, some people/ creatures/ whatever are born evil, and there’s really nothing you can do about it.” It was ridiculous.

  23. WulfRitter on 11 April 2012, 01:06 said:

    but the message is really “well, some people/ creatures/ whatever are born evil, and there’s really nothing you can do about it.

    That was easily my least favorite Redwall book. And I’ve made a lot of allowances for how silly the books can be. But I was truly disappointed when the creature born evil stayed, well, essentially evil.

  24. Danielle on 11 April 2012, 02:15 said:

    But I was truly disappointed when the creature born evil stayed, well, essentially evil.

    I know, right? There’s just something so….awesome about the concept of a creature born evil, but choosing the path of good. I think that’s part of why Hellboy is so popular—he was supposed to be a bad guy, but somewhere along the line he gave evil the middle finger and chose good instead. Outcast of Redwall dangled that concept in front of my nose, then snatched it away at the last second, presumably while saying “PSYCH!”

    Of course, it doesn’t help that I do not believe anyone is born what we call evil. Do I believe all people are born with an inclination toward evil? Absolutely. Every person has an evil nature, which must be overcome, but I do not believe that anyone pops out of the womb as a full-blown psychopath. True madmen arise organically, through neglect, abuse, poverty, rampant despair, too little moral guidance, and a host of other factors. Veil had only one of those factors: bad genes. Nothing else. He was loved. He was accepted. He had plenty to eat and drink. By all accounts, he should’ve turned out decent. At the very least, the ferret should’ve felt some guilt over what he was doing. The story could’ve been so much better if Jaques had simply given Veil some internal conflict over his choices.

  25. LoneWolf on 11 April 2012, 10:44 said:

    At least, the Outcast of Redwall did save his stepmother before death! (I don’t view his stepmother’s comments on him as being authoritative on the issue).

    Oh, and Dumbledore is the typical Annoying Wise Old Mentor. Rowling toyed with making him more of an actual character in DH, but finally decided to reinforce his role as an AWOM. It made him even more annoying.

    Re Water Keep, it seems from the reviews that this book also contains a Wise Old Mentor, by the rather sinister name of Master Therapass. (Reminds me of Humbert Humbert from Lolita: “I’m not the rapist, I’m the therapist”). Let’s see how annoying he will be!

  26. Danielle on 11 April 2012, 11:25 said:

    At least the Outcast of Redwall did save his stepmother before death!

    True. But I still say that’s cheating as far as characterization goes. Saving somebody’s life, while noble, is a quick and easy way to say someone has had a change of heart. Then, by killing off the formerly pure evil character, the author adds a quick splash of tragedy and ensures that he will never have to deal with that character ever again.

  27. LoneWolf on 11 April 2012, 11:26 said:

    Redemption Equals Death, like TvTropes says.

  28. Prince O' Tea on 11 April 2012, 12:33 said:

    Oh I remember I was absolutely crazy about the Redwall books when I was younger, but I grew out of them around the time I lost interest in Harry Potter. I really hated the idea that not only some creatures were born evil, but entire species were born evil and no amount of love and redemption could save them from their inborn nastiness. Bryony was also pretty unpleasant at the end of the book:
    “Well I dunno, he was trying to protect me, but I don’t know if he actually intended to sacrifice himself so yeah. He was still a little shit, and the world’s a better place for him being dead.” Instead of this being treated as a harsh and extremely judgemental thing to say, it was treated as Bryony Levelled Up! Worldly Experience +5 Wisdom + 9.

    You could argue, that Veil didn’t have much of a chance, since it was obvious a large portion of the abby dwellers had regarded him with suspicion and disgust ever since he was born. The honeypot scenario did show that Veil was planning on returning the (empty) honey pot, until whoever it belonged to smacked him about, before he started muttering to himself like one of the bad guys in Legend of Rah. You could argue that it ended up a vicious cycle, that Veil was nasty because everyone expected to be, and that everyone expected him to be nasty because he was…. but not much was really made of it except Veil was Bad and that the Redwallers got to say “We Told you So” at the end. Yuckiest Redwall ever.

    That being said, I don’t mind admitting I teared up a bit when I found Brian Jaques died. I had a lot of happy memories of Redwall growing up.

  29. LoneWolf on 11 April 2012, 13:03 said:

    I remember disagreeing with Bryony about Veil when she started her “enlightened” speech. “Outcast” is still one of my favourite Redwall books, since I like even hints at moral complexity.

  30. swenson on 11 April 2012, 14:42 said:

    I usually just pretend Outcast doesn’t exist. It’s better than some of the books because yes, it hints at moral complexity, but I just never liked that book much. All of the species are painted with a pretty broad brush anyway (is there any species with representatives among both the bad guys and the good guys?), which makes the Always Chaotic Evil stuff a little more palatable.

  31. Fireshark on 11 April 2012, 14:54 said:

    It sure is off-topic around here…

  32. LoneWolf on 11 April 2012, 14:56 said:

    (is there any species with representatives among both the bad guys and the good guys?)
    Cats!

  33. Danielle on 11 April 2012, 15:11 said:

    I usually just pretend Outcast doesn’t exist. It’s better than some of the books because yes, it hints at moral complexity, but I just never liked that book much.

    My opinion: If you’re going to have moral complexity, go for it. Don’t say you’re going to do it and then chicken out at the last second. That’s what bugged me about Outcast more than anything. It approached moral complexity, looked at it, poked it a few times, and then ran away.

    If you want to paint everything with a broad brush, fine. Do it. I can enjoy the other Redwall books because they weren’t shy about being so black-and-white about morality.

  34. LoneWolf on 11 April 2012, 15:44 said:

    Even “lame” moral complexity makes a great material for discussion and fanfic, though. Same with Rowling.

  35. Prince O' Tea on 11 April 2012, 15:50 said:

    I think cats got retconned into Always Evil. EIther way, the good guy cats are vastly outnumbered by the evil ones and I don’t think we saw any more since Mossflower.

  36. Kyllorac on 11 April 2012, 19:15 said:

    is there any species with representatives among both the bad guys and the good guys?

    Rats. I forget his name and the book, but there was this one sea rat that settled down near the abbey and occasionally visited. The abbey children looked forward to his visits because he would make boats that they could sail around the pond in (IIRC).

    But yeah. Outcasts is definitely not the best of the Redwall books. I’d probably be annoyed by it if I read it now.

  37. Lady Cricket on 11 April 2012, 20:11 said:

    Oi. Talking about Redwall and how some species are just inherent evil… well…
    is there an official trope for Evil Rats, Good Mice? Seriously, think of any average piece of fiction that has sentient talking rats and sentient talking mice. You already know what the respective alignments are, right?

    There are a whole lot of harmless, sometimes even beneficial animals that get painted evil or disgusting in almost any work of fiction they’re in. Snakes, lizards, crocodiles… just about any reptiles other than turtles. Wasps, roaches, earwigs, beetles, spiders… just about any insects that aren’t butterflies or honeybees.

    But even though it’s unfair how reptiles and insects all get painted as evil, it’s at least mostly consistent. If it’s tiny and segmented, it’s creepy. End of story. By comparison, the different treatment of rats and mice is weird because they’re just so similar. What differences can you think of other than size? Both are equally likely to eat your food, spread disease and breed explosively, but mice are always so helpless and cute and rats are always big and ugly and evil.

    If there isn’t already an official Tvtrope for Good Mice, Evil Rats (alternately Rats Are Mean, someone here needs to make it.

    …and while I’m on this species rant, just because an animal is herbivorous doesn’t mean it’s a “nice” animal. Hippos kill people a lot more often than crocodiles.

  38. Lady Cricket on 11 April 2012, 21:19 said:

    Ah, they do exist… “Nice Mice” and “You Dirty Rat”.

    I’d like to have a pet rat someday. They’re actually more sociable than mice.

  39. Danielle on 11 April 2012, 21:58 said:

    @ Lady Cricket,

    Don’t forget wolves. In fiction, wolves are fierce, greedy, ruthless killing machines. Werewolves are either conflicted as they try to restrain their evil natures (Remus Lupin) or they’re evil cannibalistic pedophilic rapists (Fenrir Greyback). Heck, even Pullman used it in The Golden Compass, where all of the villains had wolf daemons. (As if that book NEEDED any more soapboxing….) Yet in reality, they’re shy around humans, loyal to their packs, and even mourn when their mates die. Yes, they’re fierce, and no, you shouldn’t go try to play with one, but they have a lot of good traits that are just kind of shoved aside.

    And then there’s birds. They’re usually portrayed as chipper little singers who are more than happy to help you make a dress (Cinderella) or find your long-lost son (Finding Nemo). And while I loved the pelicans in Finding Nemo, it’s hardly realistic. Those birds will eat other birds whole and alive and not feel a shred of remorse.

    On the other hand, you could find a subversion of those tropes in Ratatouille. Remy was a rat.

  40. Fireshark on 11 April 2012, 22:14 said:

    In fiction, wolves are fierce, greedy, ruthless killing machines.

    B-b-b-but…

  41. Danielle on 11 April 2012, 22:19 said:

    All together now:

    aaaaAAAAAAWWWWWWWwwwwww!

  42. Kyllorac on 11 April 2012, 22:54 said:

    In fiction, wolves are fierce, greedy, ruthless killing machines.

    Not always, especially in more recent years. But when they aren’t, they’re the bestest most loyalest animals ever and shame on humans for being evil mean poopie heads. Especially in werewolf-centric fantasies.

    Seriously, wolves can do no wrong, and the rather brutal aspects of their nature are either glossed over or outright ignored.

  43. Danielle on 11 April 2012, 23:13 said:

    It really is all or nothing, isn’t it? Either a group is all good, or all bad. There’s no such thing as a realistic society anymore.

  44. Fireshark on 12 April 2012, 00:48 said:

    I think we should evaluate characters by their motivations, and by what they value. If we think about those things first when creating a society, we won’t start with “Good or evil?” and then make the society fit every cliche of its alignment.

    shame on humans for being evil mean poopie heads

    Yeah, I’m an environmentalist, but I really hate human-bashing. Whenever humans are the Always Evil group, I close the book or hit the red X or whatever.

  45. Rorschach on 12 April 2012, 02:51 said:

    When is this book supposedly set? Are people even named “Chet” anymore?

    Answer: no.

  46. Prince O'Tea on 12 April 2012, 08:59 said:

    Wolves are either evil ruthless killing machines, or they’re on the t shirts of people who own a lot of cats.

    NO INBETWEEN

  47. swenson on 12 April 2012, 10:20 said:

    The only Chet I can think of is in the Hardy Boys.

  48. Mingnon on 12 April 2012, 16:19 said:

    they’re on the t shirts of people who own a lot of cats.

    THREE WOLF MOON!

    Seriously though, human bashing isn’t quite limited to wolves. There’s also aliens, elves, apes, fairies, fish, merfolk, heck, even kitchen sinks while we’re at it.

  49. Cristina on 17 April 2012, 06:20 said:

    Well, there is Chet Baker…

  50. HamsterZerg on 26 December 2013, 18:53 said:

    I know, right? There’s just something so….awesome about the concept of a creature born evil, but choosing the path of good.

    I actually came up with an idea similar to this one earlier this December.

    The character’s name is Fallsauce, and he’s the youngest of ten brothers. He’s one of a number of beings called the Afterlords, and he’s the Afterlord of the tenth bolgia of the circle of the Inferno where the falsifiers end up when they die. He had no idea what he was, so he went to the realm of the living to make a friend. However, this friendship caused his new friend to be sentenced to Fallsauce’s domain. Fallsauce, after he realized that he essentially sentenced his friend to eternal torment, was so distraught that he decided to keep the other Afterlords of the First Inferno from having an influence on the living world.

    In the year before the one the Divine Comedy takes place in, the Afterlord of the Vestibule, Bonesect, planned to cause mass destruction in the living world, but was trapped inside the River Acheron by Fallsauce. However, Bonesect spent many years collecting trash on the riverbed and fashioning it into armor and weapons. In the year 2000, Bonesect escaped, earning it the new name “Milleniasect”. However, Fallsauce spent those very same years battling the other Afterlords of the First Inferno, growing more strong and more experienced with each fight. Fallsauce managed to banish Milleniasect to parts unknown to everyone but the two individuals involved in the fight, and Fallsauce isn’t telling where he sent Milleniasect.

    TL;DR: Fallsauce is a lord of the place where bad people go when they die, and fights against all the other lords of that place.

  51. HamsterZerg on 26 December 2013, 18:57 said:

    Hippos kill people a lot more often than crocodiles.

    Sorry about the double-post, but I just have to expand on this. In general, herbivores kill people more often than carnivores do.