#lepur stupid toughts

[lepurcinus]

In reality, even if I get to joke about my concepts of Watership Down in the Himalayas or Watership Down with Pikas. Also you know how it really bothers me the whole idea of trading rabbits with hares lol.

Because that changes the story completely and is just another example of people not being able to let go of the idea that the only relevant element of WD has to be violence and darkness and death. Hares are solitary by nature, they don't fight each other unless it's for mates. Basically the whole plot of finding a new home and community and leadership and the downtrodden is not going to happen that way.

You would have to be creating an original story instead rather than adapting.

Because the story is about rabbits, you're not going to trade the lion king for tigers just because they seem more "awesome" to you. Or White Fang for a coyote because of the dynamics. I know that as such there are adaptations that can turn a story into something completely different while still keeping the idea of course, but the thing is that they usually also try to be something new as a product rather than an adaptation itself.

And well the stigma that rabbits are cute innocent creatures and hares weird Lovecraft cryptids. It's changing unknown aspects of their nature just on the basis of how "disturbing" their appearance is.

For starters the terrible stigma Watership Down has of being just a "scary" story has a lot to do with it, no it's not. It's a story full of layers and it bothers me a little to know that because of scenes in the film they have to believe it is.

Plus the rabbits themselves have another stigma. People just can't help but see them as "cuddly critters". When they are not, rabbits are also WILD ANIMALS, they have to deal with a lot of crap every day, rabbits also fight, bleed and bite each other to death. Any rabbit owner knows how terribly chaotic they can be and wild rabbits are aggressive as shit with each other.

Stories like Watership Down HELP remove that stigma, even with certain outdated or unknown topics at the time Richard Adams managed to make his slightly to anthropomorphic rabbits feel like the non-human animals they are, he gave them culture, language, myths and mild intelligence but adapted in a way that sounds believable to anyone who knows the basics about rabbits, even the story itself is filled with thousands of facts about these animals that allow you to learn about them.

Watership Down doesn't censor their reality, and not just because they kill each other or some stupid thing they always say. It doesn't censor the rabbits as the animals they are, they eat their waste, they have in mind the idea of reproducing almost as a law, they are not immediate friends of their animal companions and they even have a hard time communicating with them.

Watership Down is about rabbits because it shows their reality, their anguish and daily struggles, events that although fictional and sometimes fantastic are not far from the possibilities of what a rabbit can do. And it also works with rabbits because it has the whole element of community, family, peer bonding, leadership and knowing one's value and what one is good at.

A lot of that is lost if you simply change them for another animal simply because you think it covers a false "aesthetic" better and it's just the same story but made up by changing its nature.

It also bothers me because people just don't understand that they are different but related animals.

[lepurcinus]

This Is the worst take I've ever read in my life, Bro no need to lie to live with 😭.

(The fact that they refers to the miniseries as a "movie remake" instead of as, well, a miniseries than a different adaptation just tells me they didn't see it and probably didn't even read the book either).

This and that Watership Down was about "Lord of the Flies-style cannibal rabbits" are the worst things about Watership Down I've read this week.

[lepurcinus]

In another strange reflection I made, I don't think it's wrong for an animal xenofiction story to show the message of the harm done by man or that animals fear or even "hate" them (this one applies more if they are more anthropomorphized).

But it shouldn't just boil down to "mankind is evil, die, the world would be a better place". The use of this kind of phrases is still fine, some are even powerful, but it is better to know how to use them instead of just being misanthropic.

I found on Youtube a scene from the movie Samson & Sally, which is about sperm whales. And a character says:

"Mankind is not vicious, mankind is stupid. Someday man will realize what he's doing. By killing everything in the sea he is killing himself. When the sea is dead, mankind will die, too".

This is a great example of a impactful, powerful phrase that makes its message very clear. Man affects his ecosystem and is also part of it, his actions are not only towards other creatures.

Of course I'm still a fan of the more neutral stories. It is still possible to teach the feeling of fear, bewilderment and suffering of animals towards our actions, but the world is too gray and changing to just pounce on one idea.

This is also not something about whether we humans are inherently good or bad, but as with everything, there are many variables. And instead of just sitting around crying and complaining, one must themselves set the change and example of how they want things to be. And a story can be that media and set that example that will lead to that change.

[lepurcinus]

Seriously, I would like to have a Facebook group dedicated to xenofiction/animal content in media.

Discord servers are great, but it's a bit more interesting to do full posts with you know... Stories, texts, recommendations a more open community...

The closest thing I have is a Watership Down group and honestly I find it pretty disappointing, as it's just image and video spam. And sometimes the occasional half interesting thing...

[lepurcinus]

At this point I don't know if I'm sure about my stories, there are concepts, there are scenes, but there is no concise plot as such.

Mostly the Iberian animal one isn't quite convincing me, but I can't think of anything that would make me change what I already have.

The protagonist hares don't have such memorable moments or defined personalities, they feel empty and outside of a couple of scenes there's no point.

And my rabbit characters. Oh, rabbits whose original warren gets into trouble and they set off into the unknown looking for a new home, when they arrive they search for more rabbits to make it bigger. Jeez, I feel like I'm writing a cheap plagiarism of Watership Down, I don't feel some identity.

As many animals as I want to put in I don't know how I'll do it, what stories they tell. The only one with a definite and unique backstory is the lynx, and I haven't thought of almost any of his story yet.

And now, I'm not sure if I want them to talk. Or how I define their actions without anthropomorphize too much. I don't know if I want it to feel more naturalistic without dialogue.

This is burning me out more than I thought at first. And about the others I have, uh, there's still almost nothing either...oh the demotivation

[lepurcinus]

Something I noticed recently and maybe not to my complete liking is that in many parts of WD it make comparisons of rabbit behavior with humans or explain a lot of how different are or what means and it feels very out of touch, like, I want to learn on my own how different animals are from people, I don't need it being directly explained to me, thanks.

And that's because there are other parts where he DOES describe what the rabbits do but doesn't explain all at once what it means (I appreciate the parts where they approach each other and "greets" with their snouts sniffing each other).

Also, sometimes Adams makes analogies that are a bit unfamiliar or weird to my little brain so I don't quite understand what he means by that.

Am I doing too much Watership posting? Who cares, I need something to keep me alive and there aren't too many conversations recently.

[lepurcinus]

If I got a nickel for every time I ended up liking a "new version" of a franchise I follow, made in 3D and distributed by Netflix but disowned by much of the fandom. I'd have two nickels, which isn't much but it's rare that it's happened twice.

[lepurcinus]

Reading these old naturalist books makes me feel like a time traveler.

I really appreciate what they contain and it is comforting to see that even in those days there was a love for nature. But it's just that some things and thoughts feel so archaic.

Of course, it was the time when hating wolves and wishing them extinction was the law, and where sport hunting was not even regulated. So seeing men talk so normally about pointing a gun at an animal feels perfectly understandable.

That and how very humanized it feels no matter how much you say it's not. Reflected in the mention of human actions compared to animals, attributing certain thoughts to them both positive and negative and the obvious preference over mammals and birds over nasty, evil reptiles.

[lepurcinus]

Anyone who says stupid shit about paleontology/biology is added to my blacklist of people who will have their arms replaced with test tubes.

[lepurcinus]

Rabbits: pretty religious beings

Hares/Jackrabbits: Fucking nihilists who doesn't give a fuck about life meaning

[lepurcinus]

So, after watching a couple of videos about writing xenofiction.

Really rabbits are underappreciated animals in the aspect of how very exploitable their stories can be.

Yes, the most famous book in this genre has them as main characters and does a very good job of representing them correctly (Though not entirely, there are a couple of scientific flaws sprinkled in there but never mind). But the rest of the other rabbit stories out there are kind of uhhhhhhhh.

Because first we have the attempts to copy the first one, and well, they don't give too much by themselves. It's just reading the same thing but made up to look different and without all that sparkle.

And then we have the stories about rabbits that are already on the more traditional side. They are portrayed as calm, gentle, uwu cute or whatever, sometimes very shy, sometimes silly, they are present in the day, they mate like rabbits (ironic), everything kills them, etc. (well maybe some of them are not so bad). And let's not mention attributing the same behavior to all rabbits, no matter the species, it will be the same.

And well, that's not entirely how they work. They are animals that can be really complex in themselves, they are adaptable, variable, stop putting them in the same idea please.

If we are talking about European rabbits, why the hell do we only have stories that occur in areas where they were introduced? Why is there nothing about rabbits in their natural habitat, the Iberian Peninsula? Although it may not seem like it, there are many things that work differently there.

We have the "prince of a thousand enemies" although well, in reality many of those thousand enemies are not very interested in the predation of the rabbits because they were not used to them. That's why they managed to proliferate and become a long-term problem. (And let's mention when in Australia they introduced foxes to hunt the rabbits, but the foxes passed them by and preferred to go for the native fauna that was easier to catch and equally nutritive for them).

But, in their natural habitat, we even have animals that actively eats rabbits. There's also two species that literally LIVE off hunting rabbits, to the point that if these diminish they will too (The Iberian imperial eagle and the Iberian lynx). Just look at that potential with just that idea of predator-prey relationship. How the rabbits see these rabbit-killers and how they see their prey as their source of life.

(To give an example, and in parallel Canada lynx are almost entirely dependent on the American Hare in their diet, so much so, that if the hares disappear the lynx go with them. Not only that, but the hares are actually declining in population because of fear of the lynx. The lynx hunts them so much that the females reach a point where they even refuse to reproduce due to the stress of being hunted by the lynx. This does not happen with ANY other predator. Now transfer that to Europe and WOW).

And if we go to America, ok there are a couple of things with the common cottontail rabbit. But they ignore that there are over 28 species of rabbits throughout America, and even though they are related, each lives in a different environment and behaves differently.

We have rabbits that inhabit deserts and feed on cactus, others that live in cold mountain areas. And even rabbits that build burrows in the middle of swamps as a means of protection, these rabbits are basically aquatic. Why doesn't anyone notice this? Look at all that potential (and let alone the rest of the rabbits in other parts of the world).

[lepurcinus]

Randomly remember concepts that were never used/referenced in the Watership Down adaptations.

-The whole Hazel thing inside Lucy's house.

-The concept of the Owslafas

-Hazel being inside his burrow when he is going to die.

[lepurcinus]

I think for me, the hardest part of writing xenofiction is striking the perfect balance between sapience and animality.

Because really nature is so variable and so strange in its "rules", but many times we are not aware of it. Sometimes we see animals and their worlds as one thing and ignore all their capabilities, all that can be and will be.

The type of story you want to make can also enter a little bit, realism doesn't matter too much if your story doesn't pretend to be one (or in any case go for a more fantastic side than real). On the one hand you have stories of not entirely sapient animals (White Fang, Wild Animals I Have Know, Bambi etc), on the other hand stories that are already entirely fantastic and/or anthropomorphized (Warriors, Redwall, The Jungle Book etc) and those that try to mix both concepts (Watership Down, Gahoole in its beginnings, among others).

For my part, although I have in mind a couple of more fantastic and "cheesy" ideas, my xenofiction is mostly based on the real side of things, I strongly believe that animals themselves create thousands of amazing stories, stories that happen in front of our noses but that we are missing.

So, what I'm referring to with this. It's that we are usually left with only one idea of what animals do. We have those who believe that animals are like in fairy tales where they are all friends where there is peace and love, and then there are those who see nature as a gore horror movie where there is someone dying every second and everything is infinitely horrible and morbid.

And, it is not like that. Animals may not be complete friends all the time, but neither are they machines programmed to just follow an order and be devoid of feelings. It goes far beyond all of this that we as humans have learned. That's why it's so wonderful.

For example, many people know that Capybaras are incredibly calm animals that seem to get along with a lot of wildlife, and they do. But also, among them there is also aggression, male Capybaras fight even to the death just to dominate a territory. They are also hunted by other animals such as pumas, jaguars and crocodiles.

And even with all that, you can see a Capybara enjoying life with his species, passing through the territory of crocodiles without any of them being interested in killing him and even climbing on the back of one to cross streams.

So, you really don't always need to give animals human values or morals in order for them to "get along" or "have peace". They are much more than harems, infanticide and reproduction. They are beings that in their own way feel and think, can fight and at the same time, have peace.

That is all.

[lepurcinus]

Once I have a dream of a book cover with a hare covered by blue roots/veins and the title was "Blue Bramble".

I don't know what that means, but I think it was a divine sight to me for writting that story.

[lepurcinus]

That moment were you just read a book about talking rabbits and think:

"Oh rabbits are actually cool" and start to research about them and then discover all the species of their order. And you become obsesive about them and discover everything about how they are.

And then you realice that feeling you thought was lost for a long time ago and searching about animals becomes an obsession again, and with it your desire to create stories become stronger again. It's a rabbit hole that I don't want to leave never.

It's a feeling that I'm glad to have, it's was a desicion that im still proud to take.

[lepurcinus]

Now talking in a positive way about the miniseries. I actually enjoyed this despiction of the black rabbit

Not only because it is a doe, but because I really feel here a more interesting representation of that "naturalness" of death.

Don't get me wrong, I love the black rabbit stories in the book and their mentions, you do get that theme across there. It's perfect, it's good and I really want to see that story animated someday.

But to my personal taste, that "creepy" side is not so much to my liking. That scary rabbit hole with sick rabbits, extinguishing some beavers and stuff is like oh yeah, and the "rabbit hell" depictions I don't know.... Of course again, it's a representation of that fear that one feels towards death, and more so for a rabbit, an animal that knows it could go at any instant. (Although well it might get a little lost with at the end of the book it's not even the black rabbit who takes Hazel, so.)

Now, this isn't just something from this miniseries, the movie had already done that. The black rabbit is more of a "representative" thing. It's silent, instantaneous and calm, almost like an illusion. And I really like that idea more, that you feel that "naturalness and acceptance" towards death, because it's something that will happen eventually.

Plus it adds to the fact that in the end Hazel leaves this world in the most "honorable" way possible, peacefully as an old rabbit who saw a lot of things. His voice, though gravelly, is subdued and friendly.

Now in the miniseries she doesn't differ much, beyond that her interactions are more "direct". At the end she is similar to the movie one, only appearing as a illusion for brief moments. Now her voice is just as dominant, somewhat cold but at the same time peaceful, perhaps maternal (by the way, personally his voice in Latin Spanish is more in tune with this).

And that phrase that she says "all walk with me, but it is for a brief moment called "life" that rabbits leave my side." It's beautiful, it seems so goofy or whatever, but it fits well with all of this. Adams once said it, there is no animal almost as close to death as a rabbit.(well, maybe some mouse too) This phrase fits that idea like a glove.

This is why I like this depiction so much, it's one of my favorites.

(By the way, the one in the TV series is the one I like the least, because it's basically the summary of that "creepy rabbit hell" I mentioned before and I hate that autotune edgy voice detail. His voice already sounded perfect without editing).