Respect (or lack thereof)
o'donnell lisa lynn
Well, I know I've said this before, but (the way I see it), the
reason vampires have gotten more positive attention than werewolves
is due to the fact that werewolves are, primarily, creatures of the
wilderness. The wolf is *not* civilized... *not* tamed. Personally,
I think most werewolves don't feel very comfortable in cities, in
crowds. The *stink* of the city alone... wuff blah! >:P I dislike
it *now*... imagine what it would be like with an enhanced sense
of smell....
Lisa
(look, ma, no flames!)
--
|\ /| Lisa O'Donnell
/@ @\ Wake Forest University
/ \ odon...@ac.wfunet.wfu.edu
| o |
\M/ "Illegitimi non carborundum"
W ("Don't let the bastards grind you down")
Mark Kille
>Right on! <howl>
>Well, I know I've said this before, but (the way I see it), the
>reason vampires have gotten more positive attention than werewolves
>is due to the fact that werewolves are, primarily, creatures of the
>wilderness. The wolf is *not* civilized... *not* tamed. Personally,
>I think most werewolves don't feel very comfortable in cities, in
>crowds. The *stink* of the city alone... wuff blah! >:P I dislike
>it *now*... imagine what it would be like with an enhanced sense
>of smell....
Not only are vampires civilized, they embody the worst of civilization:
aristocratic soulless corpses sucking blood and life out of people. Give
'em all the stake, I say.
Staying static and unchanged across the centuries, full of melodramatic
self-pit--bleh. Any self-respecting werewolf would tell a vampire to stop
whining and go out and run around in the dirt a bit.
Incidentally, I personally think a lot of werewolves would enjoy an
occasional foray into cities. Lots of interesting new sights and sounds and
smells, lots of shadowy alleyways, lots of fun herds to play with. The suburbs
is where a werewolf would really go nuts. Who knows what all those lawn
treatment chemicals would do?
(Further incidentally: suburbs are great for vampires. Isolated yuppy
households never pay attention to each other, so sucking one or two dry
won't raise much of an outcry.)
--
_______________________
ARP...@psuvm.psu.edu
Remember, these are my filthy opinions, so paws off;-) This is gonna be a
long one, so hold on to your butts.
I don't know about you but, why I se racks of books and encyclopedias
dedicated to vampires and compare this to the shelf or two werewolves get, my
Serbian blood starts to boil. The flood of essays and books about the leeches,
to me, indicates one thing: People take vampires seriously enough to write
about them. A few books in the undead cannon are taught in our English
classes. Where does that leave us? Rotting on the back shelves. Werewolves
arn't taken seriously.
Why? No one but us respects the werewolf. Lycanthropes are rarely treated
as three dimesnional charaters with any symbolic significance. When someone
thinks of werewolves they--at best--see a tortured soul, living under a curse
forcing them to commit unholy acts. At worst, the werewolf is a convenient
villain telling the world: "Our animal halves are *BAD* and *EVIL*. We must
*DESTROY* it before it destroy's us!" Either way, the werewolf is considered a
vile, bestial creature not worthy for respect.
Now, I know that there's more to the werewolf than this. So do you. But,
no one else does. Small wonder no one takes werewolves seriously. Most of
what people have seen and read promotes the vulgar image of werewolves only
and, because is is so shallow and stereotypical, people decide that exploring
this particular horror icon is a worthless indevor.
No one respectes werewolves.
This has to change. No more skulding about the backwoods of horror. We
have to make the horror community take us seriously. By hook or by claw, the
werewolf wil be respected.
Now, let me clarify something. This is NOT a call to make the werewolf a
popular horror icon. I want it to be a respected horror icon. There's a
difference. Let the leeches stay on top. Anyone on top of anything has the
most to lose. They rise and fall from power depending on which way the wind
blows. Werewolves have to find a place in the horror pantheon with some
staying power. to get his position, we need _respect_. Not just from the
horror community, but mainstream literature as well. Vampires are respected
because of the the way they're presented in books and films. People give the
vampire serious consideration as literary icons.
Because of the way most werewolves are portrayed in books and films, they
are not treated as serious literary icons. This must change. WE--you, me,
anyone who loves and respects werewolves; anyone armed with a pen, typewriter,
word processor and an imagination--must change the perception of werewolves.
What should the werewolf become? How should it be presented? Again, I can
only say how I'd like to see werewolves portrayed but, I'd really like to hear
other people's opinions. Go ahead and write long tirades on the subject.
We've got bandwith to spare.
Anyway, my vision of the werewolf:
(1) Lycanthropy, or any form of contact with our animal halves, should be
seen as a positive thing. For too long, any "animalistic" tendencies in our
behavior were condidered bestial and crude, to be squashed by our more
"civilized" tendencies. Frankly, that's like trying to pretend your left half
doesn't exist because the right half has an ego problem. We still carry the
minds and souls of our evoloutionary ancestors with us. We can learn a lot
from them.
Besides, I've seen plenty of "civilized" men commit horrible acts in
the name of some vaulted ideological system. Most of them have their fangs
entrenched in my stomping ground, Washington DC.
(2) The metaphorical, symbolic and spiritual significance of the werewolf
must be explored to the fullest. These aspects of lycanthropy ahve been
grossly ignored to the detriment of the whole genre. That's one thing I
respect about White Wolf's _Werewolf: The Apocalypse_ game. It makes
werewolf spirituality an integral part of their cultural consciousness.
(the fact that they have a culture at all is another plus) Bringing this
kind of depth to a werewolf story will take some research but, it's not work
if you're having fun.
To me, the werewolf is a symbol of freedom and empowerment. It allows
us a greater contact with nature and places a perspective on our human side.
Werewolves are vita, passionate, agressive, sensual and non-conformist to the
extreme. They represent the possibility of transformation and ascention
beyond the norm, and they must deal with both the pleasure and pain attached
to this change. They are our hope to be something more than human. Something
better. (at least I think so. I could be wrong. :-))
(3) The sensual aspects of wereolves must bve explored. Now, I don't mean
we should dump tones of meaningless sex int werewolf stories so they'll sell.
But, truthfully, the sensual lives of werewolves has been underplayed in favor
of rib-cage tearing blood and gore. Werewolves, because of their close contact
with their more passionate halves, can better understand an explore their
libidos more than any other creature. Did you expect less froma being that can
slide from one shape to another at will. IMHO, the werewolf is a far more
sensual creature than the vampire. I mean, werewolves are alive! How much
passion can a walking corpse with an attitude summon up?
(4) I think the werewolf should be introduced to a variety of settings,
noth just the wooded areas of our world. Drop them in big cities, small towns,
industiral wastelands, anywhere that'd make a great place for a story. I'm
working on a few werewolf stories set in DC, my pet city. Anyone who'se
been there will tell you, that concrete jungle is twice as dangerous as any
natural one. I'd also like to see some suburban werewolf stories. Suburbs
kinda reflect werewolves' dual natures in my view--they can't quite decide
weather they're concrete or grassland.
(5) Hard, nasty music. Lots of it. Again, this is a personal preference
but, remember, it took a metal group like Metallica to capture the werewolf in
song. Plus, I can't shake the image of a pit full of werewolves moshing to
Prong or Anthrax. Trust me, it will show up in a story somewhere.
Werewolves and speed metal. Two great tastes that taste great
together. ;-)
On the whole, I think that anywone writing a werewolf story should try to
make it the best story they can. Quality, not quantity is the key. Write with
passion. Write with ferocity. Write with fire. Learn from the mistakes of
others, match their successes and surpass them. If we do this right, people
will look at werewolves in a whole new way.
I hope I can get some reasonable debates going her, not outright
flamewars (but, considering what I'm saying here, I really should expect a
half dozen or so people with flamethrower tanks and nasty smirks :-) )
Either way, try to post all your replies here. We've got room to spare. Any
personal attacks should be E-mailed to me at my address. Hope this dumps some
napalm on the fire.
0tt0 (arp...@psuvm.psu.edu)
"You'll find one in every car. You'll see."--REPO MAN
"You see this? [rubs thumb and forefinger together] This is the
world's smallest violin playing just for you."
-- Quentin Tarantino [misquoted]
david zevcalvert hines
>Incidentally, I personally think a lot of werewolves would enjoy an
occasional foray into cities. Lots of interesting new sights and sounds and
smells, lots of shadowy alleyways, lots of fun herds to play with.
Right on, Mark. If you read _Dragon's Tears_ by Dean R. Koontz (not a werewolf
novel and not Koontz's best or anywhere near, but still a pretty good read), there's a description of a dog tracking a scent through the city. All the smells etc. are described very vividly - kind of in doggy stream o' consciousness.
But a werewolf doing that... Now that's giving in to the beast a bit, but if
you add the human qualities of understanding... well, *I* sure wouldn't want it
tracking my scent.
Jochen Reber
>Not only are vampires civilized, they embody the worst of civilization:
>aristocratic soulless corpses sucking blood and life out of people. Give
>'em all the stake, I say.
What is wrong with aristocratic soullessness ? I personally think some
werewolves could have a bit more dignity while tearing their victims apart.
A littlebit of pride would do them good, too.
>Any self-respecting werewolf would tell a vampire to stop
>whining and go out and run around in the dirt a bit.
Self-respecting werewolf ? Are you kidding ? Werewolves have no respect
at all, not even for themselves. In wolf-form they are wild animals,
pretty cool wild animals, I admit, but still animals with no respect.
...and the "digging in the dirt"-part suits werewolves very well, but vam-
pires ???
>Incidentally, I personally think a lot of werewolves would enjoy an
>occasional foray into cities. Lots of interesting new sights and sounds and
>smells, lots of shadowy alleyways, lots of fun herds to play with. The suburbs
>is where a werewolf would really go nuts. Who knows what all those lawn
>treatment chemicals would do?
>
hmhm...the american werewolf in London didn't seem very happy...but maybe
he would've enjoyed New York City much more.
Joe
--
Jochen "Joe" Reber // "Wise men are instructed by reason;
jo...@nick.csh.rit.edu // men of less understanding, by experience;
// the most ignorant by necessity;
// and beasts by nature," -- Cicero
o'donnell lisa lynn
: What is wrong with aristocratic soullessness ? I personally think some
: werewolves could have a bit more dignity while tearing their victims apart.
: A littlebit of pride would do them good, too.
Dignity? What kind of dignity are you talking about? True,
there is very little *human* dignity in tearing your victim apart, but
I think that, for a werewolf, *lupine* dignity is a lot more appropriate.
And don't forget the pure animal grace in the hunt itself. <howl>
: Self-respecting werewolf ? Are you kidding ? Werewolves have no respect
: at all, not even for themselves. In wolf-form they are wild animals,
: pretty cool wild animals, I admit, but still animals with no respect.
Werewolves have no respect for themselves? Huh? Which werewolves
have you been talking to?
Yes, yes, I *know* that most of the werewolves of fiction are
unhappy... but that's *fiction*, and the fact is that well-adjusted
characters aren't interesting. And you're forgetting the "evil" werewolves
of fiction... the ones who glory in their misdeeds in beast form. They,
obviously, have a *lot* of self-respect.
: hmhm...the american werewolf in London didn't seem very happy...but maybe
: he would've enjoyed New York City much more.
No, he wasn't... because the city isn't, I think, the preferred
hunting ground for most lycanthropes, just as it isn't for most wolves
(or any wolves, as far as I know). But, then again, there's another
example of a werewolf who hates the beast in him... but, of course, that
beast is a murderer; methinks that David Kessler would have been content
with lycanthropy if it hadn't been for the deaths (and the fact that his
best friend must walk the earth in limbo while Kessler lives...).
Lisa
(hey, this is getting interesting! <grin wag>)
Alberth Matos
> Incidentally, I personally think a lot of werewolves would enjoy an
> occasional foray into cities. Lots of interesting new sights and sounds and
> smells, lots of shadowy alleyways, lots of fun herds to play with. The suburb
> is where a werewolf would really go nuts. Who knows what all those lawn
> treatment chemicals would do?
Oh, sure, a small trip to a large city is enjoyable any day, but
constant living there, day after day...Enough to drive any no-so-'civilized'
creature insane...Besides, think of what the neighbors would think...
'Honey, sounds like Mr. Roger is having another guest for
dinner...my, he sure is noisy.'
Besides...ever see the reaction of a 'wild' creature to large
crowds? Not at all a nice sight...
> (Further incidentally: suburbs are great for vampires. Isolated yuppy
> households never pay attention to each other, so sucking one or two dry
> won't raise much of an outcry.)
Sooner or later, those 'yuppies' would notice that the neighbors are
dead...Suburb, well...Police there tend to examine closely, while in larger
cities ( Thinking of NYC right now ), with all of the homeless...well, is
easier to find dinner amoung the uncounted masses.
A.Matos
darren wilson
animalistic side to human nature. Within this primal side is the instinctual
urge or even need, if you will, to seek out and experience sensuality in one
form or another. The werewolf seems to be the embodiment of sensuality carried
to an extreme seen nowhere else in nature or the human mind. Whether these
sensual experiences are emotional, such as feeling power, rage, even love or
physical, for example sex and food, we (the werewolves) experience these things
more intensely than most. I think that is why there aren't more of us.
Most people can't handle the extreme nature of it.
There's my two cents worth. Ive been lurking for quite a while and just
couldn't pass this one up!
D. Wilson
Jochen Reber
>Jochen Reber wrote:
>
>: What is wrong with aristocratic soullessness ? I personally think some
>: werewolves could have a bit more dignity while tearing their victims apart.
>: A littlebit of pride would do them good, too.
>
> Dignity? What kind of dignity are you talking about? True,
>there is very little *human* dignity in tearing your victim apart, but
>I think that, for a werewolf, *lupine* dignity is a lot more appropriate.
>And don't forget the pure animal grace in the hunt itself. <howl>
Hmhmhm...interesting thought: Can an animal have dignity ?
I am not talking about grace or beauty, but "dignity" in the sense we
use it. What exactly is meant with *lupine* dignity ?
>
>: Self-respecting werewolf ? Are you kidding ? Werewolves have no respect
>: at all, not even for themselves. In wolf-form they are wild animals,
>: pretty cool wild animals, I admit, but still animals with no respect.
>
> Werewolves have no respect for themselves? Huh? Which werewolves
>have you been talking to?
No one in animal form, so far. But I'm looking forward to it, someday...;)
> Yes, yes, I *know* that most of the werewolves of fiction are
>unhappy... but that's *fiction*, and the fact is that well-adjusted
>characters aren't interesting.
You don't have to be happy or well-adjusted to have self-respect.
In fact, many characters lack happiness because they got too much
self-respect.
...and, talking about reality (?), , as mentioned above, I'm still looking
for the werewolf who tells me, in wolf-form, that he has self-respect...
>And you're forgetting the "evil" werewolves
>of fiction... the ones who glory in their misdeeds in beast form. They,
>obviously, have a *lot* of self-respect.
Yeah...but that's one really cheap inventions of fiction: that all
evil characters do misdeeds because they want to annoy other people.
They don't have any goals for themselves, they're just mean because they
love to be mean.
That's usually a bad form of literature.
Jochen Reber
>Jochen Reber wrote:
>
>: What is wrong with aristocratic soullessness ? I personally think some
>: werewolves could have a bit more dignity while tearing their victims apart.
>: A littlebit of pride would do them good, too.
>
> Dignity? What kind of dignity are you talking about? True,
>there is very little *human* dignity in tearing your victim apart, but
>I think that, for a werewolf, *lupine* dignity is a lot more appropriate.
>And don't forget the pure animal grace in the hunt itself. <howl>
Grace and beauty, though very well-developped in each wolf, are very different
from dignity.
But I'm still wondering: Can an animal have something like dignity, in the
sense in which we use the word ?
...and, what exactly do you mean by *lupine* dignity ?
>: Self-respecting werewolf ? Are you kidding ? Werewolves have no respect
>: at all, not even for themselves. In wolf-form they are wild animals,
>: pretty cool wild animals, I admit, but still animals with no respect.
>
> Werewolves have no respect for themselves? Huh? Which werewolves
>have you been talking to?
None in animal form so far. But I'm looking forward in doing so...;)
> Yes, yes, I *know* that most of the werewolves of fiction are
>unhappy... but that's *fiction*, and the fact is that well-adjusted
>characters aren't interesting.
Well-adjustment and happiness are quite different from self-respect.
You don't need one to have the other.
I know a lot of fictionary characters who are not well-adjusted and unhappy,
simply because they have too much self-respect.
>And you're forgetting the "evil" werewolves
>of fiction... the ones who glory in their misdeeds in beast form. They,
>obviously, have a *lot* of self-respect.
Yeah, right...but that's one of the cheesiest ideas fiction ever came up
with: Evil characters, who have no own goal in life but to do misdeeds,
just because they're so evil.
Usually (in real life), somebody is mean to another person, because he wants
to get something out of it. And so is it in most good literature.
...but...I guess that's the difference between good and bad literature.
>
>: hmhm...the american werewolf in London didn't seem very happy...but maybe
>: he would've enjoyed New York City much more.
>
> No, he wasn't... because the city isn't, I think, the preferred
>hunting ground for most lycanthropes, just as it isn't for most wolves
>(or any wolves, as far as I know). But, then again, there's another
>example of a werewolf who hates the beast in him... but, of course, that
>beast is a murderer; methinks that David Kessler would have been content
>with lycanthropy if it hadn't been for the deaths (and the fact that his
>best friend must walk the earth in limbo while Kessler lives...).
He didn't seem that content to me. And his dreams weren't the best either...
>
>Lisa
>(hey, this is getting interesting! <grin wag>)
I hope it is :)
Charlotte Yano
of opinion.
(hey OttO & Dave!!! Yes, Cha-la is in the fray!!!!!)
Werewolves are a duality. We all know that. However, there are alot of
other creatures that also symbolize that kind of duality. I think that
the werewolf is a representation of the denial of our animal side.
There is a friend of mine, here at CMU (just west of Hell, for those of
you short of geography...) who completely denied his 'darker' side.
Dark not entailing evil, or outright cruelty, but well, dark. In
anycase, after a few years of trying to make himself the epitome of
goodness and all that stuff that would make most self-respecting
creature of the night wretch. (aak!urp! - hairball...) Well, without
making this too long, He now has 2 and 1/2 dominant personalities. the
other two, although they do not have a name, one is termed The Hunter,
and one that is too easily identifiable, so I am going to leave that
anonymous. However, the two secondary personalities are the closest
things one can come to being a Werewolf personality. one is
Hunt/defend, and the other is very deliberatly sadistic and inventive.
I luckily have only for a few moments seen the Hunter, and never have
had to see the other one. Basicly, in the process of denying the darker
side of himself, the need to express that part, came out in said
patterns. So, for the most part, his friends are aware of this
condition, so that they are aware of what might happen.
In my completely unprofessional opinion, I think that the werewolf
is an expression of this kind of situation. A denial of any part of the
self can and WILL come out in another form. Whether or not you grow
fangs and hair on your palms. (Dave and OttO can attest, when I get
really pissed, I think I grow about 5 inches and fangs.... but that is
another story(ies)) but when you deny it, that side becomes more and
more difficult to control each time it wants to come out.
was that a 1.25? maybe even a $1.50 as opposed to $.02
-Later.
---Cha-la the Dark haired Art Demon of the Night.
o'donnell lisa lynn
: Grace and beauty, though very well-developed in each wolf,
: are very different from dignity.
: But I'm still wondering: Can an animal have something like
: dignity, in the sense in which we use the word ?
: ...and, what exactly do you mean by *lupine* dignity ?
I was just trying to make the point that one can't judge
a nonhuman by human standards.
Does a wolf (or a werewolf in wolf form) have dignity?
Ask him... but there's the problem: communication. A lupine
intelligence, even if it was on the level of human intelligence,
does not (probably) work like a human intelligence. Different
ideals... different ways of looking at the world... to a wolf,
there's a lot of dignity in the ability to bring down prey and
tear it open.
: Yeah, right...but that's one of the cheesiest ideas fiction ever came up
: with: Evil characters, who have no own goal in life but to do misdeeds,
: just because they're so evil.
: Usually (in real life), somebody is mean to another person, because he wants
: to get something out of it. And so is it in most good literature.
: ...but...I guess that's the difference between good and bad literature.
Well, yeah... but those black-hearted villianous characters
can be a lot more fun. <grin>
: He didn't seem that content to me. And his dreams weren't the best either...
The hunting dreams seemed all right... odd, but not disturbing.
I assume you're referring to the nightmares... but those could have
been caused by the fact that his best friend had been slaughtered by
a monster and was now a walking "meatloaf."
Besides, he felt great the morning after his first Change.
True, he didn't know that he'd Changed, but what if David hadn't
killed (as a beast)? Without *that* on his conscience, wouldn't he
have come to enjoy lycanthropy?
Lisa
Lucas Ehler
Ok, my turn...
: >: What is wrong with aristocratic soullessness ? I personally think some
: >: werewolves could have a bit more dignity while tearing their victims apart.
: >: A littlebit of pride would do them good, too.
I believe there is a lot of pride in simply accepting the simple things in
the life of a Lycanthrope. The hunt, survival, the pack, etc...
That sounds like pride to me, even if you do not accept it.
: >: Dignity? What kind of dignity are you talking about? True,
: >there is very little *human* dignity in tearing your victim apart, but
: >I think that, for a werewolf, *lupine* dignity is a lot more appropriate.
: >And don't forget the pure animal grace in the hunt itself. <howl>
: Hmhmhm...interesting thought: Can an animal have dignity ?
: I am not talking about grace or beauty, but "dignity" in the sense we
: use it. What exactly is meant with *lupine* dignity ?
Don't forget that the human side is still present. Dignity in a true, feral
frenzy, I'd say no. However, I feel that the human form would hold on to some
of the wolfen aspects, so would the lupine form have some human qualities,
even if it were two separate identities (As in an earlier post about the
Hunter in someone's personality). Human emotions, including pride, grace, and
even dignity, might be present to a human's point of view, and definitely to
the lupine point of view.
: >: Self-respecting werewolf ? Are you kidding ? Werewolves have no respect
: >: at all, not even for themselves. In wolf-form they are wild animals,
: >: pretty cool wild animals, I admit, but still animals with no respect.
: >
: > Werewolves have no respect for themselves? Huh? Which werewolves
: >have you been talking to?
Ok, this depends entirely on who is defining self-respect. I find a great deal
of self-respect in being able to survive in a world where one does not fit.
One where one is simply not wanted, loathed, etc...the ususal heroic suffering.
In fact, I have always considered the WW's as the noble suffering archetype,
just as most people see the vampire as the sensual dangerous killer-type.
(thank Bela Lugosi for that one).
I personally think you are narrow-minded and quite simply wrong, but who am I
to judge?
: No one in animal form, so far. But I'm looking forward to it, someday...;)
Don't we all wish...?
: > Yes, yes, I *know* that most of the werewolves of fiction are
: >unhappy... but that's *fiction*, and the fact is that well-adjusted
: >characters aren't interesting.
: You don't have to be happy or well-adjusted to have self-respect.
: In fact, many characters lack happiness because they got too much
: self-respect.
: ...and, talking about reality (?), , as mentioned above, I'm still looking
: for the werewolf who tells me, in wolf-form, that he has self-respect...
As far as the whole fiction/reality line, I have 2 takes.
1) Let fiction be fiction. Realistic literature has its place, but what about
a good pulp '30's adventure with the larger than life heroes, or Old Trek where
the Captain always gets the beautiful, mysterious alien woman's favor while
Spock is forced to deal with his Human side.
Cheesy is fun at times, and a good, simple old-fashioned WW story is fun
occasionally. *No flames please, I realize that isn't what we're discussing*
I just thought I'd point it out.
2) Fiction doesn't have that mush of a bearing. Let previous literature go to
the wolves for all I care-pun fully intended. To create a truly realistic
Were story of any sort, one has to create the werewolf from scratch, and
must then put those pieces together to create a life-like personality and
move from there.
Point being that past literature should not be a source of character
development, simply a source for inspiration for the author's own ideas.
: >And you're forgetting the "evil" werewolves
: >of fiction... the ones who glory in their misdeeds in beast form. They,
: >obviously, have a *lot* of self-respect.
: Yeah...but that's one really cheap inventions of fiction: that all
: evil characters do misdeeds because they want to annoy other people.
: They don't have any goals for themselves, they're just mean because they
: love to be mean.
: That's usually a bad form of literature.
Ok, I agree here to an extent, Evil just because someone has to be is not
a realistic ideal. Evil in the eyes of society is more like it.
Power is funny in that it is addictive...that leads to the standard evil
"bully-type". Shallow, over-done, and at best, occasionally interesting.
Now a true realist...Animalistic in the belief of Survival of the fittest...
being "evil" because of actions of self-preservation which are considered
"wrong" has some more interesting complications. Likeable villans may have
been overdone to a point, but still have promise (Yes, I am a Dr. Doom fan).
There is a lot which really hasn't been done, and there is a much large
audience, I think than most people realize.
Just my take,
L
aka Blackenfell, Lupus Philodox Stargazer
Ron Cass Poirier
Just an idea... The White Wolf WW game features a lot of werewolf
vs. vampire stuff - this could be used and developed in a number of
different ways, if it hasn't already been done.
I read about the werewolves being rejected by society because they
don't fit in, in that they do things that are considered "evil" in order
to survive. Here's another idea (We are free to play around with
lycanthropes of all types, since they do not really exist [*Sigh*])
^ What I mean by that above statement is that I agree with the
previous idea to "create the werewolf from scratch". Genre fiction has a
problem in that it can constrict the creativity of the author - which
isn't always a BAD thing - but remember that the idea here is to CHANGE
the popular conception of lycanthropes (were-bats included, I hope!). In
the Anne Rice vampire books, for example, the author takes the liberty of
changing an awful lot about common vampire folklore - they are not
associated with the devil, for example, and they are mindless zombies in
Eastern Europe.
Because the werewolf myth is so rich in symbolism, it might help
to stay away from the classic "fantasy" genre as much as possible. Read
Toni Morrison's "Beloved" to get an idea of a ghost story that doesn't
feel like a ghost story... it is, in fact, about something much larger
than that. I believe the term is "fantastic realism", or something like
that - but I digress.
Getting back to my original train of thought - Here's another
idea. Society rejects werewolves because of some mystic prejudice, (I
like the idea of a race memory in the WW game, but this does not have to
be the reason). Werewolves are in fact an example of human perfection,
the beast of human nature having been confronted and accepted/controlled
rather than been made a target for (futile) attempts at execution.
Vampires are close to this perfection, but they have been made slaves to
their own beasts. Oddly enough, it is the weres who suffer for this -
they are seen by society as horrifying and bestial, while the vampires are
able to hide their beast while being controlled by it all along - they
excell when it comes to human relations, they are loved and made idols of.
Werewolves are rejected and scorned, as their beast is visible - they are
more honest in a way. They are the unsung heroes of the human race,
attempting to thwart the nefarious plans of the vampires and blocked every
step of the way by the very people they are trying to save...
What are the vampires doing? Why are they evil? As has been said
before, they are the very epitome of the worst of civilization -
civilization being the "masquerade" of pretending one does not have a
beast, thereby giving it opportunity to control one's actions when one
finally believes that it does not exist... Vampires wish to maintain
civilization as it is for ever and ever, as a means of maintaining their
power and feeding their beasts (who are really running the show). There
would even be vampires who truly believed that they were doing "good".
And possibly werewolves (and hopefully bats, rats, weasels (ooh!), skunks,
bears, etc.) who had given up or sought to control the humans, Nazi-style,
as inferior beings.
- Ron P. ^*^
Ron Cass Poirier
Regarding werewolf symbolism:
One obvious symbol of the werewolf is that of change. They can
shift shape and "adapt" to new surroundings. They are frequntly unable to
restrain this shape shift - particularly when angry. This is the beast
within/beside coming out. A higher-order werewolf would be able to
control his or her beast, but I think would still feel most comfortable
expressing anger when the time came to express it while in monster form.
Shapeshifting: in the werewolf psyche, shapeshifting is in fact a
way of being HONEST, not deceptive as most mythical shapeshifters tend to
be. A good example of the dishonesty of shapeshifters would be the
doppleganger myth, a truly terrifying monster with the ability to exactly
copy the appearance and mentality of another specific person. The movie
"Zelig" is a good example of the doppleganger myth - while Zelig is not in
fact a monster, he is a person who cannot be trusted to be who he appears,
as he will simply shift shape and identity when it seems to be more
advantageous.
The doppleganger is "evil" because it cannot be counted upon,
because it is deceptive (it does not show its true self - in fact Zelig
has a problem in that he gradually comes to HAVE NO TRUE SELF). A
willingly evil doppleganger might use its powers to masquerade as someone
who it is not, for its own personal gain. In an amoral stance, killing or
displacing the person duplicated is not seen as evil to the doppleganger,
and so this may be viewed as an acceptable option - but not to society.
Now examine the werewolf. The werewolf is not a shapeshifter of
duplicity (CAUTION! My opinions only - my interpretation of a myth.
Obviously, the werewolf can be viewed as VERY duplicitous, appearing as a
human to enter a cottage and then attack the surprised human. Look at the
Little Red Riding Hood story...) Rather, the werewolf is a shapeshifter
of HONESTY. When he/she is angered, it is obvious - because the physical
form is that of a monstrous beast. When he/she is on the hunt,
aggressive, raging - all very human emotions, not evil in and of
themselves - it is obvious. When he/she is relaxed, calm, at peace -
then, too, it is obvious because the form is human (MY INTERPRETATION
ONLY!!! I admit that I can imagine a "monster" werewolf (or bat) romping
(flying) happily through wooded glades... perhaps our new interpretation
can allow for this, as in expressing joy at one's own body, the physical,
or something similar - this meaning that in monster form one cannot be
sure if a werewolf is angry or not, merely that he or she is feeling
strong emotions... Maybe strong emotions one way or the other, meaning
that a werewolf in love is "doomed" to take the form of the wolf when the
feelings become intense, with interesting psychological and literary
repurcussions... All optional, of course.) This shows shapeshifting to
be a valuable guide in determining the inner workings of the werewolf.
The werewolf is INTENSELY emotional, but also capable of controlling
his/her emotions to the point where he/she is the true master. There is a
certain emotional honesty there that is not present with the vampire, who
can freely hide hatred and spring a cunning trap, or even the human, fully
capable of duplicity as I am sure we are all aware ("I don't know which
species is worse, ours or theirs - you don't see them fucking each other
over for a percentage!" - Ripley, "Aliens"). This duplicity, this
"hiding of the beast", enables humans to function in society and vampires
to excell at it (they have willingly accepted their beast but refuse to or
cannot master it). The emotional honesty of the werewolf gets them into
trouble with society as a whole. While they are trying to save the
people, the hidden beast of society is moving against them and hating them
for the danger the potential masters represent.
???
- Ron P. ^*^
Werebat peering down from the branches
at these quizzical quadruped canines...
Jochen Reber
>
> Regarding werewolf symbolism:
>
> Now examine the werewolf. The werewolf is not a shapeshifter of
>duplicity (CAUTION! My opinions only - my interpretation of a myth.
>Obviously, the werewolf can be viewed as VERY duplicitous, appearing as a
>human to enter a cottage and then attack the surprised human. Look at the
>Little Red Riding Hood story...) Rather, the werewolf is a shapeshifter
>of HONESTY. When he/she is angered, it is obvious - because the physical
>form is that of a monstrous beast. When he/she is on the hunt,
>aggressive, raging - all very human emotions, not evil in and of
>themselves - it is obvious.
>trouble with society as a whole. While they are trying to save the
>people, the hidden beast of society is moving against them and hating them
>for the danger the potential masters represent.
>
My interpretation of being a werewolf would be slightly different:
Werewolves are usually despised because their second nature is a dangerous
beast, which can kill humans and is unable to controll. Honesty or not,
everything dangerous and uncontrollable is considered as evil.
I don't think you can see their shapechanging ability as a way
of expessing their feelings, but as a curse which binds them. The honesty
is lost at the moment when the transformation is complete, because then,
the human part has no controll over the emotions of the werewolf anymore,
and the wolf is in total control.
For me, it is hard to see a werewolf as one being. It is rather two personali-
ties combined in one body, which constantly changes form. These personalities
have nothing to do with each other, as one is a "civilized" human where as
the other is a "wild beast". Therefore, this one being cannot be totally
honest, because one part of it always betrays the other.
Ron Cass Poirier
> In article <2c7fbp...@dns1.NMSU.Edu> talkreligion writes:
> My interpretation of being a werewolf would be slightly different:
Most people would have a different interpretation. Than my own, I
mean.
> Werewolves are usually despised because their second nature is a
dangerous
> beast, which can kill humans and is unable to controll. Honesty or not,
> everything dangerous and uncontrollable is considered as evil.
>
Agreed.
> For me, it is hard to see a werewolf as one being. It is rather two
personali-
> ties combined in one body, which constantly changes form. These
personalities
> have nothing to do with each other, as one is a "civilized" human where
as
> the other is a "wild beast". Therefore, this one being cannot be totally
> honest, because one part of it always betrays the other.
You subscribe to the "Jeckyll and Hyde" werewolf model. This is
certainly acceptable - but I tend to think of werewolves as more
misunderstood than inherently evil, as are the wolves themselves. My
werewolf (bats are truly more relevant to me but they are nonexistant in
most literature (werebats)) myth centers more on the "misunderstood
monster" hypothesis. This in no way means your own interpretation is not
credible - after all, we're talking about a made-up beastie here in the
first place, so you can make it act and think however you want (Eastern
dragons are good, while Western dragons are evil, for an example). The
"Jeckyll and Hyde" model is, by the way, an excellent one from a
psychological point of view - the classic monster from the ID.
Unfortunately, it is also rather boring after a while. It forces the
werewolf into a cut and dried position - this discussion began with a
search for more meaning to the werewolf myth, a search for expansion.
Anne Rice did this for vampires - severing a lot of old ties and creating
some new ones. Modern writers are free to play with werewolves as much as
they want - I was only trying to show an example of some other possible
things for the werewolf to symbolize.
Another thing about the "Jeckyll and Hyde" werewolf model is that
it does ignore many of the earliest werewolf tales, I'm talking
pre-Hollywood here. For example, the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood
(originally a werewolf story as I am told) WILLINGLY plots his evil deeds
of deception. Old style werewolves knew their beast in their human form,
too. Remember, Hollywood werewolves come to us after the writing of the
original "Jeckyll and Hyde" story, and are certainly (IMHO) affected by
it.
- Ron P.
^*^
Ron Cass Poirier
Another possible werewolf "interpretation":
What does Anne Rice do with vampires? I think a big part of it is
that she strips them of psychological "meaning", inherent symbolism, etc.
They simply ARE. Walking corpses that need blood to survive. There is
nothing inherently evil or anything else about this at all. A man who
simply has the ability to change shape into a wolfen form (or a bat form)
is also inherently nothing at all. Free to choose his own actions.
So - what does this do? Actually, plenty. Even if the werewolf
has no inner set of "rules" to live by, (and forbidding the rational mind
to take over is, in fact, a rule of sorts!), the psychology of the
lycanthrope would still be or become very different from that of the
average human. Werewolves would be stronger, more powerful, possibly even
invulnerable, and have abilities that normal humans would find
inaccesible. This would affect the way they think. Arrogance? A sense
of responsibility to use those gifts the "right" way? Desire to show off
power? Dionysian joy at romping through the woods, chasing rabbits and
deer and...? This would be the "Super-hero (or villain)" type werewolf -
really just a normal man with enhanced abilities, perhaps prejudiced
against by society because of popular myth. There would be a lot to write
about in this genre, more so than mere "Jeckyll and Hyde" werewolves. So
I prefer "Superhero" werewolves - so sue me! Rice's vampires are similar
to this genre.
^*^
- Ron P.
^*^
^*^ ^*^
^*^ ^*^
Graham Brown
>
> You subscribe to the "Jeckyll and Hyde" werewolf model. This is
> certainly acceptable - but I tend to think of werewolves as more
> misunderstood than inherently evil, as are the wolves themselves.
Agreed, werewolves are neither human or wolf as such even sugesting that
they are "good" or "evil" is wrong as they are relative concepts. Consider
a wolves point. In Britain wolves, bears, boars were hunted into extinction
if a werewolf took this view of the human race as an "evil" which should be
fought, mauled, torn to bits at every opportunity then she is on a crusade
against an overwhelming oppressor of part of her nature, the fact that her
nature duality are warring is half the point. As human we see the beast as
evil when in all reality, considering the actions of human and wolf, the
humans have done ultimately more damage than good. I say rip em up.
Considering the lack of wolves in the U.K. ( there are some in reserves
in Scotland but they are not aborigional ) has anyone considered the idea
that the race may be degenerating into weredogs, personally I would be more
concerned with meeting a were-pitbull then a werewolf as they are more
aggressive.
Graham (a English werewolf in Scotland).
darren wilson
>
>My interpretation of being a werewolf would be slightly different:
>
>Werewolves are usually despised because their second nature is a dangerous
>beast, which can kill humans and is unable to controll. Honesty or not,
>everything dangerous and uncontrollable is considered as evil.
How correct you are. It's sort of an emotional and genetic anarchy.
I love the duality of it. Does man in reality not posess these same
caracteristics?
>
>I don't think you can see their shapechanging ability as a way
>of expessing their feelings, but as a curse which binds them. The honesty
>is lost at the moment when the transformation is complete, because then,
>the human part has no controll over the emotions of the werewolf anymore,
>and the wolf is in total control.
It is a basic law of the universe that opposites in their extreme forms
are identicle. For example, one is blinded by bright light as well as
by darkness. There are similarities in the two just as there would be
similarities in the human and wolf forms. One would be more in control
but there would still be some of the characteristics of the opposite form
inherent but not much. As far as expressing feelings I think you are
correct here. The werewolf is a completely lustful creature. I doubt that
emotional expression is the beasts intent.
also, one mans curse is another mans blessing.
>
>For me, it is hard to see a werewolf as one being. It is rather two personali-
>ties combined in one body, which constantly changes form. These personalities
>have nothing to do with each other, as one is a "civilized" human where as
>the other is a "wild beast". Therefore, this one being cannot be totally
>honest, because one part of it always betrays the other.
>
> Joe
>
Again I see the duality of man (or woman) here. Do humans not have a
civilized and uncivilized duality to their basic nature? I think they do.
Have you not felt the total abandonment of civilized views where your
emotions are concerned? In a fit of rage, during sexual climax, when you
are extremely hungry for whatever might satisfy you? In reality do humans
not betray the so called civilized side of themselves again and again
because they give into this instinctual lust from their uncivilized side?
The werewolf is the visible embodiment of this fact of human nature. Not
to say that man evolved from wolves but our genetic memories are as old
and animalistic as life itself.
D. wilson
darren wilson
has anyone considered the idea
>that the race may be degenerating into weredogs, personally I would be more
>concerned with meeting a were-pitbull then a werewolf as they are more
>aggressive.
> Graham (a English werewolf in Scotland).
I big howl from the U.S. Grahem. I agree with you here but I don't know
that much about the actual nature or "personality" of wolves. I do know
however about feline traits. Could someone maybe post something about the
habits and nature of wolves in general and maybe we can come up with
what an actual werewolf might act like or do. This of course would be
without the preconcieved ideas of Hollywood and fiction.
D. Wilson
Jochen Reber
>
>>
>> You subscribe to the "Jeckyll and Hyde" werewolf model. This is
>> certainly acceptable - but I tend to think of werewolves as more
>> misunderstood than inherently evil, as are the wolves themselves.
>
>Agreed, werewolves are neither human or wolf as such even sugesting that
>they are "good" or "evil" is wrong as they are relative concepts. Consider
>a wolves point.
Agreed. "Good" and "evil" are always relative terms. But, they seem also
only apply to humans. If you consider the charactericts usually aplied for
evil (extreme egoism, ruthlessness, powerhunger, rudeness), than you realize
than no animal could qualify for them. So, it is just ridiculous to see a
wolf (or werewolf in human form) as evil.
It is clear that wolves and werewolves can be dangerous and can threaten human
lifes. But that humans usually consider every thing dangerous as evil is
more the fault of mankind than the fault of the wolf.
I really think we have to totally redefine our set of values if we want to
judge werewolves, as it applies at the moment only for a human society.
Jennifer Carolyn Boggess
|> In article <1993Nov15.2...@ultb.isc.rit.edu> writes:
|> . . .
|> first place, so you can make it act and think however you want (Eastern
|> dragons are good, while Western dragons are evil, for an example).
Not true. (At this point the *YOU HAVE HIT A NERVE* sign should
be flashing. :)) Plenty of legends about cruel, selfish, or
(more frightening) simply aloof and uncaring Oriental dragons
exist, and there are a few - granted, not many, but a few -
Western legends involving helpful or even caring Occidental
dragons. Even the South American dragon isn't 100% good in
all the legends; no matter what culture you find the dragon in,
it can't be perfectly pinpointed as a "good" critter or an
"evil" varmint.
Sorry for the non-werewolf digression; I just had to fix that.
--
- Boggles
jbog...@owlnet.rice.edu
Jochen Reber
>Not true. (At this point the *YOU HAVE HIT A NERVE* sign should
>be flashing. :)) Plenty of legends about cruel, selfish, or
>(more frightening) simply aloof and uncaring Oriental dragons
>exist, and there are a few - granted, not many, but a few -
>Western legends involving helpful or even caring Occidental
>dragons. Even the South American dragon isn't 100% good in
>all the legends; no matter what culture you find the dragon in,
>it can't be perfectly pinpointed as a "good" critter or an
>"evil" varmint.
Which is just a weakness of the story or legend of these dragons:
They TRY to pinpoint them somehow, without giving them a sense of
personality. "Good" and "evil" are usually only defined by the standards
of the humans dealing with them. In this, I can find a simularity to many
werewolves stories: They either describe the werewolf as nasty beast or
as saviour of humanity, but often have problems getting the double-personality
right out.
Graham Brown
> werewolves stories: They either describe the werewolf as nasty beast or
> as saviour of humanity, but often have problems getting the double-personality
> right out.
>
What dual double-personality? More than man, less than wolf and more than wolf,
less than man. Werewolves shouldn't even be considered as a double personality
unless the individual himself (or herself for all those inclined) has not come
to terms with the situation. It would be like saying women have double
personalities (which personally I think would explain a lot) because there
genetic structure is almost male human but different (or vice versa) which causes
differing biological reactions within the body.
The "double personality" effect comes in because we can empathise with part of
the werewolf psyche although much is alien.
Anyway that is my late night view, flame if you want, I just don't care.
Graham (sat here working, ahem, while he would much rather prowl around)
P.S. no thanksgiving here boyos.
Jochen Reber
>> In this, I can find a simularity to many
>> werewolves stories: They either describe the werewolf as nasty beast or
>> as saviour of humanity, but often have problems getting the double-personality
>>
>
>less than man. Werewolves shouldn't even be considered as a double personality
>unless the individual himself (or herself for all those inclined) has not come
>to terms with the situation. It would be like saying women have double
>personalities (which personally I think would explain a lot) because there
>genetic structure is almost male human but different (or vice versa) which causes
>differing biological reactions within the body.
>The "double personality" effect comes in because we can empathise with part of
>the werewolf psyche although much is alien.
Well...I don't wanna exactly flame you (there word seems to harsh and therefor
inappropriate to me), but I still wanna disagree (keeps at least the news-
group alive).
A werewolf has a double personality, just because it changes its form from
time to time (or from day to night) and with this form-change, it also changes
its habits. Humans usually don't hunt down and devour other humans, but were-
wolves might. It has nothing to do with "werewolves being alien", its just
the double (or split) personality is a direct consequence of changing forms and
being a werebeast.
I don't think the argument with women works (although a lot of them seem to
have a double personality - to me... ;), because women usually don't change
forms, but always stay women.
This is, of course, only my late-night opinion...
Lucas Ehler
(...about Graham Brown's post...)
: Well...I don't wanna exactly flame you (there word seems to harsh and therefor
: inappropriate to me), but I still wanna disagree (keeps at least the news-
: group alive).
: A werewolf has a double personality, just because it changes its form from
: time to time (or from day to night) and with this form-change, it also changes
: its habits. Humans usually don't hunt down and devour other humans, but were-
: wolves might. It has nothing to do with "werewolves being alien", its just
: the double (or split) personality is a direct consequence of changing forms and
: being a werebeast.
: I don't think the argument with women works (although a lot of them seem to
: have a double personality - to me... ;), because women usually don't change
: forms, but always stay women.
Women don't change forms? You've never woken up to my Ex, have you?
OUCH! Was that out loud?
: This is, of course, only my late-night opinion...
: Joe
: --
: Jochen "Joe" Reber // "Wise men are instructed by reason;
: jo...@nick.csh.rit.edu // men of less understanding, by experience;
: // the most ignorant by necessity;
: // and beasts by nature," -- Cicero
Ok, seriously, I think I gotta side with the "singular alien personality" view
here. I know there was an earlier post about it, but have you ever read Wolf's
Hour by Robert R MacGammon (sp? Way off, I know..)? I like the were's in his
story (with the exception of the entire "get bitten, become one" idea, which
I never did like in the least...I think it'd be genetic...). He goes through
the growth of Michael Gallatin's personality as he deals with both sides of his
nature, living as a simple schoolboy, then as a part of a pack resembling the
wolves more than humans. This is NOT, however a dual personality, it is a
combination, and more. A+B=C, rather than A+B=A+B, or something like that.
(not the best analogy, but hey? whaddya want?)
In short, I don't see it as a split or double personality... I think it's more
a single personality that people see as split due to the two physical forms.
Also, why not look at it from a wolf's view? What if a lycanthrope were a wolf
who could turn into a human, rather than the other way around? (Lupus in WTA)
I don't think the human form would be entirely human, do you? Would you want
to take her to the fall semi-formal? ("Oh, my! Who is that drinking out of the
punch bowl and ripping the stuffing out of the chairs?") It would still be the
same wolf's personality, just in a human body, right? Feel free to flame me, if
you think I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.
Jochen Reber
>: A werewolf has a double personality, just because it changes its form from
>: time to time (or from day to night) and with this form-change, it also changes
>: its habits. Humans usually don't hunt down and devour other humans, but were-
>: wolves might. It has nothing to do with "werewolves being alien", its just
>: the double (or split) personality is a direct consequence of changing forms and
>: being a werebeast.
>: I don't think the argument with women works (although a lot of them seem to
>: have a double personality - to me... ;), because women usually don't change
>: forms, but always stay women.
>
>Women don't change forms? You've never woken up to my Ex, have you?
>OUCH! Was that out loud?
>Ok, seriously, I think I gotta side with the "singular alien personality" view
>here. I know there was an earlier post about it, but have you ever read Wolf's
>Hour by Robert R MacGammon (sp? Way off, I know..)? I like the were's in his
>story (with the exception of the entire "get bitten, become one" idea, which
>I never did like in the least...I think it'd be genetic...). He goes through
>the growth of Michael Gallatin's personality as he deals with both sides of his
>nature, living as a simple schoolboy, then as a part of a pack resembling the
>wolves more than humans. This is NOT, however a dual personality, it is a
>combination, and more. A+B=C, rather than A+B=A+B, or something like that.
>(not the best analogy, but hey? whaddya want?)
>In short, I don't see it as a split or double personality... I think it's more
>a single personality that people see as split due to the two physical forms.
>
If it was only one personality in two different forms, why does a werewolf
act more or less like a human in human form and like a wolf in his
wolf form ? Most werewolves don't sniff and hunt in human form, so he just
must change personality.
>Also, why not look at it from a wolf's view? What if a lycanthrope were a wolf
>who could turn into a human, rather than the other way around? (Lupus in WTA)
>I don't think the human form would be entirely human, do you? Would you want
>to take her to the fall semi-formal? ("Oh, my! Who is that drinking out of the
>punch bowl and ripping the stuffing out of the chairs?") It would still be the
>same wolf's personality, just in a human body, right? Feel free to flame me, if
>you think I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.
Thanx for mentioning this point, I think it's a real interesting one.
I actually DO think that the human form is entirily human just as the wolf
form is entirily wolf (with a human consciosness, which is unable to act).
For me, most werewolves are completly different beings at day and night (or
when transformed), and I suppose they have trouble accepting that themselves.
I personally could not imagine a semi-creature either.
This is not meant as a flame and I don't think you're wrong, I just have
a different opinion about the whole thing.
>Laka Blackenfell, Lupus Philodox Stargazer
Graham Brown
> If it was only one personality in two different forms, why does a werewolf
> act more or less like a human in human form and like a wolf in his
> wolf form ? Most werewolves don't sniff and hunt in human form, so he just
> must change personality.
Because that is the "generic" view of werewolves, hollywood style.
I believe that the knowledge a werewolf has doesn't change with the change
but the methods that the altered brain accesses the knowledge does. Also he
reacts differently. A human given a wolfs sense of smell would sniff much more
than a human. It doesn't mean that he has developed a different personality.
>
> >Also, why not look at it from a wolf's view? What if a lycanthrope were a wolf
> >who could turn into a human, rather than the other way around? (Lupus in WTA)
> >I don't think the human form would be entirely human, do you? Would you want
> >to take her to the fall semi-formal? ("Oh, my! Who is that drinking out of the
> >punch bowl and ripping the stuffing out of the chairs?") It would still be the
> >same wolf's personality, just in a human body, right? Feel free to flame me, if
> >you think I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.
Right on ! Equal press coverage for our lupus bretheren.
>
> >Laka Blackenfell, Lupus Philodox Stargazer
>
Graham Brown, homid Galliard Fianna, and completely one personality.
Alberth Matos
>
> > If it was only one personality in two different forms, why does a werewolf
> > act more or less like a human in human form and like a wolf in his
> > wolf form ? Most werewolves don't sniff and hunt in human form, so he just
> > must change personality.
>
> Because that is the "generic" view of werewolves, hollywood style.
> I believe that the knowledge a werewolf has doesn't change with the change
> but the methods that the altered brain accesses the knowledge does. Also he
> reacts differently. A human given a wolfs sense of smell would sniff much mor
> than a human. It doesn't mean that he has developed a different personality.
I would have to agree with Mr. Brown on this point. In most of the
old European werewolf tales, the werewolf was still human in mind, or at
least appear to be. If you want to look up some old stories on this, there
is a small anthology of old, modern, and future-to-be werewolf tales. The
old tales include some stories by famous authors, including the unpublished
chapter of Dracula, called " Dracula's guest " ( I believe someone mentioned
that story a few dozen messages ago ).
The book is probably out of print by now ( my copy is from 1980 ),
but some old book store may still have it.
Alukard
Ron Cass Poirier
Poirier) writes:
> |> (Eastern
> |> dragons are good, while Western dragons are evil, for an example).
> |> . . .
>
> Not true. (At this point the *YOU HAVE HIT A NERVE* sign should
> be flashing. :)) Plenty of legends about cruel, selfish, or
> (more frightening) simply aloof and uncaring Oriental dragons
> exist, and there are a few - granted, not many, but a few -
> Western legends involving helpful or even caring Occidental
> dragons.
Yeesh! Eastern dragons TEND TO BE good, while Western dragons
TEND TO BE evil. OK? Of course there will be variations and exceptions
in most myths. I've heard tales of unfriendly oriental dragons, but never
any (non-modern) stories of "good" Western dragons. Anyway, you are
further proving my point - that these creatures are made-up beasties
anyway, and can be portrayed however one wants to portray them since they
are not actually REAL. Unfortunately.
Actually, scratch that. I'm sort of glad they aren't. I used to
wish I lived in a world full of elves, dwarves, dragons, werebats, etc.
but as I get older I see that there are already so many different and
incompatible sorts of intelligent life on the planet as it is. Imagine
the political difficulties and divisions if our very GENES were
different... Imagine the South African mess compounded and then
compounded a few more times just for good measure.
> - Boggles
> jbog...@owlnet.rice.edu
- Ron P. ^*^
Ron Cass Poirier
you aren't one then you'll have to use your imagination and invent an
equivalent here. When I'm out carousing with a group of old high school
friends over Christmas break, I act a bit differently than I do when I'm
on my first date with an attractive young woman. In one instance, I might
think it would be a smashing good idea to tell that joke about the
waitress I heard from my roomate - in the other, I would never, EVER
relate that particular story to my company. Does my personality change?
I don't really think so.
My point, of course, is that the actions of a werewolf change with
its change in form - as a matter of course. Human form is not
advantageous to sniffing and hunting, and wolfen (?) form is not
advantageous to closing that big business deal or making friends with the
neighbors. We ALL change our actions to suit the environment we are in,
social or otherwise, and what we are trying to accomplish.
I understand your opinion here, though, in that there IS a lot of
lore regarding werewolves who are "normal" human beings by day and
ravenous beasts by night who hunt down and devour humans. Well? All I
can say is that this is not what werewolves are about to me. I code
lycanthropy (I myself am more akin to the werebat) with ONE personality.
One personality with two (or more) physical forms. I must ignore a number
of stories, myths, and legends to hold onto this viewpoint - but you, too,
must ignore a number of stories, myths, and legends in order to hold to
your own. Niether one is "right" or "wrong", since werewolves do not
really exist (sigh).
- Ron P. ^*^
Graham Brown
I mean the classical style is that a human is "possesed" almost by the wolf
spirit, there is therefore two "souls" inside one body battling for the
physical control. Obviously in this case there would be a dual personality.
The other argumant is that the werewolf is a single individual or "soul"
with two physical representations. One mind two bodies (on a tangent I hear
marriage is kind of like that, but I digress) as it were. If one can view
it this way then ALL previous arguments are acceptable. Werewolf genisis
may be a individual creation with no two exactly the same, hey how could
I know it only happens once to us all.
No howl, I prefer the silent hunt, then the look of shock upon the victims
face as I leap. Sigh, such memories.
Graham
Kubik
> Here's a question. I'm a heterosexual male college student, so if
>you aren't one then you'll have to use your imagination and invent an
>equivalent here. When I'm out carousing with a group of old high school
>friends over Christmas break, I act a bit differently than I do when I'm
>on my first date with an attractive young woman. In one instance, I might
>think it would be a smashing good idea to tell that joke about the
>waitress I heard from my roomate - in the other, I would never, EVER
>relate that particular story to my company. Does my personality change?
>I don't really think so.
no, you're personality is what causes you to act differently for
different people. this is a characteristic of most human social
behaviour. not really an attitude for a werewolf :)
> My point, of course, is that the actions of a werewolf change with
>its change in form - as a matter of course. Human form is not
>advantageous to sniffing and hunting, and wolfen (?) form is not
>advantageous to closing that big business deal or making friends with the
>neighbors. We ALL change our actions to suit the environment we are in,
>social or otherwise, and what we are trying to accomplish.
yes, but there's more separating a werewolf's two forms than actions.
> I understand your opinion here, though, in that there IS a lot of
>lore regarding werewolves who are "normal" human beings by day and
>ravenous beasts by night who hunt down and devour humans. Well? All I
>can say is that this is not what werewolves are about to me. I code
>lycanthropy (I myself am more akin to the werebat) with ONE personality.
>One personality with two (or more) physical forms. I must ignore a number
a lifetime of learning builds up many human guidelines, or ruts, for
us to travel. in the shape of the Wolf, the creature breaks from the
human road, and roams a wilderness less tamed. those 'rules' for our
actions that are the road of human life, we call personality. This is
not to say werewolves have _no_ personality, surly they must if the
actions of one are to differ from the actions of another. but the
unchained personality is simpler, more basic, living in the present
alone, we have a personality that is too far from the human one to be
called the same. if you wish to discuss the mind of the Wolf with much
accuracy, you must consider thought form the feral perspctive, without
it's human structure, with out concerns for past or futur that tie the
man into a plan (for his own good perhaps).
the Wolf does not think in words.
>of stories, myths, and legends to hold onto this viewpoint - but you, too,
>must ignore a number of stories, myths, and legends in order to hold to
>your own. Niether one is "right" or "wrong", since werewolves do not
>really exist (sigh).
in our minds and imaginations they have form, and subsance. by their
meaning, their symbols, they teach us and affect how we run our lives.
thus they exist, if only in our minds, they are there, everytime you
pause to gaze at the full-moon, and everytime you stop to dream.
> - Ron P. ^*^
there is more to a being than a body and behaviour.
mark.
--
/// mlha...@unix1.tcd.ie \\\
( 00 00 )
|\_| "I've done... questionable things..." -Roy, Blade Runner |_/|
Graham Brown
> it's human structure, with out concerns for past or futur that tie the
> man into a plan (for his own good perhaps).
> the Wolf does not think in words.
>
BY you eloquent argument you exclude yourself. I however bite someone till
they write something nice for me.
>
> in our minds and imaginations they have form, and subsance. by their
> meaning, their symbols, they teach us and affect how we run our lives.
> thus they exist, if only in our minds, they are there, everytime you
> pause to gaze at the full-moon, and everytime you stop to dream.
>
Rhyme and resaon?
>
> there is more to a being than a body and behaviour.
but they are the fun bits, sigh.
>
> mark.
>
> --
>
> /// mlha...@unix1.tcd.ie \\\
> ( 00 00 )
> |\_| "I've done... questionable things..." -Roy, Blade Runner |_/|
Graham (having nothing better to do).
Jochen Reber
>In article <CGwzC...@rice.edu> jbog...@owlnet.rice.edu (Jennifer
>Carolyn Boggess) writes:
>> In article <2ca6h9...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, rpoirier@kirk (Ron Cass
>Poirier) writes:
>
>> |> (Eastern
>> |> dragons are good, while Western dragons are evil, for an example).
>> |> . . .
>>
>> Not true. (At this point the *YOU HAVE HIT A NERVE* sign should
>> be flashing. :)) Plenty of legends about cruel, selfish, or
>> (more frightening) simply aloof and uncaring Oriental dragons
>> exist, and there are a few - granted, not many, but a few -
>> Western legends involving helpful or even caring Occidental
>> dragons.
>
> Yeesh! Eastern dragons TEND TO BE good, while Western dragons
>TEND TO BE evil. OK? Of course there will be variations and exceptions
>in most myths. I've heard tales of unfriendly oriental dragons, but never
>any (non-modern) stories of "good" Western dragons.
Hey, can anybody tell me, why legends and fantasy-literature in general
always classifies every none-human race and species as either good or evil ?
I mean, elves are usually good, orks are evil, werewolves usually evil,
dragons: see above, ...
I mean, you cannot say that the whole human race has a certain personality,
either. So why are humanoids and other intelligent beings as a race always
so limited in their alignment ????
Jochen Reber
[stuff deleted]
> Here's a question. I'm a heterosexual male college student, so if
>you aren't one then you'll have to use your imagination and invent an
>equivalent here.
So am I. Don't need too much imagination.
>When I'm out carousing with a group of old high school
>friends over Christmas break, I act a bit differently than I do when I'm
>on my first date with an attractive young woman. In one instance, I might
>think it would be a smashing good idea to tell that joke about the
>waitress I heard from my roomate - in the other, I would never, EVER
>relate that particular story to my company. Does my personality change?
>I don't really think so.
hmhmhm....No, I don't think your personality changes, it is just that
you show a different part of your personality, because you want that
certain people to think different things of you. It's not so much a matter
of personality-change, but of the image you want to have (maybe your hormones
play another role there, but I'm no expert on that one).
> My point, of course, is that the actions of a werewolf change with
>its change in form - as a matter of course. Human form is not
>advantageous to sniffing and hunting, and wolfen (?) form is not
>advantageous to closing that big business deal or making friends with the
>neighbors. We ALL change our actions to suit the environment we are in,
>social or otherwise, and what we are trying to accomplish.
Interesting pont. However, I don't think your comparison works. We non-were-
wolves (I hope... ;-) adapt our behaviour to our momentary goal. That means,
we could imagine acting differently in a different environment. If your
hanging out with your friends, you could imagine doing the things you do when
your alone with your girlfriend, it's just that you don't have the opportunity
to do them.
Werewolves, however, would not imagine to doing the things they do when they
are in a different form. The human side is often shocked by the things they
do in their wolf-form. It's not only a matter of opportunity, but also a
matter of ethics and personal goals.
> I understand your opinion here, though, in that there IS a lot of
>lore regarding werewolves who are "normal" human beings by day and
>ravenous beasts by night who hunt down and devour humans. Well? All I
>can say is that this is not what werewolves are about to me. I code
>lycanthropy (I myself am more akin to the werebat) with ONE personality.
Yuckie. I hope you enjoy hanging upside down from cave-walls. ;-)
>One personality with two (or more) physical forms. I must ignore a number
>of stories, myths, and legends to hold onto this viewpoint - but you, too,
>must ignore a number of stories, myths, and legends in order to hold to
>your own. Niether one is "right" or "wrong", since werewolves do not
>really exist (sigh).
>
> - Ron P. ^*^
This brings up an even more complicated point: the definition of personality.
I don't want to get too deep into that topic, cause it's really complicated,
but want to mention just one point:
To me, some of the things that define a personality are a matter of instincs,
tastes and preferences.
I cannot imagine you share in human form the same preferences (in terms of
diet, housing and sexuality) as a bat. If so, I really pity you...
o'donnell lisa lynn
: No howl, I prefer the silent hunt, then the look of shock upon the victims
: face as I leap. Sigh, such memories.
Oh, of course... the howl is for *after* the kill. <grin grin>
Lisa
--
|\ /| Lisa O'Donnell
/@ @\ Wake Forest University
/ \ odon...@ac.wfunet.wfu.edu
| o |
\M/ "...or should I listen to Black Sabbath,
W or should I hang myself,
or should I just go to bed?" --Squatweiler
darren wilson
>Hey, can anybody tell me, why legends and fantasy-literature in general
>always classifies every none-human race and species as either good or evil ?
>I mean, elves are usually good, orks are evil, werewolves usually evil,
>dragons: see above, ...
>I mean, you cannot say that the whole human race has a certain personality,
>either. So why are humanoids and other intelligent beings as a race always
>so limited in their alignment ????
>
> Joe
I think most western fantasy literature, whether old or new, is derived from
what fantasy literature survives from the dark ages. The pagans
believed that non-human races were all around them and they were not good or
evil though they had the capacity to do either. Along comes the church and
everything had to be one or the other, no in between. So there you go, maybe
that's how it all got started. Just an idea.
D. Wilson
Jochen Reber
Thanx for this reminder, but I thought we were living in the 90's. Right
now, there are tons of good and not so good authors looking for new ideas what
to write about and come up with the strangest scenarios. Still, most of their
novel adopt this good-race-and-bad-race-scheme, which is just another out of
date cliche nobody dared to get break.
If it all started like that, why does nobody get rid of it ?
Ron Cass Poirier
I'm probably ignoring a couple other posts regarding this here, so
if they happen to be yours, then sorry :^, Anyway, this was the one I
found I could most sink my teeth into.
In article <1993Nov29.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu> jo...@nick.csh.rit.edu
(Jochen Reber) writes:
> In article <2dbq62...@dns1.NMSU.Edu> talkreligion writes:
> >When I'm out carousing with a group of old high school
> >friends over Christmas break, I act a bit differently than I do when
I'm
> >on my first date with an attractive young woman. In one instance, I
might
> >think it would be a smashing good idea to tell that joke about the
> >waitress I heard from my roomate - in the other, I would never, EVER
> >relate that particular story to my company. Does my personality
change?
> >I don't really think so.
>
> hmhmhm....No, I don't think your personality changes, it is just that
> you show a different part of your personality, because you want that
> certain people to think different things of you. It's not so much a
matter
> of personality-change, but of the image you want to have (maybe your
hormones
> play another role there, but I'm no expert on that one).
>
And wouldn't it be possible for a lycanthrope to have different
facets of personality, some of which are visible and some of which are
held back at any given time? This would be little different from a human
being, yes - but it WOULD be different in that there is an actual change
in form associated with the different facets.
I do not think of this form shift as NECESSARY to the expression
of certain personality facets - if a werewolf is fighting mad, he COULD
express this while in human form - but it would make more sense in a lot
of cases to express this anger in a monster form. Furthermore, the
monster form would allow for a "mask" to be worn while the actions took
place - a safety feature that normal humans must live without. Since a
bestial form would most likely not be accepted by society anyway, why not
use it to express "antisocial" feelings? Just an observation.
Similarly, a werebat COULD feel and express love and affection
while in monster form - but this would hardly work very well, unless the
object of affection was another werebat.
Note that both human and monster forms regard some aspect of
EMOTION as their sphere of influence. Blank reasoning, clear rationality,
would seem to be indifferent to which physical form was taken (Yes, this
is not true in much of werewolf lore...)
You argue that werewolves are not one personality because they do
not plan the same plans (or any plans) while in monster form. They do not
follow the same rules, they do not have the same sort of sentience. They
go against the will of the human form in many cases - this means they
cannot possibly be shifting shape simply to fit in better with different
environments and situations.
> Werewolves, however, would not imagine to doing the things they do when
they
> are in a different form.
This is not always true. You speak of but one version of the
lycanthropic myth.
> The human side is often shocked by the things they
> do in their wolf-form. It's not only a matter of opportunity, but also a
> matter of ethics and personal goals.
Again, this is one version of a myth. Sometimes, the werewolf is
perfectly aware that he is a killing violent beast while in human form, as
well. His or her ethics and personal goals do not change much from one
form to the other.
(We can come up with a number of plausible reasons for this.
Perhaps the one-personality werewolf is aware of his actions because due
to some part of the mystic disease that makes him a werewolf, he must
devour human flesh [Why? In order to keep his "human-ness" and avoid
slipping into beast form forever? Sounds like an interesting plot idea to
me...]. The wolf-form is simply the most efficient means of accomplishing
this [with the added bonus of providing a "mask" and enabling a "normal"
human social life outside of hunting]. Admittedly, I'm taking some
liberties here and these aren't even my own opinions about the lycanthrope
- but since they are imaginary beings, I can do that sort of thing).
Why use the "killing violent beasts" as role models, anyway? Just
because they get more press? If an alien visitor tuned in to American
broadcasts and watched the news, for weeks or even months, and saw that
the majority of news stories involving a certain ethnic group involved
that ethnic group commiting crimes, should that alien assume that this
ethnic group is basically crime-oriented? No - it's just that those are
the things that sell stories. Could lycanthropes be in a similar
situation?
> Yuckie. I hope you enjoy hanging upside down from cave-walls. ;-)
(Grin) Actually...
> I cannot imagine you share in human form the same preferences (in terms
of
> diet, housing and sexuality) as a bat. If so, I really pity you...
Hmm. This is an interesting point. To a degree, I DO share those
things - TO A DEGREE, I said, so stop snickering. I am what might best be
termed a "claustrophile" - I enjoy being in (and especially sleeping in)
constricted, enclosed spaces. I have also always been fascinated with
flying - what other animal could better put these two seemingly
contradictory attitudes together in synthesis? As far a diet goes...
Well, in my werebat dreams I have eaten live pigeons on the wing, even a
small dog once. So no - I guess I do NOT share the same attitudes in
werebat form. And regarding sexuality - well, I guess the less said about
some aspects of my dreams, the better. At any rate, I will concede with
you that my werebat form does do a lot of things very differently than my
normal human form would. (Although the human form does not ever find
these things entirely repulsive...)
This MAY simply be because I'm dreaming whenever I am a werebat.
We all tend to lose a lot of our inhibitions in dreams. And it would be
wrong to say that I lost all of my morality or ability to plan ahead when
in werebat form, even while I'm dreaming - I have felt and obeyed the tug
of conscience on more than one occasion while flapping about on leathery
wings. So saying I have a perfectly "bestial" form as a werebat is also
misleading.
Here's another point. Imagine yourself given the ability to
change shape into this physically powerful, nigh-invulnerable beastlike
being. You are not recognizable as yourself when in this form (remember
the mask thing). What would you do? As yourSELF? Attributing the
actions of a werewolf to the "nature of the wolf" is doing a great
disservice to the "nature of the human" and what can happen to people when
they are given the kind of powers inherent in a werewolf... That kind of
freedom could no doubt be corrupting, to even the most pious of men.
Regarding the "mask", it has been said that the mark of a man's
"goodness" can be measured by what he would do if he somehow KNEW that
no-one else would ever find out that he had done it... Acquiring a
werewolf form may give a man just such an opportunity. This is a form of
"Jeckyll and Hyde" werewolf reasoning, though not quite so forced - it
would certainly be POSSIBLE for a person to have lycanthropic power and
NOT be corrupted by it to the degree that they go hunting other people
down for the sheer joy of it.
Even a "normal", "good" person of strong moral stance might do
some odd things if they woke up with fangs, claws, and fur. After a while
in this form, eating live rabbits might seem NATURAL. I've acted in a
large number of plays - watch theatre people after they put on their
costumes. Their personalities start to change, ever so slightly, to fit
their looks.
> Joe
>
>
> --
> Jochen "Joe" Reber // "Wise men are instructed by reason;
> jo...@nick.csh.rit.edu // men of less understanding, by experience;
> // the most ignorant by necessity;
> // and beasts by nature," -- Cicero
- Ron P. ^*^
Ron Cass Poirier
> Hey, can anybody tell me, why legends and fantasy-literature in general
> always classifies every none-human race and species as either good or
evil ?
> I mean, elves are usually good, orks are evil, werewolves usually evil,
> dragons: see above, ...
> I mean, you cannot say that the whole human race has a certain
personality,
> either. So why are humanoids and other intelligent beings as a race
always
> so limited in their alignment ????
I agree with you wholeheartedly. In my own fantasy daydreams, the
reasons ogres, for example, are mean and greedy and nasty is that they are
raised that way, by other ogres. It's a cultural thing. If you are
raised to be a bigot, it is also a cultural thing, and when someone tries
to convince you that you are wrong you will tend to oppose them. Now
imagine that person trying to tell you your worldviews are wrong is a
weird-looking alien creature (and elf talking to an orge) that doesn't
even speak your language. Why the hell listen to them? Smash them with a
club instead.
Similarly, dwarves would not bother listening to elves on a lot of
matters. They are simply too different. Look at the problems already
existing between whites and blacks, etc. within the SAME RACE!
My point is that ogres COULD be raised from birth to be good,
decent, upstanding (albeit a little slow-witted) citizens - but that sort
of thing TENDS not to happen very often, and should that ogre meet up with
ogre fellows, he would be hard-pressed to not try and fit in with them
since they look like him, are his size, are attractive/attracted to him,
are as dumb as him - etc.
Err... What I have just done is explain the continuation of
alignment differences in fantasy races, not its origins and restrictions.
Oh, well.
It would be safest to assume that certain CULTURES can be viewed
as basically "evil" when compared to the mainstream (humanity). The
"culture" of the KKK, for example, is generally considered "evil" by most
of society. The culture of a typical nun is generally considered "good",
whether one wants to quibble over ethics or not (dwarves and elves do).
Orcs, dragons, elves, etc. are subcultures set against a backdrop of
humanity - their cultures are judged by the "normalcy", the basic
neutrality, of humanity.
>
> Joe
>
> --
> Jochen "Joe" Reber // "Wise men are instructed by reason;
> jo...@nick.csh.rit.edu // men of less understanding, by experience;
> // the most ignorant by necessity;
> // and beasts by nature," -- Cicero
- Ron P. ^*^
Graham Brown
> And wouldn't it be possible for a lycanthrope to have different
> facets of personality, some of which are visible and some of which are
> held back at any given time? This would be little different from a human
> being, yes - but it WOULD be different in that there is an actual change
> in form associated with the different facets.
Of course, the personality is still rounded. One does not approach a female
or even a pup in the same attitude as one approaches a peer when ones authority
is in question.
> > The human side is often shocked by the things they
> > do in their wolf-form. It's not only a matter of opportunity, but also a
> > matter of ethics and personal goals.
>
Nah, ok, we hunt but that is because its fun and also check the expression
on most humans faces next time you push a cart around the supermarket
(this is also fun). Werewolves have to hunt but it is a rational choice as
to what. (I know that comment isn't yours bat-person).
> - Ron P. ^*^
Kubik
>Hey, can anybody tell me, why legends and fantasy-literature in general
>always classifies every none-human race and species as either good or evil ?
>I mean, elves are usually good, orks are evil, werewolves usually evil,
>dragons: see above, ...
>I mean, you cannot say that the whole human race has a certain personality,
>either. So why are humanoids and other intelligent beings as a race always
>so limited in their alignment ????
check any social psychology text-book you'll find any group tends to
build simplified stereotypes of any other group. the less they know of
the other group, the simpler the stereotype. the more different from the
in-group (us-group) 's ideals, the more negative the stereotype. guess
there ain't too many people know heaps about them other races :)
i know it's sad, but it's human.
'guess it's one way of coping with a world you know nothing about.
> Joe
Jochen Reber
>>
>> hmhmhm....No, I don't think your personality changes, it is just that
>> you show a different part of your personality, because you want that
>> certain people to think different things of you. It's not so much a
>matter
>> of personality-change, but of the image you want to have (maybe your
>hormones
>> play another role there, but I'm no expert on that one).
>>
>
> And wouldn't it be possible for a lycanthrope to have different
>facets of personality, some of which are visible and some of which are
>held back at any given time? This would be little different from a human
>being, yes - but it WOULD be different in that there is an actual change
>in form associated with the different facets.
Smart move. But then, if this is different from the human personality,
what's the difference between having two facets of one personality, which
have absolutly nothing in common, or having actually two seperate persona-
lities. Or, is there anything which is shared by both the human and the wolf-
form ?
> I do not think of this form shift as NECESSARY to the expression
>of certain personality facets - if a werewolf is fighting mad, he COULD
>express this while in human form - but it would make more sense in a lot
>of cases to express this anger in a monster form.
Why ? Anger can be also a very human feeling, it's just a bit more controlled
and less violent.
>Furthermore, the
>monster form would allow for a "mask" to be worn while the actions took
>place - a safety feature that normal humans must live without.
Naw, not really. Because as a wolf, a ww does usually different things than
a "masked human would.
>Since a
>bestial form would most likely not be accepted by society anyway, why not
>use it to express "antisocial" feelings?
Because the human form could get in trouble for it, as some people see both
forms as one person (just like you)...
Or because the wolf might get shot...
> Similarly, a werebat COULD feel and express love and affection
>while in monster form - but this would hardly work very well, unless the
>object of affection was another werebat.
hmhmhm...interesting thought. How would a bat react to a werebat's affec-
tionatte moves ? And, what difference does it make, in which form the
werebat is...
Just a thought.
> Note that both human and monster forms regard some aspect of
>EMOTION as their sphere of influence. Blank reasoning, clear rationality,
>would seem to be indifferent to which physical form was taken (Yes, this
>is not true in much of werewolf lore...)
>
> You argue that werewolves are not one personality because they do
>not plan the same plans (or any plans) while in monster form. They do not
>follow the same rules, they do not have the same sort of sentience. They
>go against the will of the human form in many cases - this means they
>cannot possibly be shifting shape simply to fit in better with different
>environments and situations.
Hey, do I agree here with you or do you agree with me ? ;)
>
>> Werewolves, however, would not imagine to doing the things they do when
>they
>> are in a different form.
>
> This is not always true. You speak of but one version of the
>lycanthropic myth.
I'm just wondering: Do you really like the stuff you're doing as a werebat ?
I mean, hanging from ceilings and stuff ?
>
>> The human side is often shocked by the things they
>> do in their wolf-form. It's not only a matter of opportunity, but also a
>> matter of ethics and personal goals.
>
> Again, this is one version of a myth. Sometimes, the werewolf is
>perfectly aware that he is a killing violent beast while in human form, as
>well. His or her ethics and personal goals do not change much from one
>form to the other.
Still, he usually wouldn't kill a human in human form. At least not like
that.
> (We can come up with a number of plausible reasons for this.
>Perhaps the one-personality werewolf is aware of his actions because due
>to some part of the mystic disease that makes him a werewolf, he must
>devour human flesh [Why? In order to keep his "human-ness" and avoid
>slipping into beast form forever? Sounds like an interesting plot idea to
>me...]. The wolf-form is simply the most efficient means of accomplishing
>this [with the added bonus of providing a "mask" and enabling a "normal"
>human social life outside of hunting]. Admittedly, I'm taking some
>liberties here and these aren't even my own opinions about the lycanthrope
>- but since they are imaginary beings, I can do that sort of thing).
Yup, you are taking some liberties there. But I think, you're theory is
certainly interesting, although I tend to disagree.
The ww is human before he gets a werewolf. So, he still has this "human-ness"
in himself. And, why doesn't he have to devour wolves to keep the lupine
form ?
And if he needs human flesh, can't he simply shoot people and eat them
afterwards ?
> Why use the "killing violent beasts" as role models, anyway? Just
>because they get more press?
I see the wolf not simply as a beast, but as an animal, which hunts and
kills to survive.
>If an alien visitor tuned in to American
>broadcasts and watched the news, for weeks or even months, and saw that
>the majority of news stories involving a certain ethnic group involved
>that ethnic group commiting crimes, should that alien assume that this
>ethnic group is basically crime-oriented? No - it's just that those are
>the things that sell stories. Could lycanthropes be in a similar
>situation?
see note above.
> Hmm. This is an interesting point. To a degree, I DO share those
>things - TO A DEGREE, I said, so stop snickering. I am what might best be
>termed a "claustrophile" - I enjoy being in (and especially sleeping in)
>constricted, enclosed spaces. I have also always been fascinated with
>flying - what other animal could better put these two seemingly
>contradictory attitudes together in synthesis? As far a diet goes...
>Well, in my werebat dreams I have eaten live pigeons on the wing, even a
>small dog once. So no - I guess I do NOT share the same attitudes in
>werebat form. And regarding sexuality - well, I guess the less said about
>some aspects of my dreams, the better.
WHY ??? ;) :) ;)
>At any rate, I will concede with
>you that my werebat form does do a lot of things very differently than my
>normal human form would. (Although the human form does not ever find
>these things entirely repulsive...)
> This MAY simply be because I'm dreaming whenever I am a werebat.
>We all tend to lose a lot of our inhibitions in dreams. And it would be
>wrong to say that I lost all of my morality or ability to plan ahead when
>in werebat form, even while I'm dreaming - I have felt and obeyed the tug
>of conscience on more than one occasion while flapping about on leathery
>wings. So saying I have a perfectly "bestial" form as a werebat is also
>misleading.
> Here's another point. Imagine yourself given the ability to
>change shape into this physically powerful, nigh-invulnerable beastlike
>being. You are not recognizable as yourself when in this form (remember
>the mask thing). What would you do? As yourSELF? Attributing the
>actions of a werewolf to the "nature of the wolf" is doing a great
>disservice to the "nature of the human" and what can happen to people when
>they are given the kind of powers inherent in a werewolf... That kind of
>freedom could no doubt be corrupting, to even the most pious of men.
I don't see the werewolf-state as only an ability, but also as a bounding.
> Regarding the "mask", it has been said that the mark of a man's
>"goodness" can be measured by what he would do if he somehow KNEW that
>no-one else would ever find out that he had done it... Acquiring a
>werewolf form may give a man just such an opportunity. This is a form of
>"Jeckyll and Hyde" werewolf reasoning, though not quite so forced - it
>would certainly be POSSIBLE for a person to have lycanthropic power and
>NOT be corrupted by it to the degree that they go hunting other people
>down for the sheer joy of it.
I am not sure in which sense you use the word corruption here,
> Even a "normal", "good" person of strong moral stance might do
>some odd things if they woke up with fangs, claws, and fur. After a while
>in this form, eating live rabbits might seem NATURAL. I've acted in a
>large number of plays - watch theatre people after they put on their
>costumes. Their personalities start to change, ever so slightly, to fit
>their looks.
I think he would try to continue his life like it is, although he knows that
he can't.
Actually, there is a very good book about exactly this topic written:
Die Verwandlung ("The Transformation" or something like that in English) by
Kafka.
Has anybody read this book ? Comments ???
>
> - Ron P. ^*^
Jochen Reber
>In article <1993Nov29.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu> jo...@nick.csh.rit.edu
>(Jochen Reber) writes:
>
>> Hey, can anybody tell me, why legends and fantasy-literature in general
>> always classifies every none-human race and species as either good or
>evil ?
>> I mean, elves are usually good, orks are evil, werewolves usually evil,
>> dragons: see above, ...
>> I mean, you cannot say that the whole human race has a certain
>personality,
>> either. So why are humanoids and other intelligent beings as a race
>always
>> so limited in their alignment ????
>
> I agree with you wholeheartedly. In my own fantasy daydreams, the
>reasons ogres, for example, are mean and greedy and nasty is that they are
>raised that way, by other ogres. It's a cultural thing. If you are
>raised to be a bigot, it is also a cultural thing, and when someone tries
>to convince you that you are wrong you will tend to oppose them. Now
>imagine that person trying to tell you your worldviews are wrong is a
>weird-looking alien creature (and elf talking to an orge) that doesn't
>even speak your language. Why the hell listen to them? Smash them with a
>club instead.
>as basically "evil" when compared to the mainstream (humanity). The
>"culture" of the KKK, for example, is generally considered "evil" by most
>of society.
I agree that the developpment of creatures is usually formed by the culture
and rules of that society. But then, why is the culture and society of
humanoids (like elves, orcs or dragons) so limited, where the human is
so vast and complex. I mean, you have in about every fantasy book one
thousand ways of humans, societies and influencal groups which all behave in
a different way. But elves always behavbe in a "good" way, orcs are always
"evil" and all their gods, rituals and society rules reflect this attitude.
I mean, mankind is often described as weak and puny in fantasy literature,
but most authors put humans nonetheless above every other creature, because
they are the most complex and diverse race. I think it shows somewhere
once again the arrogance of man to claim that he, as a race, is much more
capable of than any other race.
Any comments ???
Ron Cass Poirier
> In article <2df61...@dns1.NMSU.Edu> talkreligion writes:
> > And wouldn't it be possible for a lycanthrope to have different
> >facets of personality, some of which are visible and some of which are
> >held back at any given time?
> Smart move. But then, if this is different from the human personality,
> what's the difference between having two facets of one personality,
which
> have absolutly nothing in common, or having actually two seperate
persona-
> lities. Or, is there anything which is shared by both the human and the
wolf-
> form ?
Yes. The point is that they are two facets of the same
personality, so the personality is still in charge and fully aware, even
when one facet or another is brought to the fore.
>
> > I do not think of this form shift as NECESSARY to the expression
> >of certain personality facets - if a werewolf is fighting mad, he COULD
> >express this while in human form - but it would make more sense in a
lot
> >of cases to express this anger in a monster form.
>
> Why ? Anger can be also a very human feeling, it's just a bit more
controlled
> and less violent.
OK, I'm thinking BIG ANGER here, like someone punches your Mom
after breaking into your house. It would be easier to kick someone's ass
if you were a big hulking wolf.
Furthermore, as a way of blowing off steam, just the feeling of
power as a wolf and the joy of running through a forest hunting prey -
well, it probably has no good comparision.
> >Since a
> >bestial form would most likely not be accepted by society anyway, why
not
> >use it to express "antisocial" feelings?
>
> Because the human form could get in trouble for it, as some people see
both
> forms as one person (just like you)...
> Or because the wolf might get shot...
The human form would NOT get in trouble, since no one would
recognize it. Ity would be another marauding wolf (as if that happens
frequently...)
> >Sometimes, the werewolf is
> >perfectly aware that he is a killing violent beast while in human form,
as
> >well. His or her ethics and personal goals do not change much from one
> >form to the other.
>
> Still, he usually wouldn't kill a human in human form. At least not like
> that.
In this case I don't know if the complete persona could be
referred to a "human" or not. Did you, by any chance, read my "Looped
Lupines" post? It is actually a pretty serious post that explains a bit
of this stuff.
I think a bit of my reasoning might be cleared up if you read this
post. Unfortunately, I appear to have picked a "goofy" thread title, and
I wonder if anyone even bothered to read it...
- Ron P. ^*^
Ron Cass Poirier
> In article <2df61...@dns1.NMSU.Edu> talkreligion writes:
> > Similarly, a werebat COULD feel and express love and affection
> >while in monster form - but this would hardly work very well, unless
the
> >object of affection was another werebat.
>
> hmhmhm...interesting thought. How would a bat react to a werebat's
affec-
> tionatte moves ? And, what difference does it make, in which form the
> werebat is...
> Just a thought.
I think a (normal little) bat would react according to
nature/instinct, just like a wolf approached by a werewolf. In monster
werebat form, I'm roughly 5' tall and getting - er - physical with a
little bat would be ridiculous as it might be repulsive.
A werebat in the form of a normal bat would probably be as
successful in "dating" endeavors as a normal little bat. Except he might
not know all the little rituals, or even where all the naughty parts ARE
except in a general way...
An interesting thing would be two werebats getting together in
monster form. But don't tell my mother I said that. :^)
> I'm just wondering: Do you really like the stuff you're doing as a
werebat ?
> I mean, hanging from ceilings and stuff ?
In a word - YES! :^) I even enjoy eating pigeons. Like I said,
I'm in that ID-dominated dreamworld when it happens - I do some pretty
bizarre and immoral things in my dreams when I'm in HUMAN form, so it
isn't really fair to say that's how I'd act if I was a real werebat. I
WOULD like to hang upside down from ceilings, though.
It would be great to have a werebat body. I could fly (Who would
pass that up?). Of course I'd still want to become human once in a while,
at least - unless, maybe, I was with a colony of others who were also
stuck in monster form. It wouldn't seem so odd, then.
> > Hmm. This is an interesting point. To a degree, I DO share those
> >things - TO A DEGREE, I said, so stop snickering. I am what might best
be
> >termed a "claustrophile" - I enjoy being in (and especially sleeping
in)
> >constricted, enclosed spaces. I have also always been fascinated with
> >flying - what other animal could better put these two seemingly
> >contradictory attitudes together in synthesis? As far a diet goes...
> >Well, in my werebat dreams I have eaten live pigeons on the wing, even
a
> >small dog once. So no - I guess I do NOT share the same attitudes in
> >werebat form. And regarding sexuality - well, I guess the less said
about
> >some aspects of my dreams, the better.
>
> WHY ??? ;) :) ;)
Actually, I've never boinked a bat, if that's what you're
wondering. The thing is I wouldn't be too surprised if I DID someday;
I've already done enough bizarre stuff that it wouldn't be much of a
stretch. And if I want to be up-close and personal about it, if I COULD
change forms into a normal little bat - well, wouldn't YOU be curious, at
least?
Flap flap squeak...
- Ron P. ^*^
Ron Cass Poirier
> In article <2df61...@dns1.NMSU.Edu> talkreligion writes:
(What would a person do if they woke up in the form of a beast?)
> I think he would try to continue his life like it is, although he knows
that
> he can't.
> Actually, there is a very good book about exactly this topic written:
> Die Verwandlung ("The Transformation" or something like that in English)
by
> Kafka.
> Has anybody read this book ? Comments ???
The story/book is called "The Metamorphosis", wherein Gregor Samsa
awakens one morning to find himself transformed into a giant insect.
Rather like a cockroach, I believe, though I've heard some Lacanian
psycho-English people insist that it is a dung beetle (no such luck as
having that opinion BACKED UP BY THE TEXT, however...)
Gregor Samsa does try to live his life as it is - but this, I
believe, is more an effect of his desensitization to his own human-ness.
It doesn't matter that he's a bug - he's still got to go to work. It
doesn't even phase him.
- Ron P. ^*^
KATM...@uga.cc.uga.edu
jo...@nick.csh.rit.edu (Jochen Reber) writes:
>I agree that the developpment of creatures is usually formed by the culture
>and rules of that society. But then, why is the culture and society of
>humanoids (like elves, orcs or dragons) so limited, where the human is
>so vast and complex. I mean, you have in about every fantasy book one
type without attempting to inject some realism (shades of gray) in an otherwise
morally monochromatic race or species. C.J. Cherryh does (IMO) a good job
of making her alien races a bit more well-rounded than most; although she
can fall into some stereotypical traps sometimes as well.
***********************************************************************
Katm...@uga.cc.uga.edu '83 Kaw GPz305 <--Name Me!
SysOp of A1A BBS (706) 613-1629 Sell me your bike!
FIDO 1:370/130 500 cc and up!
My opinions are borrowed from someone who no longer needs them.
Jochen Reber
>> Smart move. But then, if this is different from the human personality,
>> what's the difference between having two facets of one personality,
>which
>> have absolutly nothing in common, or having actually two seperate
>persona-
>> lities. Or, is there anything which is shared by both the human and the
>wolf-
>> form ?
>
> Yes. The point is that they are two facets of the same
>personality, so the personality is still in charge and fully aware, even
>when one facet or another is brought to the fore.
But what's the point of being aware of something when you cannot change your
actions. Then, one part of yourself is reduced to a simple observer.
>
> OK, I'm thinking BIG ANGER here, like someone punches your Mom
>after breaking into your house. It would be easier to kick someone's ass
>if you were a big hulking wolf.
...or pull out a gun and shot him.
Seriously, isn't "cold" anger much more efficient and satisfactory than
the "hot", uncontrollable anger of a wolf ?
> Furthermore, as a way of blowing off steam, just the feeling of
>power as a wolf and the joy of running through a forest hunting prey -
>well, it probably has no good comparision.
But then, the problem is that you sometimes have to take wolf-form, when
you might not want to. Usually a ww cannot simply say, "Oh, I feel like
I wanna blow off steam, so I'm gonna be a wolf !". It's more something
which you're forced to do.
>
> The human form would NOT get in trouble, since no one would
>recognize it. Ity would be another marauding wolf (as if that happens
>frequently...)
Still, people would get anxious and suspicious about you. Not to mention
the fact that you're always not there, when, coincidently, another
marauding wolf is around. Strange, strange...
Jochen Reber
>> hmhmhm...interesting thought. How would a bat react to a werebat's
>affec-
>> tionatte moves ? And, what difference does it make, in which form the
>> werebat is...
>> Just a thought.
>
> I think a (normal little) bat would react according to
>nature/instinct, just like a wolf approached by a werewolf. In monster
>werebat form, I'm roughly 5' tall and getting - er - physical with a
>little bat would be ridiculous as it might be repulsive.
Wait a second -- I thought you transform totally into a bat and
not into a sorta semi-human-bat-thignybob ???
How do you get 5' tall then ?
If you really are, I don't think a bat would find you very appealing.
> A werebat in the form of a normal bat would probably be as
>successful in "dating" endeavors as a normal little bat. Except he might
>not know all the little rituals, or even where all the naughty parts ARE
>except in a general way...
I think she'll find out where the interesting parts are pretty quickly --
as long as you let her...;)
As for any rituals, I don't think you need to know anything except
for the question "Do we mate in the air or on the ground ?"
(from "Elvenbane" by A. Norton and M. Lackey) ... ;)
> An interesting thing would be two werebats getting together in
>monster form. But don't tell my mother I said that. :^)
Does she have an e-mail adress ? ;)
>
>> I'm just wondering: Do you really like the stuff you're doing as a
>werebat ?
>> I mean, hanging from ceilings and stuff ?
>
> In a word - YES! :^) I even enjoy eating pigeons. Like I said,
>I'm in that ID-dominated dreamworld when it happens - I do some pretty
>bizarre and immoral things in my dreams when I'm in HUMAN form, so it
>isn't really fair to say that's how I'd act if I was a real werebat. I
>WOULD like to hang upside down from ceilings, though.
Still, you consider some things you do as immoral.
Hanging upside down from ceilings - it's certainly exciting (probably
a bit like a roller-coaster-ride), but not the best way to sleep.
> It would be great to have a werebat body. I could fly (Who would
>pass that up?). Of course I'd still want to become human once in a while,
>at least - unless, maybe, I was with a colony of others who were also
>stuck in monster form. It wouldn't seem so odd, then.
It's always one thing of dreaming to be an animal and another being
forced to become that animal. It seems to me that the latter is actually
much more complicated than mentioned here in this newsgroup.
>
>> > Hmm. This is an interesting point. To a degree, I DO share those
>
>> >And regarding sexuality - well, I guess the less said
>about
>> >some aspects of my dreams, the better.
>>
>> WHY ??? ;) :) ;)
>
> Actually, I've never boinked a bat, if that's what you're
>wondering.
No, I was just wondering how frank you could be on the net... ;)
>The thing is I wouldn't be too surprised if I DID someday;
Apparently very.
Still, a bat doesn't sexually arouse ME very much.
As for a wolf -- they can be very violent so it might be kinda dangerous.
>I've already done enough bizarre stuff that it wouldn't be much of a
>stretch.
OUCH !
>And if I want to be up-close and personal about it, if I COULD
>change forms into a normal little bat - well, wouldn't YOU be curious, at
>least?
> Flap flap squeak...
No, not anymore... ;)
Ron Cass Poirier
> In article <2dk13m...@dns1.NMSU.Edu> talkreligion writes:
> > Yes. The point is that they are two facets of the same
> >personality, so the personality is --> still in charge <-- and fully
aware, even
> >when one facet or another is brought to the fore.
>
> But what's the point of being aware of something when you cannot
> --> change your actions <--
>. Then, one part of yourself is reduced to a simple observer.
>
Read this clip again. I just said the personality was fully in
charge.
> > OK, I'm thinking BIG ANGER here, like someone punches your Mom
> >after breaking into your house. It would be easier to kick someone's
ass
> >if you were a big hulking wolf.
>
> ....or pull out a gun and shot him.
> Seriously, isn't "cold" anger much more efficient and satisfactory than
> the "hot", uncontrollable anger of a wolf ?
In a word - no. This might depend on the individual, but I would
get a lot more satisfaction out of terrifying someone and rending them to
shreds. Blowing them away with a gun doesn't allow for that satisfying
moment of "Oh, shit, I'm in it now!" horror.
>
> > Furthermore, as a way of blowing off steam, just the feeling of
> >power as a wolf and the joy of running through a forest hunting prey -
> >well, it probably has no good comparision.
>
> But then, the problem is that you sometimes have to take wolf-form, when
> you might not want to. Usually a ww cannot simply say, "Oh, I feel like
> I wanna blow off steam, so I'm gonna be a wolf !". It's more something
> which you're forced to do.
My version of the werewolf is not controlled by the moon cycles.
Perhaps affected, but not controlled. Though the moon may influence
lycanthropes, I believe that the control thing is a Hollywood plot device.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
'Course, most of what I believe about werewolves is sort of made
up, too, but still...
- Ron P. ^*^
Ron Cass Poirier
> In article <2dk1mi...@dns1.NMSU.Edu> talkreligion writes:
> Wait a second -- I thought you transform totally into a bat and
> not into a sorta semi-human-bat-thignybob ???
> How do you get 5' tall then ?
> If you really are, I don't think a bat would find you very appealing.
I guess this really belongs over in the "forms" thread, but here
goes anyway since it came up here. As a lycanthrope, I have three
distinct forms; the first is a normal human (me), the second is a
combinations form (a five-foot-tall, bowlegged, hunched bat-thing; the
best I can liken it to is "Man-bat" of the batman cartoon, but that isn't
really a great representation... My head in this form is very
animal-like, in fact pretty much completely so (there are many types of
bat heads; mine has fairly normal-sized ears for a bat and a wedge-shaped
muzzle with large jaws. Wingspan is maybe 15 to 20 feet.) The third form
is a normal-looking little bat. Clarify things a bit?
> As for any rituals, I don't think you need to know anything except
> for the question "Do we mate in the air or on the ground ?"
> (from "Elvenbane" by A. Norton and M. Lackey) ... ;)
Actually, real-world bats mate while hanging upside-down.
Technically, they are niether in the air nor on the ground.
> >> I'm just wondering: Do you really like the stuff you're doing as a
> >werebat ?
> >> I mean, hanging from ceilings and stuff ?
> >
> > In a word - YES! :^) I even enjoy eating pigeons. Like I
said,
> >I'm in that ID-dominated dreamworld when it happens - I do some pretty
> >bizarre and immoral things in my dreams when I'm in HUMAN form, so it
> >isn't really fair to say that's how I'd act if I was a real werebat. I
> >WOULD like to hang upside down from ceilings, though.
>
> Still, you consider some things you do as immoral.
> Hanging upside down from ceilings - it's certainly exciting (probably
> a bit like a roller-coaster-ride), but not the best way to sleep.
Oh, the werebat form finds it most comfortable and conducive to
sleep. There's something about the way my hips pop and stretch a little
from their sockets - well, not really, but the pressure on my legs and
hips is relaxing for some reason. Like when your back hurts and you lay
down - it feels good.
> > It would be great to have a werebat body. I could fly (Who
would
> >pass that up?). Of course I'd still want to become human once in a
while,
> >at least - unless, maybe, I was with a colony of others who were also
> >stuck in monster form. It wouldn't seem so odd, then.
>
> It's always one thing of dreaming to be an animal and another being
> forced to become that animal. It seems to me that the latter is actually
> much more complicated than mentioned here in this newsgroup.
You are right. My own interpretation of the lycanthrope myth doe
snot take into account the full moon thing, though. Lycanthropes are free
to choose whichever form they want whenever they want. I'll admit when I
see a full moon in a dream or even in real life, I get the urge to become
a monster-form werebat, but it is by no means an irresistable force.
Should this be the actual case with lycanthropy, and should one lose
control of one's actions and thoughts while in monster form, I would most
certainly not want to be a werebat.
However, if I could change shape freely, I would probably do
things in monster form that normal humans might consider a bit odd to say
the least. Like sleep upside-down in a cave, or hunt pigeons and eat them
on the wing. (My Uncle eats quahogs raw, so HE would have no right to
think that habit disgusting...) This would just be a celebration of my
werebat body and "nature", although that nature would by no means control
me.
There are other levels to lycanthropy for me, although this has a
lot to do with the medium in which I experience it (dreams). Being a
werebat can be synonymous with expressing repressed emotions and thoughts
- I can get very angry and express it in a violent manner in my dreams,
not just because I am a werebat but because I am dreaming. Similarly, the
night I dreamed I howled, I was experiencing a very sad time but for a
certain reason did not allow myself to express my sadness in my waking
hours. (I cried as a werebat that night, too, hanging upside-down in a
cave with my wings wrapped around me. The tears went "up" my forehead and
fell to the ground "above".) Hence the "low" lycanthropy present in my
werebat form - but I believe much of this to be part of the nature of
dreams in the first place. I have done brutal things in completely
werebat-unrelated dreams, too.
> Still, a bat doesn't sexually arouse ME very much.
Me either - but strange things can happen in dreams. And,
frankly, if I was able to take on the form... Well, I MIGHT get curious,
who knows. I wrote a short story once about a man who woke up able to
change his shape into anyone he wanted to be - he eventually figured out
that this included females and it wasn't long before he became a bisexual.
(I'm not a bisexuality or bestiality buff, mind you...)
Henry Kehbel
> - Ron P. ^*^
I simply agree with you , Ron ...
H.Frank (I'd like to see you one night , Ron , when you are a werebat ...
but please don't kill me ... I will never hurt your friends ...)
KATM...@uga.cc.uga.edu
> snot take into account the full moon thing, though. Lycanthropes are free
Doe snot? Ewww!
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
***********************************************************************
Katm...@uga.cc.uga.edu '83 Kaw GPz305 <--Name Me!
SysOp of A1A BBS (706) 613-1629 Sell me your bike!
FIDO 1:370/130 500 cc and up!
Ron Cass Poirier
A couple nights ago I had this intense dream where something that
never happened before, happened.
I was on my way home from New Mexico (only ten more days 'till
this really happens!) and for some reason had stopped in an unspecified
part of the country between here and home (RI). There was this AmerIndian
girl with me, thin with dark eyes and hair down past her shoulders, and we
were walking behind an old house of some sort. We were in a grassy field,
and it was nighttime and DARK, yet I could still somehow see everything -
I'm not sure if there was a full moon but it was that same sort of effect
(like the Halloweentown scenes in Nightmare Before Christmas). I did not
realize I was dreaming (I frequently do) but I was amazed at how much the
terrain seemed like the terrain in my dreams... The grass swished and
crawled as a cool breeze blew through it, the looming forest of dark trees
in the distance at the end of the field, the clear, night sky... all of
it seemed so dreamlike. I told my companion, who I found very attractive
and was unsure of what my relationship with her was, about how much this
looked like one of my dreams.
Well, she turned her face to me and did this sort of mischievious
grin, and I saw that there was this long fang beginning to protrude from
underneath the right side of her upper lip! I was confused for a second
until her head began to slide and shift forms into a bat head, growing
ears, fur, and a snout, and her legs hunched over and her arms grew long
and willowy with flaps of skin AND I realized I was doing the same thing.
It was really pretty intense.
After the change we flew away over the field together, over the
treetops and across a dark lake. I know it was impossible for us to hold
hands or touch while we were flying, but it felt like we were holding
hands somehow, *spiritually*. Altogether the experience was really
intense in a spiritual sense. We did not do anything very physical, at
least not that I can remember (I had forgotten the entire dream until
after I got out of the shower and heard a song on the radio that for some
unknown reason jolted the segment of the dream I just related into my
memory), so it still leaves a bit of the questions on this thread
unanswered... (Unfortunately, in my opinion, since she was pretty cute!)
Perhaps we'll meet again someday.
- Ron P. ^*^
Ron Cass Poirier
If it's possible, could someone repost my original "Looped
Lupines" post with the header "Re: Respect(or lack thereof)"? It really
belongs here and I fear that no-one read it.
Does this newsgroup have FAQs? Maybe we should make one of a list
and brief explanation of different lycanthrope mentalities? Hmm?
- Ron P. ^*^
Jochen Reber
>rpoirier@kirk (Ron Cass Poirier) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Dec2.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu> writes:
>>> In article <2dk13m...@dns1.NMSU.Edu> talkreligion writes:
>
>>> > Yes. The point is that they are two facets of the same
>>> >personality, so the personality is --> still in charge <-- and fully
>>aware, even
>>> >when one facet or another is brought to the fore.
>>charge.
But then, you justify every every action by the wolf even from the
human side. That would also include killing other people as a wolf
was the full intent of a human.
I think this thought is very scary, because it makes the werewolf just a
simple killer in disguise.
>>> > OK, I'm thinking BIG ANGER here, like someone punches your Mom
>>> >after breaking into your house. It would be easier to kick someone's
>>ass
>>> >if you were a big hulking wolf.
>>>
>>> ....or pull out a gun and shot him.
>>> Seriously, isn't "cold" anger much more efficient and satisfactory than
>>> the "hot", uncontrollable anger of a wolf ?
>
>> In a word - no. This might depend on the individual, but I would
>>get a lot more satisfaction out of terrifying someone and rending them to
>>shreds. Blowing them away with a gun doesn't allow for that satisfying
>>moment of "Oh, shit, I'm in it now!" horror.
So you're saying that being a wolf is just a way of getting rid of your
emotions you cannot deal with as a human and pissing other people off.
Is there really so little special in a wolf that he's reduced to a form
for an act of anger ???
>> My version of the werewolf is not controlled by the moon cycles.
>>Perhaps affected, but not controlled. Though the moon may influence
>>lycanthropes, I believe that the control thing is a Hollywood plot device.
>>Correct me if I'm wrong.
>> 'Course, most of what I believe about werewolves is sort of made
>>up, too, but still...
At least you admit it to yourself that most of the discussion stuff only
exists in our minds. I personally think so too.
I believe there is no right or wrong to this question, it's more of
a matter of opinion.
Mine is, that a lycanthrope is not the super-human-creature described
by you, but a character split between two worlds. One cannot simply be
substituted by the other.
>
>> - Ron P. ^*^
Ron Cass Poirier
> In article <2duqfk...@tom.rz.uni-passau.de>
keh...@vati.fmi.uni-passau.de (Henry Kehbel) writes:
> >rpoirier@kirk (Ron Cass Poirier) writes:
> >
> >>In article <1993Dec2.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu> writes:
> >>> In article <2dk13m...@dns1.NMSU.Edu> talkreligion writes:
> But then, you justify every every action by the wolf even from the
> human side. That would also include killing other people as a wolf
> was the full intent of a human.
> I think this thought is very scary, because it makes the werewolf just a
> simple killer in disguise.
Why does a werewolf have to go out and hunt down people,
specifically? Why does a werewolf have to kill at all?
Look back into the earliest earliest tales of the werewolf. The
myth has evolved some since then. The first story I can think of is that
old English lay where the werewolf is kept as a pet by some king and bites
off his ex-lover's nose because she went to marry the king or something...
??? Anyone know what I'm talking about? It's been a while.
My point is, not all werewolves have to have severe antisocial
behavior. They don't HAVE to be killers of humanity for no good reason.
> So you're saying that being a wolf is just a way of getting rid of your
> emotions you cannot deal with as a human and pissing other people off.
> Is there really so little special in a wolf that he's reduced to a form
> for an act of anger ???
You have to pause and understand where my concept of the
lycanthrope begins and is acted out frequently. I am asleep, and I dream
that I am a werebat. Now, while a person is dreaming, a lot of stuff
comes out that ordinarily wouldn't - aggressive emotions kept in check
during the day, for example. This is inextricable with my notion of
lycanthropes, simply because I don't REALLY ever transform into one - but
when I imagine myself to be a werebat during the day, I like to consider
myself in control. And I frequently am in my dreams, as well - it just
isn't that clear-cut (Dreams are not always an ID-fest, and I do not
ALWAYS have complete control over my emotions while in my waking hours...)
It is not that there is so little special in a (bat) that it is
reduced to a form for an act of anger - bats and bat mythology mean an
awful lot to me in many other areas of life, as do shapeshifters in
general - it is just that that is ONE facet of what lycanthropy means to
me. It is far from the entire spectrum.
Unfortunately, as this conversation has tended to focus on the
aggressive/"anitsocial" emotion aspects of the werebeast, you may have
gotten the impression that this is all it means to me. This is far from
the truth.
> At least you admit it to yourself that most of the discussion stuff only
> exists in our minds. I personally think so too.
> I believe there is no right or wrong to this question, it's more of
> a matter of opinion.
Agreed.
> Mine is, that a lycanthrope is not the super-human-creature described
> by you, but a character split between two worlds. One cannot simply be
> substituted by the other.
You have your opinion/concept, and I have mine. I admit that
there are ELEMENTS of your view in my own, but it feels too restrictive to
me. In any event, we aren't likely to "convert" each other (Bleah!) over
to our respective sides, so I suggest we accept a list of basic werebeast
psychological concepts and keep in mind that different interpretations
exist. After all, your own concept of the werewolf psyche was a "new",
"liberal" one once. I have listed "high", "low", and "natural"
werebeasts, and noted that my concept is something of a mixture of the
three, but basically "high". If you have anything else to add to this
list (and it doesn't even have to be an opinion held by you!) please do
so. :^)
Again, might I suggest a werebeast psychology FAQ for use by
people new to the newsgroup? This might help clear up discussions such as
this one a bit sooner, and could be modified in the future as we further
develop. ???
- Ron P. ^*^
Ron Cass Poirier
Here's another interpretation of the werebeast (not my own, well,
I sort of made it up, but I don't hold to it):
Werebeasts, however they are created, are completely amoral beings
in all forms. They might ACT morally, if someone is watching, or refrain
from antisocial "evil" behavior just to fit in to society - but in reality
they have no conscience as such. They are also for some reason required
to eat human flesh in order to survive - perhaps in order to avoid losing
their human-level intellect and slipping into permanent beast-form, as I
mentioned elsewhere (why are they not required to eat wolf flesh, as well,
in order to keep that aspect? Well, perhaps they ARE... That might be
interesting...) They have complete control over their changes, regardless
of time and moon phase.
This makes for an "evil", killer-type monster, with cunning,
intellect, brute strength, and a real REASON to go out and hack people to
bits and eat them (and maybe wolves [or bats!]) too...) Perhaps after
going without human flesh for too long, the werebeast begins to lose
control over its beast side, maybe being forced into beast form at times
(full moon, perhaps?) and gradually losing human intellect, ability to
control its impulses. After going without wolf flesh for a time, it begins
to get weaker, less physically capable of using superiour senses, speed,
etc. Why can't werewolves be seen as "evil" by WOLVES, too? After all,
humans themselves are probably seen as evil by wolves, or would be if
wolves made those sort of judgements... Look what humanity has done to
them... So a wolf who was "half-human" would be seen as strange and evil
to the wolves, too.
Werewolves would tend to hunt in the opposite form of the beast
they were stalking - wolf-form for humans, human-form for wolves. One
could imagine a young hunter going out with what he thought was an
experienced guide, after wolves in Alaska, and on shooting a wolf the
"guide" goes forward and begins EATING the corpse... The young hunter
gets weirded out and thinks the guide is crazy or something and then the
guide turns to him, bloody, grins, and changes...
OOH! With a bit of modification, that could make for one neat-o
story! Hey, I thought of this first, OK? Yah wow I kind of like that
interpretation as a base to start from. Any other ideas on this "new"
sort of werewolf? For one thing, they would have to frequent areas
populated by both wolves AND humans - living off the fears and hatreds of
both one for the other, and promoting them... I really like this idea...
- Ron P. ^*^
(Who is still a relatively "high" werebat)
KATM...@uga.cc.uga.edu
Seriously, tho, why not? I'd be glad to throw in some comments.
KATM...@uga.cc.uga.edu
rpoirier@kirk (Ron Cass Poirier) writes:
>story! Hey, I thought of this first, OK? Yah wow I kind of like that
write a werewolf book/novel/story? Perhaps we can pool our talents for
ideas and critiques.. obeying relevant copyright laws, of course. If someone
stole my story I wouldn't sue; just hunt 'em down bite their throat out. :)
In any case, as soon as I figure out how to get this newsreader to let me
upload ascii text as a message, I'll post the prologue to the story I'm
trying to write. If folks think this would be too off-topic, slap me and
and I'll stop. :)
o'donnell lisa lynn
: Which brings up a question: How many folks here are writing or planning to
: write a werewolf book/novel/story? Perhaps we can pool our talents for
: ideas and critiques.. obeying relevant copyright laws, of course. If someone
: stole my story I wouldn't sue; just hunt 'em down bite their throat out. :)
<raises paw>
Actually, thanks to studies, etc, it's been on a bit of a hiatus... I
haven't written in weeks... I'm so ashamed... I work on it soon, I
promise! <pads away, tail between legs>
Lisa
--
|\_/| Lisa O'Donnell
/@ @\ Wake Forest University
/ \ odon...@ac.wfunet.wfu.edu
| o |
\M/ "I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear
W people say things. More I cannot say." -Douglas Adams
PC-Benutzer
>Subject: Re: Respect (or lack thereof)
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 19:38:27 GMT