Redefining Established Paranomal Beings

[sarafina]

Butcher did it, imo, with Loup Garou. That stupid name still makes me cringe everytime I read it. But I can forgive one mistake, because he's done so many other wonderful things with his writing to make up for it.

You did know loup garou is werewolf in French, didn't you?

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Neurovore, Ghoulems...actually sounds pretty good. Sounds familiar, though. Oh yeah. Like Golem.

Yes, it was a pun, or play on words.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

This explanations belong in the exposition. It’s a tautology, the exposition is where things are explained. This is normally somewhere around the first third of the book (first sixth is better).

But if you're following a character who is figuring the world out as they go along - indeed, if your pacing and plotting hangs on that revelation - I'd be surprised to see the important bits show up before the last sixth.

[Darwinist]

You did know loup garou is werewolf in French, didn't you?

I don't speak French. The story takes place in America. The writer is American. The character who was a loup garou was not French, so why would this be obvious? Still doesn't quell the issue that it is an incomprehensibly stupid pair of words. Maybe if I was French I could have more respect for the word choice, but I bring myself full circle and point out the first four sentences.

[Sebastian]

For the love of god, do not rename it. Part of the charm of stories like Jim Butchers is that he redefines the genre. Vampires that feed on emotions instead of blood. Ghouls that are supernatural hitmen. Werewolves that can change and control their ability. Think back to any books you've read before. It's the very lucky few authors who can write a genre piece that can somehow engage the reader without stumbling into unoriginal territory. It's the brave few who break this mold and invent something new that stick out in your mind.
...

None of your examples feel very unique to me. I'd heard of psychic vampires, cheap muscle ghouls and werevolves in control before reading Jim.

To adress the matter at hand, if your ghouls are neither undead nor eat flesh, what are their defining features? Chances are they're very similar to some other mythological monstrosity and using that name would be more appropriate.

[Kali]

I don't speak French. The story takes place in America. The writer is American. The character who was a loup garou was not French, so why would this be obvious? Still doesn't quell the issue that it is an incomprehensibly stupid pair of words. Maybe if I was French I could have more respect for the word choice, but I bring myself full circle and point out the first four sentences.

I'm sorry, I really was going to let this go, but...

Look, it's not like "werewolf" was on the list of vocabulary words in anyone's French class.  And you don't have to be French or speak French to know a French phrase.  With this one all you have to do, really, is have a good basic knowledge of the genre.  The "loup garou" is mentioned in a lot of werewolf stories and in White Wolf's "World of Darkness" RPG. 

Or you do what the rest of us do when we hit a word or phrase we don't know in a book.  Look it up.  I mean, sure, you could always do what you did and mount your high horse, but in this case you're gonna hafta admit it's less a Budweiser Clydesdale you're on and more like My Little Pony.  Say you didn't know the term, say it looks stupid to you, but don't put the blame on Jim like it's some esoteric knowledge that you need a college degree or a 7th Level initiation to have heard of.

Your ignorance doesn't make the author stupid.

[Darwinist]

Why would I need to look up a term that Jim Butcher already has defined in the same novel? He tells you what a Loup Garou is, by his definition. Which essential what the OP is talking about. Taking a creature and creating something new for it - but struggling with whether he should rename it or go with the established monicker.

Perhaps its ignorant that I don't carry around a French dictionary with me every time I read an American novel. Perhaps its ignorant that I cringe at a word I've never seen before because its in another language and the writer doesn't bother to explain that it isn't an English word. Perhaps its ignorant if I post slander and malicious jabs at some random person on a forum without fully understanding the context of their complaint.

Your stupidity doesn't make this poster ignorant.

[Son of an Ogre]

It's true: psi-vamps, ghouls for hire, werewolves that control what they do...all that's been done before Jim got to it. But, Jim did his own magic to these themes and came up with some new pieces to add to the concept. Much like, as was said before, Anne Rice did to vampires. By the way Loup Garou is French for werewolf, just like Hexenwolf, I believe, is German for werewolf. Who's to say different types of werewolves didn't come from different parts of Europe Anyway.

For the love of god, do not rename it. Part of the charm of stories like Jim Butchers is that he redefines the genre.

I agree with what you're saying. Jim has his own way of redefining certain elements. And I agree with you that I should probably keep with the ghoul identity--calling them ghouls. I said that yesterday to the same buddy that keeps insisting on I change the name. He's still sticking with that people have this whole flesh-eating concept in mind when they hear the word. From my experience, though, and from what everyone here thinks, well, I think he's wrong. Seems ghouls are more of an open thing to play with. Then again, so is everything else...like has also been pointed out.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I don't speak French. The story takes place in America. The writer is American. The character who was a loup garou was not French, so why would this be obvious?

Because it has traditionally been used to describe werewolves in classic horror fiction for ages, back as far at least as Guy Endore ?

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Perhaps its ignorant that I cringe at a word I've never seen before because its in another language and the writer doesn't bother to explain that it isn't an English word. =

Yes, it is. 

[Darwinist]

"the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorance

I can certainly agree there. But you say it as if its a derogatory term. Sure, in most context it can be. However, in this specific instance, it is not. I do not read Werewolf books, I derive the meaning of the term based on the explanation that Butcher has provided. So there is no lack of knowledge or learning. It is a lack of a proper explanation and definition by the author - not the readers fault. Not to heap blame on Jim, but it is certainly not my own. Do you read medical journals? So if one was to start throwing out terms, and then loosely defining them within the manuscript of what the authors intention of that term was - would you be ignorant if you based your understanding off of the information given?

I think the funniest part in all of this is that you two are being ignorant for calling me ignorant, lol.

Good luck Ogre. From the average lay persons perspective, I know very little about Ghoul's myself... but originality is never a bad thing. The literary world needs more of it.

[comprex]

I do not read Werewolf books, I derive the meaning of the term based on the explanation that Butcher has provided. So there is no lack of knowledge or learning. It is a lack of a proper explanation and definition by the author - not the readers fault.

Uh, what is Bob's little speech to Harry other than an explanation? 

We are given -exactly- as much information on loup-garou as we are on hexenwulf as we are on lycanthrope.

Your assertion is that loup-garou is lame and forced for inadequate explanation?  What information are we -lacking- for that one that we have for the other two? 

Not to heap blame on Jim, but it is certainly not my own. Do you read medical journals? So if one was to start throwing out terms, and then loosely defining them within the manuscript of what the authors intention of that term was - would you be ignorant if you based your understanding off of the information given?

You based your understanding of 'hexenwulf' and 'lycanthrope'  on exactly the same amount and type of information, yet asserted that loup-garou was lame and forced.

Using your own argument, you are not Greek and JB is not Greek, so why is lycanthrope acceptable?

Using your own argument, you are not German and JB is not German, so why is 'hexenwulf' acceptable?

I am not calling you ignorant, I am calling you inconsistent within your own terms.

[Kris_W]

***Snip***
I'd be surprised to see the important bits show up before the last sixth.

That is why writing is hard work.

[Gruud]

Since your thread has already been hijacked ... 

TOO LONG - DON'T READ 

Not only are you allowed to explain paranormal creatures for your readers, you are pretty much required to explain them.

This explanations belong in the exposition. It’s a tautology, the exposition is where things are explained. This is normally somewhere around the first third of the book (first sixth is better).

There’s a sliding scale for what readers will accept – The closer a fictional ‘fact’ is to the beginning of the book, the easier the reader will feel about accepting it. Introducing details too close to the point where the main character needs it feels like cheating. (Ok, ok, ok, I know. This is part of American fiction writing style, not everybody does this.)

Identify the Key Points that your readers must understand about the creature for the story to work. Make sure these things are repeated, preferably with examples that will stick in the reader’s mind.

But disguise the Key Points amid other pieces of information so that the reader does not obsess about the point. AND do not give the reader too many unneeded Creature Facts so that the reader does not obsess about the point. (And NO, writing is NOT easier without readers.)

Even if you are using an absolutely bog-standard creature that Everyone Knows – You still have to define it for the reader. You just have to make sure your definition is more entertaining. If you know you are diverting from popular notions about a phantasmal creature you must address that notion. Have some character ask about the misconception, and have some other character (As you know, Bob) give the facts as they apply to your story – Or some such literary trick.

A good Dresden example is the Black Court Vampire Attack in Chapter 17 of Blood Rites. That scene is almost completely exposition – and one of the funniest fight scenes I’ve ever read (…the timer popped out…)

Can anyone point to some good references on how to handle exposition? Perhaps in a vein similar to the JB guides that led me here?

I'm working on backstory type stuff right now that will eventually become expository, to be delivered in a variety of ways, but I could really use a good (and free  ) examination of the various accepted and/or conventional ways of handing these bits properly.

If done in large blocks, I'm afraid it comes off as way too textbooky, at least from me, and the last thing I want to do is to send the readers back to school ...

Back on topic, as long as the ghouls are reasonably recognizable as ghouls, then calling them ghouls should be just fine.

And keep in mind, they can look like ghouls or they can act like ghouls, without being the same ghouls that pop up in a Google search.

But if the have no ghoulish tendencies at all, then another name might be better.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

. But you say it as if its a derogatory term. Sure, in most context it can be. However, in this specific instance, it is not. I do not read Werewolf books, I derive the meaning of the term based on the explanation that Butcher has provided. So there is no lack of knowledge or learning. It is a lack of a proper explanation and definition by the author - not the readers fault.

There's enough information in there to tell you what a loup-garou is in the context of the story, Jim lets you know what you need to know.  You don't need the French derivation to make sense of what's going on, so I don't see where your complaint is coming from .  (Which is a different point from calling you a dumb parochial monoglot for not knowing any French.)

Do you read medical journals? So if one was to start throwing out terms, and then loosely defining them within the manuscript of what the authors intention of that term was - would you be ignorant if you based your understanding off of the information given?

I do read medical journals, and it is kind of notable that some terms get defined precisely in the context of the paper, and others are established uses within the field, because a new journal article is not the same thing as a basic text of the field and it is reasonable to assume that people interested in one are already familiar with the other; critiquing a research article for not being an introductory text is missing the point.