If it's truly possible to describe WSD without belittling what it has to offer, then here's what I've got.
Firstly, it has a brilliant plot - it's clear that Adams is a very smart man, as the twists and turns the plot goes through are really neat, and neither enemy feels set up to fail by the author; both WSD and Efrafa seem strategic and smart.
The characters are very unique and memorable, yet Adams did not go so far as to make each rabbit a cut-out of a generic character. All too many times, books and movies use the "Book of Generic Characters", scrolling through the lists and picking out characters like the Noble-and-Valiant Leader, or the Smart One, or the Bumbling-Yet-Charismatic One, or the Reserved-and-quiet-underdog, etc. Hazel, while being a sort of leader, is clearly just trying to do his best, and Bigwig isn't just a brute, he's a brute with a plan, and so on. There's also realistic flaws and fears that the characters have; Woundwart is insanely tyrannical and seemingly invincible, yet he is still struck by fear at the idea that there's a bigger rabbit than Bigwig in their fight at the end of the book/movie.
I think the thing I most like about the book is the thematic elements. Overthinking things seems to be my specialty, though either way I found so many really good themes in the book, and by really good I mean not only applicable in real life, but also very... realistic. Themes like "shades of grey", mortality, authoritarianism versus democracy, and more are just very timely and visible in the world around us, which is a huge contrast between the setting of the book: bunnies in England. I could go on about this... but that's called rambling.
Ah, that leads me to the irony. There's something so ironic about how serious the lives of these bunnies are. I purposely use the word "bunnies" instead of "rabbits" because it demonstrates the way bunnies are seen in our culture; as brainless and fluffy victims. It's a means of situational irony that contrasts the way we see rabbits outside and the way they are portrayed in the book: these intrepid warriors are fighting for their warrens, and by extension, their way of life. We can sit back and laugh at their insignificant affairs while we continue with the things that are, in principle, similar to what they do.
As much as it's considered odd for a person my age to watch a children's TV series, I'll admit I really enjoyed it, especially the third season. The betrayal, and dependence on trust, and the tension and devotion between characters. It's a lot like Breaking Bad actually; a tale of knavery, secrecy, leadership and conflict. Everyone is trying to survive, and perhaps "siding by the winner" is not very brave or honest, but if it gets you food and security, it's the right move.
As a final point, ...I'll put it simply; it didn't annoy me. I'm annoyed whenever a story gets preachy as its means of telling a moral, or when a story is bluntly optimistic and twee, or on the other hand, if the story is just meaninglessly depressing and nihilistic. It's not meaningful to kill all of the characters or say "happily ever after", nor is it immersive to use exposition to basically instruct the audience on how they feel about something, and here I go complaining about other stories...
Anyway, it seems WSD balanced the depressing tragedy with the constructive optimism, balanced the heroes vs villains idealism with the cynical "fifty shades" of feuding parties, and balanced the feeling of fantasy and realism.
It was the best book I've read since... Generation X? 1984? And the movie was well done, capturing the essence of Adam's story in a gritty and harsh way. And of course, the series, while very different and much more politically correct, really picked up in the third season and extrapolated the story beyond the book in an excellent way.
Oh, and WSD played dirty when the movie pulled an Art Garfunkel on me, I practically warship that man.
Topic: Why do you like WSD? (Read 2079 times)