What a great discussion. Like EFMingo, I'm delighted you joined us @love to read - especially with such a thoughtful response. The leadership thing is quite an interesting angle to this particular story. I'd have been happy to see the torch passed to Bigwig at the end, because I agree with EF, that he did learn a lot during the course of the story. However, the one thing that Hazel had, that I didn't see so much in Bigwig, was the ability to see a bigger picture and envision what he'd like to see happen in his world AFTER the current problems were solved. Hazel's the one who thought ...hey, wouldn't it be great if we could all meet up INSIDE the warren like they did at Cowslip's warren ...and then made that large space happen at Watership Down. He's the one who thought ...hey, what happens if we don't have any does or offspring ...and he put a plan into motion to solve that problem. He's the one who thought ...why not make friends with creatures who aren't rabbits ...you never know.... He's also the one who decided ...when we get to the new home, weaker rabbits like Pipkin and Fiver won't be kicked around any more. Hazel is the kind of leader whose vision inspires his followers to more than just survival. I don't think Bigwig ever quite got to that place. He was more involved in solving immediate problems, and he was really good at it. And he did learn to be understanding of other rabbits' weaknesses. Bigwig's bravery and willingness to sacrifice himself was never in question—although at several points he was willing to leave weaker rabbits behind who couldn't make the grade (which Hazel never did.) But Hazel, in addition to bravery and willingness to self-sacrifice, if need be, had a vision of the future which inspired them all. I do think that Hazel and Bigwig made a great team of leaders. Hazel did have one 'bad' leader moment, though. That was when his desire to one-up Holly, and get some does in place before Holly's return from Efrafra overrode his good sense, to some extent. He let his ego get in the way of sense, and paid quite a price for that. Okay, he DID get does where Holly failed, but he should not have been motivated by a desire to show off ...which, in this case, he was. Bad move. But he's only human, right?
An interesting aside. Apparently Adams said that if he were writing the story over again he'd develop Colonel Woundwort to be less of a villain. I think he's already hinted at that in the story ...with the background information about how Woundwort got started on his life's trajectory, and that he does have dim memories of back when life wasn't a huge big fight. I think it's important to realise that Woundwort wasn't some sociopath ...that he honestly believed he was doing the right thing. However, he lost sight of the fact that nothing is ever perfect, and that it's hard to get folks to stick to a script. It's also interesting to think about the concept of safety as well. There is no reason why 'men' won't invade and disturb any warren at any time. There is no ultimate safety to be had. Only resilience and individual resourcefulness to live to fight another day. Which both Woundwort's band and Hazel's band had. To some extent, so did Cowslip's, although his group took a different approach. But life holds no guarantees, does it?
I have finished my second reading of the book. Twice in quick succession. Of course what was missing the second time through was the incredible tension Adams created. Now I knew what was going to happen, so I could relax and pay attention to other aspects of the story. But the first time through, the tension was nearly unbearable for me. From the Cowslip warren situation onward, Adams made the dilemmas so difficult for our little band of rabbits, that it seemed almost impossible for them to escape. And once they did escape, things didn't settle for very long at all. The first reading was a terrifying experience for me, actually. Especially Efrafra. It felt totally claustrophobic, and the notion of rabbits being so deliberately cruel to one another was truly horrifying. So much for the peaceable kingdom, eh? The second reading was more interesting in some respects, and the character of various rabbits became better defined for me. But the strength of this book lies in its ability to really keep us worried and almost fearful to turn the page. I'd like to analyse what techniques he uses to keep us able to forsee that trouble lies ahead. Maybe another day....
Hi, hello, I read the book! Sorry I'm really bad at responding to these discussions. It's life. Always life in the way. But these rabbits now. These rabbits were quite a surprise to me. I didn't think I could find something so trivial sounding so fascinating. I've not been around these animals much in real life, so the way Mr. Adams wrote these fuzzy little friends was pretty impressive. The tension from chapter to chapter is something I'll get into shortly, but I gotta say I didn't always like it. Mostly because I'm a fragile heart sometimes, and I was very concerned for Fiver multiple times. He was my favorite. Followed by BigWig, and then Hazel. I'll go into why in my responses to Mingo's excellent questions (as always, they're marvelous). I'm not going to lie, I completely missed the allegorical aspects until reading this question. That kind of thing tends to go right over my head when I'm truly engrossed in a story. That kind of thing isn't important to me because it is more the impact of the reader's prior life ... experiences? Expectations? Biases... Biases works best I think. We have these outside influences trying to make meaning out of something, where it sounds like Mr. Adams really did just intend (what a word) to write a book from the perspective of rabbits. I think the outside bias of readers is important, but I also think it's important for a story just to be a story. Otherwise, what's the point of writing? (Don't come at me, I'm being very vague and obtuse on purpose.) I was reminded of the Return of the King film with how many endings there were. That said, I did appreciate how he kind of wrapped up everyone's storyline. My favorite ending was Hazel going off with what I'm assuming was the Black Rabbit. Maybe I misunderstood the whole story of the Black Rabbit, but that one, while creepy as heck, was my favorite of the stories within the story as well. As far as what I think the story was really about, I think it's the quintessential journey everyone takes to find some kind of meaning for life. For the rabbits? Finding ladies and settling down on their own terms. I suppose the same could be said for a lot of non-rabbits too. For me, the obstacles in their way was just like the ones we face in our own lives. Granted, we're not jumping at everything that moves toward us, nor are we prey to things with claws and beaks, but we have our own predators. I think... that's my answer there. Well, this is probably my favorite question. I think the stories were fantastic and I liked every one of them. Even the Fairy Wagdog, Wogdog, whatever. I felt like every one of them had a purpose without being overly obvious. I don't know that Fiver's second-sight was a factor, but that's because I think Fiver was a rabbit who sat between the worlds just because that's who he was. From the beginning he's put forward as a weaker rabbit because he's not very big or strong. Hazel treats him almost as an adult would treat a child, same as he does with Pipkin. But the thing with Fiver is he's a loner to me. He doesn't particularly fit in with the other rabbits of their first warren, and even when he's on the journey with Hazel, he only really talks to Hazel. This makes him stand out to me a lot because this makes him almost invisible in importance to the others. Bear with me. Hazel is really the only rabbit who makes an effort to trust Fiver. He believes in what Fiver says simply because he trusts that this little rabbit won't lead him astray from ... whatever goal they're seeking. Hazel is absolutely a leader to me. I know I'm diverting from the question here, but again, bear with me. Hazel is the reluctant leader. It kind of just fell onto him that they were going to leave their first warren and he was going to lead them. Fiver saw the property sign and Hazel didn't even question the validity. He said, sure, let's get going. I think that quality, the one where he trusts those around him, is immensely important as a leader. Because if a leader doesn't trust his/her people, then you run into leaders like Woundwort or whatever his name is. This guy, Woundwort, he's not a villain to me. He's meant to be, but he's not. To me, he's like... well, as Jannert said, he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing. His previous life has led him to believe that this, Efrara (don't look at me like that, I don't remember names well, and I don't want to switch between tabs), is the right way to go about being a rabbit. He's seen some shit, man. He knows what's out there. And he comes into this warren with this outside knowledge, so of course the other rabbits are going to go along with it. They don't know they're not safe the way he knows they're not safe. The marking, the refusal to let anyone leave, this all might be seen as paranoid, but to me it's a bit like making sure you have all you need to have for the apocalypse. Someone looking in on you might think you've lost your damn mind, but you know you'll be ready for whatever happens. That's Woundwort's mentality to me. He sees in terms of logistics and tactics. He's the general. Life is a war, and he's going to win it whether the rest of the world is in on the plan or not. I got distracted. I think I had more to say about Woundwort, but I'm getting tired and I still have more to say. Sorry if this is messy and hard to follow. As I said before, Hazel feels like the reluctant leader to me. He fell into the role because he's the one who started the leaving process and then got them to all the different places they went. He, as others have said, sees the bigger picture and factors all of his players into the outcomes. He doesn't leave anyone behind if he can get away with it. He gives off the vibe he'd fight till the death for any of his rabbits, and I think the longer he fulfills his role as leader, the more confident in it he becomes and in the end, he's absolutely deserving of the title of Chief Rabbit. Bigwig wouldn't be a bad leader, but he's led by impulsive action. He's ready to fight. He's ready to outrun a fox without thinking of the consequences of if he dies as a result. I think Bigwig himself knew that and this is why he never challenged Hazel as the default leader. He knew he'd eventually be the reason for his own demise, and he almost was. Burrowing into the earth to surprise Woundwort was fantastic. I got very worried for him during that fight, though. And Fiver, when Woundwort said he was dead? My heart dropped to my toes. My little buddy. Anyway, sorry. I think Fiver wouldn't have ever been a leader because he was seen as the weird one who sometimes talked to himself. I don't think he could have gotten anyone to follow him past Hazel. I developed a terrible habit in college where I'd skip those chapter quotes. The trend followed me into this book, but there were some that stuck out to me. My favorite one was at the start of Silverweed (16, I believe), from Sidney Keyes Four Postures of Death. That one felt like it definitely fit the chapter ahead. The dialect writing threw me off more than once and I had to go back and read some of the things the other animals said. I don't think it was bad necessarily, just overdone. I think it would work better in a reading aloud type situation because then the accents could be used to full effect. Description of the setting (I swear you had a question about the description... maybe ... maybe not) sometimes took me out of the story because it was a lot. Especially at the beginning of some chapters (were they chapters? I called them that, but I don't know if that's what they were), the description bumped me so far out of the story that I started skimming to get to something not so flowery. I don't think he used description badly, just too much. Someone said it was more about the perspective of the rabbits and hearing that, I can agree with that and it makes sense to me that he would do it that way. We see the world differently from a rabbit. They're concerned about food and safety, so of course the landscape is going to be their primary focus. There was something else I wanted to talk about, but I can't remember what it was. OH! I remembered. The Cowslip warren. It honestly reminded me of an ancient house where there are places you can't go and someone always catches you right as you're about to go into a forbidden hallway. I wish he'd gone into the reasoning behind their mystery more, but maybe that's the point of those rabbits: we never know the mystery. (Unless I'm just dumb and missed the explanation). I think if I had one critique about the book it'd be I don't know what the point of that bit was. Maybe just a stopping point on their way to Watership Down, but all the same, it felt like something out of a different story a bit. The way Adams described the dichotomy of the male and female rabbits also stubbed my literary toe a bit, but I also had to look at it from a rabbit perspective instead of a human female's perspective. It was challenging because the rabbits were almost people like in the story, they all had their individual personalities and they all functioned as a group in the warrens, but it was a human writing them. It's a thought spiral, haha. The way the men didn't really know much about digging holes because it was a doe's job just kind of made me wonder if they knew how to do much of anything. Protection, sure, but it seemed the women did the majority of the work for the warren. Let alone bearing children. But again, we circle back to "they're all rabbits, we can't apply human characteristics to them." Or can we? Do you see what I mean? One last thing, the human perspectives just tossed in there felt a bit ... tossed ... in... there. He even has a chapter called "Deu Ex Machin" or something because Hazel needed to get back to the Honeycomb. He's fully aware of what this perspective will do to the reader. It takes us out of the rabbit lives and reminds us we're not actually participating in the story like we've thought we've been the whole time. We're really just watching this happen like the man by the bridge worried about his cabbages. I think I'm making less and less sense the more I ramble. Please feel free to ignore this whole post, haha, as the ramblings of an exhausted potato. I'm sorry if something doesn't make sense.
@Dogberry's Watch - I like your perspective of Hazel being 'the reluctant leader.' I think that's perfectly correct. He has lots of things he would like to see happen, but I get the feeling if another rabbit had been of the same mind, he'd have been happy to just let the other rabbit lead (if the other rabbit was good at it.) I've heard it said that somebody who always wanted to be a leader probably shouldn't be. However, a good leader does need the kind of charisma that makes people follow and believe. I think Hazel has that pretty well. Not perfect, but good enough. I also agree about Fiver. He was NOT a leader at all. He was an interesting character, and quite loveable, but too much a loner. He could sense danger, or lack of it, but that was about the extent of his powers. He would not have been able to motivate people, at least not until he'd proved to everybody that his hunches were right. And I'm not sure his hunches would have got the warren everything it needed. Maybe would have kept them out of danger, but would he have thought to make friends with the other creatures? Or create a large meeting place within the warren? Or realised that the warren needed does, and then figured out how to get them? In fact, if anything strikes me about the book, now that I've had time to think about it, I guess it's the fact that everybody has strengths and weaknesses. Nobody is much good on their own, but when they can pull together, they can be unstoppable—within reason. Cooperation is the key to any society, really. What the story doesn't deal with is what do you do when some of your 'group' simply won't work together with the rest of the group? Initial questioning and misgivings about leaders' decisions are normal, but what if there had been a rabbit who persisted in challenging Hazel for the leadership? By that, I mean some other rabbit who made no secret of the fact that he was working against Hazel all the time? That would have had to be dealt with ...and it certainly happens in real life. Somebody who would stress Hazel out and sow dissent within the warren. Interesting.
