"No morals, no conscience, no scruples, no consideration, no decency, no milk of rodent kindness, no compunctions, no higher feeling, no friendliness, no anything."
annotation: I wonder if Templeton is really as bad as E.B.White makes him out to be, is this foreshadowing for character change?
I think that Templeton isn't as heartless as everyone thinks and says he is, I mean is it even possible to have No morals, no conscience, no scruples, no consideration, no decency, no milk of rodent kindness, no compunctions, no higher feeling, no friendliness, no anything? I don't think so. A lot of the time in books, important characters go through signifigant character change, like a lesson. the character change makes the book more realistic, and deeper, more emotional. I think that deep down Templeton is really not that bad of a rat, in some way or another. When Charlotte is working on her plan to save Wilbur's life, and keep him from being shot and eaten as bacon, Templeton actually helps her by getting her magazine clippings for words to put in her web. Even though hes only doing it so he can continue to eat wilbur's food, and the sheep convinced him, it's still something. Something I was also thinking about is how innocent, and ignorant, and humble Wilbur is, and how Templeton is the exact opposite of Wilbur, he's apparently heartless, cold blooded, mean, nasty, unpleasant, and greedy. I think E.B.White did this on purpose. I think he wanted there to be a contrast between two of his main characters, to make things interesting, show a contrast. I also think that both wilbur and Templeton will learn something from each other because of their contrasting personalities.
Hey there! I just stumbled across your comment, while searching the web in vain for something more nuanced about Templeton than that description saying he supposedly has no morals and no nothing... So of course, reading what you had to say in his defense made my day, and I had to let you know I shared the same opinion. You see, he happens to be my favorite character in “Charlotte’s Web” because, besides making me laugh with his sarcasm, he’s the one I find the most potentially (though probably unintentionally) interesting, because of his ambiguity.
ReplyDeleteI’m aware he’s just a comical character in a story written for kids, and I don’t think the author really intended to make him more complex than the grumpy old gluttonous rat he appears to be, but I can’t help wondering why Templeton is always so rude and if his motives really are as selfish as we think in the first place. I mean, what if his cynical and individualistic demeanor was all a big facade to protect himself against “people” he doesn’t think he can trust? He puts a big emphasis on the fact that he accepts to help only because it benefits him, but later in the book, he complains that no one ever has “a kind word for the rat” after all he’s done, which seems contradictory coming from someone who supposedly doesn’t want any friends and doesn’t care what others think of him.
Despite being driven mostly by his huge ego, I suspect the rat is also more vulnerable and sensitive than he wants to admit. Maybe he’s bitter that everybody sees him as the nastiest creature around the barn and, as opposed to Charlotte who was capable of reaching out to others despite being a spider and who changed the others’ view of who she was thanks to her inner beauty, it looks like Templeton had the opposite reaction (which would be rejecting everybody because he feels rejected). I’m thinking, maybe asking favors in return for his useful deeds is a way of saving his independent reputation and making sure at the same time that others won’t try to take advantage of him. I don’t know, but he reminds me of Grumpy in “Snow White”: it looks like he’s trying to keep an emotional distance between him and everybody else, but deep down he does come to care about others more than it seems.
Whatever his true reasons are, I still refuse to believe he really is as indifferent to Wilbur’s fate as he pretends to be. What first convinced him to participate may be the promise to be given food in exchange, but were the snacks really worth the effort to look for papers so many times and to risk staying stuck at the fair when he went to fetch the egg sack? After all, he lived under the barn before Wilbur arrived, which means he could live without the pig’s slop. And even without anything in return, who can tell if he really would have refused to help until it was too late for Charlotte’s eggs and Wilbur got killed, or if he wouldn’t have changed his mind at the last moment? I have some serious doubts about that.
I watched the live action movie again recently, and I love the way the character is depicted in it. It’s rather funny how he says that since he intended to go to the dump anyway, MAYBE he’d bring back some piece of paper, and then the first and only thing he does there is precisely looking everywhere for words, even with crows after him. (I know those aren’t in the book, but he helps just as much in that version too, and he’s even sent back twice because the words weren’t good enough!) Speaking of the 2006 movie, I have to mention that I particularly like the scene near the end when Wilbur practically orders him to go get Charlotte’s eggs and asks him if for once in his life, he could think of someone other than himself. Visibly offended, Templeton gets mad and replies that even a rat might like to get a little appreciation and love sometimes. I believe that was another reason for trying to save Wilbur that he’d kept to himself until then. And the look he gives Charlotte when she thanks him for everything, it struck me, because for the first time, his self-pitying attitude was completely gone, and he respectfully bowed his head like he was glad to do it for her, not for the reward he’d get out of it. I also like the fact that we get to see him take care of the eggs better than anyone else in the barn, even though it was probably a “free” service this time...
ReplyDeleteSo, all of this has me thinking, It might not look like Templeton changed a lot throughout the story, but I’m sure he has, at least a little bit, and that he wasn’t even that bad at heart to begin with. As a secondary character, he didn’t have to become an exemplary rat to teach a lesson (I guess his selfishness was shown in a caricatured way, to illustrate a contrast between his personality and Charlotte’s that would help to define what true friendship is) and, as you pointed out, his cynical view of life makes Wilbur’s innocence and sweetness stand out, which certainly was what the author wanted. I would have loved to see Templeton go through a real change, but I suppose White didn’t think the development of his character was as important as the main hero’s. (Plus, I suppose something too drastic wouldn’t have seemed very believable anyway, since bad habits and a heart that’s been cold for too long often take a lifetime to cure, right?)
Phew! Hey, sorry, I didn’t mean to write such a long analysis of that talking rat’s behavior. I hope I’m not terrifying you! Hehe, I think I have way too much fun uselessly searching for interesting aspects to reflect on in children’s literature, go figure why... Alright, I’m going to bed!
haha lmfao .
ReplyDelete