Due to the fact it's written from the third person omniscient perspective, "the narrator can stop the action at any time and tell us everything that we need to know in order for the story to make sense" (Shmoop Editorial Team). However, what's most fascinating about the narration of Watership Down is it's preferential treatment of rabbits, compared to humanity itself. Arguably, this is done to help you as a reader sympathize and connect with these creatures you're reading about, but there's an almost proud undertone to the narration as well. No matter how direct or indirect, whenever there's a comparison made between people and rabbits, the latter always seem to come out of it marked as the superior species. While he does mention the flaws
…show more content…
People become power hungry and dictators in much the same way, and "Many readers compare Efrafa to a nation ruled by military dictators."(Williams, R A.). In fact, throughout history, some of the biggest conflicts and wars have been the result of dictators horrific choices. Moreover, humans also have cowardice within them. Perhaps even more so than the rabbits shown in the novel. So many things don't happen purely because people don't have the nerve to go through with it. Similarly, countless times in history terrible events could have been avoided, if people had had the nerve to step out and stand up for what was right, and what needed to be done. Instead, people shy away, and pretend problems aren't happening. Consequently, despite only showing the flaws in rabbits, it's impossible not to compare them to humans own faults, and to see that every single thing proven wrong about rabbits is also wrong with humanity. Therefore, while not a direct comparison, Adams successfully provides continuous indirect comparisons throughout the book as …show more content…
Similarly, it showcases its preference of rabbits over people all the more when it directly compares the two. From their killing habits to their hearing abilities, continuous comprions are made between rabbits and humans, all pointing to the same idea; rabbits are the better species of the two. One of the oldest, and extremely direct, comparisons made in the novel, occurs in chapter 27, when the narrator talks about the killing habits of both rabbits and humans. Starting off with the frank admission that "Animals don't behave like men"(Adams 309), the passage quickly, and decisively shows that, in terms of how they deal with killing, rabbits are superior in their behavior compared to humans. By finishing the paragraph with the statement that rabbits "have dignity and animality." It is heavily implied that humans therefore, do not have dignity or "animality"; a clever play on the term 'humanity'. In addition to these grand proclamations of rabbits superiority, Adams didn't shy away from talking about the inferiority of humans in terms of the little things in life, such as their ability to hear. During chapter 33, the narrator casually creates a comparison between the hearing of a rabbit and the hearing of a human with the line "A human ear would hardly have heard them, but to the rabbits the air was full of their
People become power hungry and dictators in much the same way, and "Many readers compare Efrafa to a nation ruled by military dictators."(Williams, R A.). In fact, throughout history, some of the biggest conflicts and wars have been the result of dictators horrific choices. Moreover, humans also have cowardice within them. Perhaps even more so than the rabbits shown in the novel. So many things don't happen purely because people don't have the nerve to go through with it. Similarly, countless times in history terrible events could have been avoided, if people had had the nerve to step out and stand up for what was right, and what needed to be done. Instead, people shy away, and pretend problems aren't happening. Consequently, despite only showing the flaws in rabbits, it's impossible not to compare them to humans own faults, and to see that every single thing proven wrong about rabbits is also wrong with humanity. Therefore, while not a direct comparison, Adams successfully provides continuous indirect comparisons throughout the book as …show more content…
Similarly, it showcases its preference of rabbits over people all the more when it directly compares the two. From their killing habits to their hearing abilities, continuous comprions are made between rabbits and humans, all pointing to the same idea; rabbits are the better species of the two. One of the oldest, and extremely direct, comparisons made in the novel, occurs in chapter 27, when the narrator talks about the killing habits of both rabbits and humans. Starting off with the frank admission that "Animals don't behave like men"(Adams 309), the passage quickly, and decisively shows that, in terms of how they deal with killing, rabbits are superior in their behavior compared to humans. By finishing the paragraph with the statement that rabbits "have dignity and animality." It is heavily implied that humans therefore, do not have dignity or "animality"; a clever play on the term 'humanity'. In addition to these grand proclamations of rabbits superiority, Adams didn't shy away from talking about the inferiority of humans in terms of the little things in life, such as their ability to hear. During chapter 33, the narrator casually creates a comparison between the hearing of a rabbit and the hearing of a human with the line "A human ear would hardly have heard them, but to the rabbits the air was full of their