Talk:Hazel (Watership Down)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hazel (Watership Down) article.
Article policies

If all other lead characters of Watership Down get their own pages then why can't Hazel? After all, you can't much more of a lead character than this!

I agree that Hazel should have a separate article: as the central character in a very famous book he most certainly deserves his own article, just as much as the likes of Frodo Baggins and Ebenezer Scrooge do. I have therefore removed the {{prod}} template.
However, the article as it stood at the time the prod template was added was not particularly good, as it was incomplete, lacked references or much wikifying, and suffered from slightly unencyclopedic tone. I've therefore cut it right down to a stub which can be expanded, though hopefully without us falling into the common trap of thinking that we need to mention every single thing that happens to Hazel. That would be appropriate for a fansite, but is not for a general encyclopedia article.
I've deliberately cut out the "plottish" bits from the previous article as they were falling into that trap, though of course it can be expanded from what's there now. See, for example, Arthur Dent for what seems to me to be a good example of how to handle a character: the main points are there, but the Arthur Dent article doesn't rehash all the plot already explained in the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy article. Loganberry (Talk) 03:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] El-ahrairah versus the Black Rabbit

I noticed that someone had written in this article that, when Hazel dies, he is escorted away by the Black Rabbit of Inlé. I disagree - the appearance of the rabbit is positive, whereas the Black Rabbit is described throughout the novel as a bearer of fear.

I believe the appearing rabbit is El-ahrairah - firstly, Hazel is invited to join the rabbit's Owsla. The Black Rabbit's Owsla are essentially evil spirits, which wouldn't fit the the tone of the scene if Hazel had been invited to join them. Secondly, Hazel notices that the rabbit's ears shine faintly in the darkness. This supports that the rabbit is El-ahrairah, whose ears have starlight in them. 196.2.104.39 (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Black Rabbit is the one who accompanies rabbits when they die. When he calls you, you have to go with him. There's nothing evil about him, but of course he's frightening since he brings death. El-ahrairah is just a character of stories, not a deity the rabbits actually believe in like Frith and the Black Rabbit are. It's made very obvious in the film that the rabbit Hazel goes with at the end is the Black Rabbit. I don't recall El-ahrairah having starlight in his ears, but I do remember him receiving leaves in place of ears in one of the stories. However, since the book is ambiguous, and since putting in our own interpretations is not allowed, unless we can find an interview with Richard Adams where he settles the question, perhaps we should rewrite the sentence to leave it as ambiguous as the book. —Angr 20:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It may seem to be the Black Rabbit in the film, but that is an "original research" interpretation of the images. Nothing is actually said. Complicating the interpretation is that the film's spirit-rabbit does not appear to be the Black Rabbit all of the time, but only towards the end of the sequence and for a brief flash earlier on in it; and that in the book it is quite clearly El-ahrairah who comes for Hazel. So what is intended in the film? Anyone can make reasonable interpretations, but these are "original research" if they are merely the interpretations of a WP editor. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unambiguously the Black Rabbit in the movie. It's the exact same image as had been identified earlier in the movie as the Black Rabbit, and doesn't look even remotely similar to how El-ahrairah is depicted in the movie. (Or Frith, for that matter, who's about as likely as El-Ahrairah in the book.) No guesswork is required on the part of the viewer to know exactly who it is. In the book, on the other hand, there is no reason whatever to think it's El-ahrairah, since El-ahraihrah is not the rabbit who comes and gets you when you die. (To use a human analogy: Robin Hood doesn't come get you when you die, the Grim Reaper does.) I admit that saying it's the Black Rabbit in the book is OR (despite being the only reasonable interpretation), but in the film, it is explicitly the Black Rabbit, recognizing that requires no personal interpretation, and saying so is not OR. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not unreasonable insofar as it concerns the film, but the very fact that it is a line of reasoning from various facts about the film shows it to be "original research". You may be right that it's meant to be the Black Rabbit in the film, and I even tend to agree with you, but it's still "original research" to say so in the WP article.
Beyond that, please restore the article and edit it selectively for any concerns you have about OR in the parts you deleted.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The line of reasoning from various facts is in regard to the book. The film shows the character plainly. Saying that it's the Black Rabbit in the film is no more original research than saying it's Darth Vader who says to Luke Skywalker, "No, I am your father" in The Empire Strikes Back. Once a character has been shown on the screen and given a name, it's not original research to then identify future appearances of that character as having that name. There's nothing in what I removed that is less original research than what you removed. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You present a line of reasoning with regard to the film, also, and it is that line of reasoning which my last post considers (leaving aside your arguement about the book). Your analogy with Vader is a false one: Unlike the Black Rabbit in Watership Down, Vader, in the fictonal world of the Star Wars films, is a definite flesh-and-blood man of a certain voice and appearance who acts and speaks within the physical world. So yes, whenever we see him within the films, which is very often, it is fair to assume that it really is him, in the lack of any contrary indication -- and of course the same goes for the other characters in the SW films. The Black Rabbit in the WD film is a mythological/supernatural being who is talked about at various points, may appear during the sequence where Fiver finds the injured Hazel (or is that just a vision of Fiver's?), and may appear during Hazel's death scene.
As regards your deletion of most of the article, if you, yourself, truly believe that the material is OR, then fair enough. If not, then you have no business deleting it. I hate to say this, and very much hope it is not so, but the appearance is that you do not really believe the material you deleted is all OR -- and some of it most surely is not -- but are holding the rest of the article for ransom with the aim of forcing the inclusion of the bit you wish. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
What I believe is that you have invented a new definition of OR that you are applying here. Under your definition of OR, everything I deleted qualifies, because nothing I removed can be inferred more easily from reading the book than what you removed can be inferred from watching the movie. I don't think the movie should be held to a higher standard than the book. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 07:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Please never mind about what you think I should think is "OR" according what you think I think is the definition of "OR". What matters with respect to your deletion of most of the article is whether you truly think it is "OR". Do you think it is OR? If not, please put it back. I do not support your bulk deletion if it.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've restored everything I don't think is OR. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 07:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(Note: I've copied the two posts next below to here, from Angr's talkpage, because they bear on the editorial issues under discussion in this section, and so as to consolidate the discussion of those issues. The first post of the two (mine), is partial because the earlier portion is not directly germane to the editing of this article. For the rest, see section "Hazel, etc." on the originating talkpage (i.e Angr's). -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

...And no, the stuff I wrote is not "just as much OR" as your Black Rabbit bit. It's straight out of the novel, with no interpretation. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that isn't true. The novel never says Hazel died at all. It merely says, "It seemed to Hazel that he would not be needing his body any more, so he left it lying on the edge of the ditch". It's OR to interpret that as death -- perhaps he was just having an out-of-body experience and came back for his body later. "The strange rabbit ... passes seemingly unnoticed by any other rabbit but Hazel" is also OR; the text only says the young sentry paid the visitor no attention. As for the rest of what you wrote, it's as much OR as the Black Rabbit bit in the sense that 0 = 0. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 08:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Unless I'm much mistaken, reading for comprehension is not "original research". I'm sure that any 10-year-old could read the epilogue and realise that it tells of Hazel's death. When it is taken in context, I don't see that the "It seemed...ditch" sentence can be construed otherwise. More to the point, if you're going to get sticky, is that there are plentiful sources which take for granted that the epilogue tells of Hazel's death. Unless you can find a reliable source denying or at least questioning that, I don't see that you've a leg to stand on as regards that "OR" objection. I'll grant you that as regards the stranger's going unnoticed I went ever-so-slightly beyond what the text says -- but that's so nigglingly "OR" that I'm surprised anyone would take issue with it. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
And I'm sure that any 10-year-old could watch the movie and realize that the rabbit who comes and gets him at the end is the Black Rabbit of Inlé. Or, for that matter, read the book and come to that same conclusion. But as you said above, "Anyone can make reasonable interpretations, but these are 'original research' if they are merely the interpretations of a WP editor". —Angr If you've written a quality article... 09:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting opinion. For what it matters, I think that you are right insofar as that in the film it is supposed to be the Black Rabbit who comes for Hazel, but wrong in supposing that it is so clear-cut and unambiguous. About the book, I think that you are dead wrong and that it is plainly El-ahrairah who comes for Hazel at the end. (Your "Black Rabbit" opinion seems to be much the minority one, both among editors of this article and beyond Wikipedia.) I doubt that you are even serious in suggesting that Hazel's death at the end of the novel is open to reasonable doubt. However, these matters of my opinion versus yours are not, finally, the point:
That Hazel dies at the end of the book is, as I mentioned in my last post, readily attributable to sources outside WP. (If you insist on being difficult, I will even give such references, though I'd prefer not to take the trouble and clutter up the article with references that are not really needed.) So there's certainly no genuine "OR" problem there, even supposing that it would be "OR" for a WP article to say that Hazel dies solely on the basis of the novel's epilogue, itself. There is, apparently, some controversy (I mean outside of the editorial dispute here) over who comes for Hazel at the end, and the article needs to present a neutral point-of-view on that, not promote your "Black Rabbit" thesis.
This dialogue has been getting nowhere, so I've started a RfC. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how any reasonable person could interpret it as El-Ahrairah in the book, although I concede the book isn't as clear about its being the Black Rabbit as it could have been. I do also agree that Hazel dies at the end (obviously, since I believe the stranger is the Black Rabbit, and the Black Rabbit only shows up when you're dying), but since you began the game of "everything that isn't explicitly stated is OR", it's only fair to apply that standard to everything, not only to the parts you personally disagree with. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 08:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: "original research" concerns about El-ahrairah vs. Black Rabbit at Hazel's death, whether it is truly Hazel's death, etc.

There has been some disagreement on these points and on how they should be covered in the article, beginning with Angr's edit of 9 November. The original issue was the identity of the being that comes for Hazel in the novel's epilogue and in the film's final scene (without taking a stand, here, on whether it is the same being in both media). Lately this has spun off into other issues of supposed "original research" in the article, and perhaps the very nature of "original research", as that term is used within Wikipedia. Dialogue on these things is veering about and getting nowhere, and input from other editors seems to be needed. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd give my tuppence-worth here. I agree with Lonewolf BC that it is very clearly El-ahrairah who comes at the end of the book - Hazel calls him "my lord", and his ears are shining with a faint light. Remember "lord with the starlight ears, send me a sign" from earlier in the book; that's obviously a prayer to El-ahrairah, not the Black Rabbit. So as far as the novel goes, I don't think there's any serious doubt: Hazel is a special rabbit, and so is "collected" by El-ahrairah, even though usually (as Bigwig said) "when the Black Rabbit calls you, you have to go".
It's trickier to answer about the film, because I have my own views on that, and those are at least in part my own - hence most definitely OR. What we do know is that the "Black Rabbit of Death" in the prologue looks identical to the being that we see right at the end - but not identical to the shade that appears to Hazel slightly earlier. I'm not sure we can go further than simply describing what is seen, at least not unless someone can dig out a hard reference from the film-makers. (Since Richard Adams was not happy with some aspects of the film and didn't make it himself, an interview with him alone would not be conclusive.) Loganberry (Talk) 02:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Loganberry 100%. The novel could hardly be clearer about it being El-ahrairah, while the movie seems to be purposely ambiguous. It's also fairly clear in both versions that this scene is about Hazel's physical death. I'm not in favor of any resolution for the article that leaves it saying anything much different than that. ColinClark (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we still need to wait for comments? There haven't been any in a while, and the article is still unchanged. So far it's three to one in favor of El-ahrairah, so I'm assuming I can "fix" the article. ColinClark (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's El-ahrairah.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Says who? Certainly not the movie, and probably not the book. The book strongly suggests it's the Black Rabbit, but never comes out and says it directly. And Colin, this isn't a vote. Saying it's El-Ahrairah is flat-out original research. Saying it's the Black Rabbit in the book is OR too (though it's unambiguous in the movie), so it's best to leave out any speculation of who the rabbit in the book is. —Angr 05:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be neither OR nor speculation to add a note in the article that El-ahrairah is the only rabbit in the entire book described as having faint silver light in his ears. Would everyone find that acceptable? ColinClark (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If you also note that the Black Rabbit of Inlé is the only rabbit in the entire book described as coming to get rabbits when they die, and that nothing in the book ever suggests that rabbits believe El-Ahrairah (a folk hero like Robin Hood or John Henry) is someone they can or will actually interact with. That's why the idea that it's El-Ahrairah at the end is so laughable – imagine telling a story of a group of people who believe that the Grim Reaper is a real entity who they definitely will meet when they die, and who also tell stories about Robin Hood. Now imagine that when the main character dies at the end of the story, you say that Robin Hood appeared to him and invited him to go off and join the Merry Men. No one reading the story would take you seriously as a storyteller anymore. If Richard Adams ever came out and said it was his intention that readers interpret the mysterious rabbit at the end to be El-Ahrairah, I would completely lose respect for him as an author, because frankly, it would utterly destroy the integrity of the story. —Angr 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I would find it much more laughable and damaging to this story if it was about a great hero who was just like Robin Hood, and that Robin Hood positively intervened in his life from beyond the grave, but that when he died the Grim Reaper not only collected him, but had him join his "ghastly, shadowy" inner circle so that he'd spend the rest of eternity in a cave as an agent of "fear and everlasting darkness" to the very people he loved. Especially if I then added that when the Grim Reaper did show up, he looked like Errol Flynn in tights with a feather in his cap and that he talked to this hero very politely and nicely. That would indeed be bad storytelling.
According to Wikipedia policies as I understand them, I suppose I couldn't object to you adding that the Black Rabbit is described as collecting rabbits at death, although I personally think that'd kinda mess up the article. However, it's not true that nothing in the book suggests that the rabbits think they could interact with El-ahrairah. Bigwig prays to him for "a sign" and Hazel claims to receive revelation from him.
So, you're saying you won't object if we add that El-ahrairah is described as having faint starlight in his ears, and that you'd also like to add a note about the Black Rabbit being described as the one that appears to rabbits at death. Is that correct?
(By the way, what explanation do you have for the silver light in the ears?) ColinClark (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It should perhaps be noted that the caption in the Film Picture Book explicitly says that it is El-ahrairah: the full text is "El-ahrairah comes for Hazel at the end of his long and happy life". The captions for the book were written by Richard Adams himself, and occasionally show signs of slight disagreement with what's on the screen; Joss Ackland is credited as "Black Rabbit". Loganberry (Talk) 17:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)