Originally Posted by
MonochromeTiger
"Humans with rubber foreheads" turns into something almost completely unavoidable in that regard unless you're actively trying to make something as far from human as possible but even then human appearance and behavior are the reference point you're working from. End results simply change from "we understand them enough to relate and sympathize" to "they're intentionally vague to the point of being furniture that occasionally does something to advance the story or present a challenge." We've effectively monopolized so many possible things as "human things to do" that almost any act will result in someone attributing a motive or emotion to it whether one is there or not.
The Redwall example is sort of a case of this. Yes there's no human character as a point of reference but all the emotions and motives are still shown from a very human lens. Yes, animals have emotions, but the way they're portrayed is still from how we (or more accurately how the author in particular) views those emotions rather than taking the time to piece together the actual meaning behind their behavior. It's why in most fiction with animal characters you get things like cats always being portrayed as aloof and cruel when they just don't socialize in the same way we do or why many wolves are still portrayed as having a dominance based pack structure instead of a familial one.