Posted on behalf of Catalina

JS2: Compare the portrayal of the heroes of “Watership Down”.

In “Watership Down”, the whole theme of heroes is simultaneously less and more obvious – although any supposed heroes do not come with their propaganda as they do in “Animal Farm”, they are far more worthy of the title.

Within “Animal Farm”, Old Major is first seen as a huge influence, and could be seen as a hero of Animalism: it is he who first thought of the concept, and he who prophesised the revolution, yet he is forgotten – if anything, humans become more of influence, despite their being the common enemy.  Humans are imitated, evident in that it is the one with the most power who is considered a hero; namely, Napoleon, who terrorises the other animals and rules using the fear of death as motivation.  Of course, one who wields power is not the definition of a hero, yet it is all too easy in a dictatorship to revere the leader as a hero when the consequence of thinking otherwise is death.

This is completely different to “Watership Down”.  The characters in particular that show elements of heroism – in this case, real heroism – are Hazel and Bigwig, who have something of an antagonistic relationship, with Bigwig being the only rabbit to refuse to call Hazel “Hazel-rah”, and so refusing to accept his authority as leader. Bigwig’s heroic characteristics come mainly from his strength, and the respect gained from his position in the Owsla in the Sandlefordwarren; Hazel’s come from his actions in a situation he is really far too young and inexperienced to be in – he has gone from being an outskirter of the warren, and only a year old, to leading a group of rabbits on a journey that is not only long, but which has unknown consequences.  Considering this, Hazel does incredibly well – he is responsible, and has enough sense to have control of their situation (at least for the most part).

However, it could be argued that there are no true heroes in either novel – those in “Animal Farm” are totally false, and it doesn’t take long for them to betray their supposed comrades. It could be of note, though, that Boxer could be viewed as something of an unsung hero in his way – he works hard, and keeps himself motivated (“I will work harder”) even when he is driving himself to utter exhaustion, and when he is sold, by the pigs, to be slaughtered, it is undoubtedly one of the saddest parts of the book.  On the other hand, though, he is only a hero in his undying loyalty and hard work – merits that are to be valued, but he does nothing to help the other animals aside from working himself into the ground: this can be forgiven, though, when it is considered that he is too dim to realise the horror of the situation, and does what he can. The heroes in “Watership Down” – with the exception of El-ahrairah, who is a mythical figure – are given their titles based primarily on their hierarchy: Bigwig is respected because he is strong and in the Owsla; Hazel is respected because he was the only one who seemed to have any idea as to what to do; Woundwort, even, built his way up through strength and violence, and he makes Efrafa an incredibly efficient and well-organised warren, if at the cost of the happiness of its inhabitants. This leads to an interesting point – General Woundwort’s status as a hero is incredibly questionable.  Despite both being dictators, Woundwort and Napoleon are totally different in that Woundwort doesn’t propagate his own heroism.  This could be because Woundwort built himself up, and went on to build up Efrafa, while Napoleon uses manipulation to get into his place with relative ease.

This then leads to the question: what makes a hero? The definition that people mainly think of is an ideal person who exhibits bravery, intelligence in difficult situations and strength; they are usually seen as “perfect”.  El-ahrairah is probably the only character that displays this at all, and he is the protagonist of legends – yet a lot of the characters in “Watership Down” (including Woundwort, in his way) show features and behaviours hinting at heroism, and even more characteristics showing them to be flawed. In “Animal Farm”, characters only show small elements of these characteristics, such as Boxer’s hard work, and the hens’ rebellion.  It could, then, be said that the main difference in the portrayal of heroes in the two novels is that, in “Animal Farm”, heroes are only those who do their small part to help others, and those appreciated as heroes are those who do nothing to help anyone but themselves; in “Watership Down”, true heroes aren’t real, but their ideas can be used in real life – not only this, but that even those with heroic intentions can cause problems, both on a small scale (such as when Hazel manipulated Pipkin to steal does) and on a larger one (such as Woundwort’s efforts to create a perfect warren).  As a result, the portrayal of heroes in “Animal Farm” is starker, and considerably more cynical – in “Watership Down”, a whole spectrum is displayed.