ParanetOnline
McAnally's (The Community Pub) => Author Craft => Topic started by: Son of an Ogre on October 26, 2009, 03:35:34 PM
-
I was wanting to get some opinions on a matter that's been bothering me. What happens if you take a traditional paranormal entity, one that a lot of people are familiar with, like say ghouls, and redefine them? Like what they are; how they work. Should it be then that the name of said creature should be changed? I don't want to get into too many details, of course, but for a story I'm working on, I've basically redefined what a ghoul is...but have kept to basic ideas about the mythology. I know...that doesn't make any sense probably. I've looked at certain aspects of the origin Persian mythology and have developed ideas from that. A friend of mine said it'd probably be better to just rename my creatures since people have preconceived notions of what a ghoul is and how they operate. That they come from graveyards and eat flesh. Mine don't come from graveyards nor do they eat flesh...
-
I was wanting to get some opinions on a matter that's been bothering me. What happens if you take a traditional paranormal entity, one that a lot of people are familiar with, like say ghouls, and redefine them? Like what they are; how they work. Should it be then that the name of said creature should be changed? I don't want to get into too many details, of course, but for a story I'm working on, I've basically redefined what a ghoul is...but have kept to basic ideas about the mythology. I know...that doesn't make any sense probably. I've looked at certain aspects of the origin Persian mythology and have developed ideas from that. A friend of mine said it'd probably be better to just rename my creatures since people have preconceived notions of what a ghoul is and how they operate. That they come from graveyards and eat flesh. Mine don't come from graveyards nor do they eat flesh...
I wouldn't see any need to rename them, so long as you are good enough to make things work. I mean, an awful lot of the current cultural notions of how vampires work was defined by Bram Stoker and a goodly subset defined by Anne Rice, so you can redefine them as well as anyone else.
-
I wouldn't really say that most people have as much of a preconceived notion of ghouls as they do for werewolves and vampires. Ghouls aren't used very often. And like neuro said, there's really no need to rename them. SMeyer didn't rename her vampires as something else, though about the only thing they have in common with mythological vampires is the need to drink blood.
-
There's a joke here somewhere about reboots and 'Troll sat alone on his seat of stone' that is just out of my reach at the moment.
-
Perhaps they are mutated ghouls.
-
There's a joke here somewhere about reboots and 'Troll sat alone on his seat of stone' that is just out of my reach at the moment.
Have another mackerel, dear.
-
Perhaps they are mutated ghouls.
But just saying that implies a whole pile of stuff about DNA and so forth, and the mechanisms by which mutation actually works, which one might or might not want to lock down as applying to one's ghouls.
-
I wouldn't see any need to rename them, so long as you are good enough to make things work. I mean, an awful lot of the current cultural notions of how vampires work was defined by Bram Stoker and a goodly subset defined by Anne Rice, so you can redefine them as well as anyone else.
Good point. You can set down your own rules and change things up, I guess. And if it's good...people will popularize it. Or, I should say, it can help influence thoughts on that particular subject.
I wouldn't really say that most people have as much of a preconceived notion of ghouls as they do for werewolves and vampires. Ghouls aren't used very often. And like neuro said, there's really no need to rename them. SMeyer didn't rename her vampires as something else, though about the only thing they have in common with mythological vampires is the need to drink blood.
I guess that's probably true about ghouls. They aren't used as much as other paranormal beings. For some reason I had always had "flesh-eating" in my mind about them--probably that's from the very first Anita Blake novel and few movies I've seen. Smart zombies lol I felt good when I'd come up with what my ghouls are--just didn't want to confuse people between what I'm doing and any notions that might already be out there. They're not mutants, but more like automatons. A construct of magic. Besides, like you're pointing out: you can go in whatever direction you want. I guess so long as you're consistent is what matters :)
-
They're not mutants, but more like automatons.
Ghoulems ?
-
Goombas (http://www.irobot.com/)
-
lol Goombas! Darn someone beat me to it ;)
Neurovore, Ghoulems...actually sounds pretty good. Sounds familiar, though. Oh yeah. Like Golem.
-
"Is your Ghoul Description Language strongly typed?"
-
TOO LONG - DON'T READ :P
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…)
-
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.
I completely understand what you're saying. In fact, I had planned on doing tricks, for example, similar to how Bob sometimes has to educate Harry. I like how that's done. My character knows a few things about ghouls already, but not everything. And I agree with you that certain points need explaining during the first part of the story.
-
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.
True, if you rename it, you are still creating something original... but in the same token, you are also betraying the roots of that original idea in the process. And unless you can come up with a decent idea for this new creature, it will come off as forced or lame in the process. If you feel you are that strong of a writer, have at it. If not, stick with breaking the mold, not the name the moldmaker gave it. Because 9 chances out of 10, that name is going to come off as lame or forced. 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.
-
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?
-
Neurovore, Ghoulems...actually sounds pretty good. Sounds familiar, though. Oh yeah. Like Golem.
Yes, it was a pun, or play on words.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
"the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorance (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.
-
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.
-
***Snip***
I'd be surprised to see the important bits show up before the last sixth.
That is why writing is hard work.
-
Since your thread has already been hijacked ... :D
TOO LONG - DON'T READ :P
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 :P) 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.
-
. 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.
-
Well, the ghouls I've got in mind act like them to a point. They're almost more like bodysnatchers in truth. However, with that said, they have the characteristics as far as they require flesh to survive (they just don't eat it). Also, they have violent tendacies--go figure. So, I think that should fit within the realm of ghoulish activity ;)
As far as exposition...I've been writing for, oh about, eight years now. And when I say that...I mean, seriously writing. Within that time I've learned a lot. Most of it by trial and error and by reading--seeing what other authors have done under different circumstances. Like Stephen King has pointed out...if you don't read, you won't be able to write well. I believe that. Practice makes perfect--or if not that, as close to it as any of us mortals will ever get. There are numerous tricks I've seen done when it comes to releasing backstory to the reader just enough at a time to maintain their interest without giving them the farm. In fact, a lot of times I've found it just happens. You have to tune your brain into the "voice." I know that sounds strange, but it's true. Listen to what your brain is receiving from the subconcious. It'll help :)
-
*snip*
Can anyone point to some good references on how to handle exposition?
Sad truth is the best book on writing you can read is going to be about the 30th book on writing you happen to read. That’s about the point when you realize that you need to take in a multitude of different views on how to write and, from them, select those bits you need for your current project. Your best bet is to haunt used book stores and garage sales and buy every book on writing you can find. Oh, and you have to, like, read them, y’know.
That said –
Read stories that use exposition well. The short stories of O’Henry and Agatha Christi come to mind there. I’ll also add Kim Newman and Simon R. Green are good counter-examples – Brilliant books with less emphasis on exposition.
Screen writing books tend to focus on structure and are a good place to looks for the nuts and bolts of exposition. I like –
– Screenwriter’s Bible by David Trottier
– Save the Cat by Blake Snyder
Books on editing tend to cover exposition well
– The Elements of Editing by Arthur Plotnik
– Simple & Direct by Jacques Barzun
Don’t sweat the exposition during your first draft. The exposition is one of those things easiest to work on in third or fourth drafts because you won’t know what the reader needs to know until you have the whole shape of the story down. In fact, much of your best exposition work will be written in response to editing letters after your book is sold.
Best of luck!
-
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.
I'm not sure of the proper term here, it's in the same vein as 'cacophony'. The sounding of the two words together LOOP GAR-OO sounded out, sounds childish and like babble-speak. It's hard to put faith behind the word, to really fear it. There isn't enough harshness to the sound of the word like the other two. That is why the other two are more widely used and more widely accepted. Try it sometime, mention all three words to a random lay person and see which one they prefer and which one they find disjointed to the genre. There is no hard sound in the word, so it does not agitate the reader into picking up on it, fearing it, symbolizing it. It just sounds goofy. LOOP GAR-OO. /cringe.
From a personal standpoint, since you seem to care for some reason... lycanthrope and hexenwulf seem appropriate in my mind. They are established terms I've heard of, understand, and can visualize. Though 'LYCAN' by itself is an awful term also.
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.)
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.
At no point did I say I didn't know WHAT a loup-garou is. Jim, as you point out, paints that picture vividly. I merely said it was a stupid sounding term. Like Jackalope or the word Neurovore. It just sounds idiotic, like its trying too hard and failing miserably. Someone then mentioned that I should know what it means simply because its a French word. I countered that I don't speak French, I am American... reading an AMERICAN book. At which point that person promptly surrendered. However someone else decided to call me ignorant. I'm betting it was the part where I said I was American, they just visualized the stereotype... Go figure. Hey, did you know French people don't shave their arm pits? Yours, or someone else's, complaint was that it is an established term in the genre. My response is that the argument is crap. I do not read the genre, I was only exposed to it because it was part of the Dresdenverse that I do enjoy reading. So your argument is that I am an ignorant monoglot just because I do not read the same things you do. When addressed with a complaint, you feel compelled for name calling. How mature.
Tard.
/never said I was mature, either.
-
Sorry about the thread hi-jack Ogre. Back to topic...
Aside from reading books on writing or reading books based around the theme of your story... only thing I can recommend is an education. Not to put that in a negative way. I've learned A LOT in the last couple of years in college. Especially this term. I have this snotty, satirical, mean spirited teacher. PERFECT for learning from in the writing aspect. The urge to pacify and placate that person's tastes takes over. The writing becomes more personal, tighter. You just want to write the greatest thing ever and shove it in his face. Naturally, he'll still hate it and always will - because that is his style. He pushes you to do that much better.
Not to mention, you get weekly exercises that really focus on the different aspects of writing that really bring out things in your writing that needed work. Like for me... was metaphors, imagery, and setting the scene. I never really paid close attention to painting an image of the background. I always focused on the foreground, what the story was doing and not how the scene is progressing based on elements around it. Made for some real two dimensional material. Took a lot of practice, trial and error, but my stuff is a lot more well rounded now. It took taking these classes to realize this flaw. And getting slammed weekly by this evil bastard teacher is what drove me to excel.
Now, on the flip side, community college writing courses were a waste. Just basic Creative Writing 101 junk. No direction, no ambition, worthless. But University level courses were outstanding. Form and Technique of Fiction... Narration Description. Great courses, both of them. I highly recommend both. I'm sure there are others that are great, but these are the two I've taken thus far. Hope that helps.
-
In writing, 'tis the knowledge of the teacher, not where they teach that makes a great class to take.
I'm taking a class with some incredible writers, who aren't sci fi readers. Initially, their comments were "how does that work?" type variety. And i would, "huh?" Assume nothing and describe all. See other posting here to do it in an entertaining way.
I'm using a time travel device. I created it and I described it, but from the wonderful sci fi writer was the Star Trek concern---"aren't you afraid they will change the time line?" UHm, yeah,great question. I've been using without thought the Crichton Time Line and more realistic in my opinion to assume. About ten inventers invent the same device at the same time usually--but only one gets the Kudos. Killing one off isn't going to change a thing. Another is already there and ready to go.
So, I need to go back and explain that--dang it! :-) Thank goodness for readers who will actually ask you questions and call you on something you missed doing!
-
The sounding of the two words together LOOP GAR-OO sounded out, sounds childish and like babble-speak.
loup-garou (pronounced /lugaˈru/) Derived from Latin lupus(wolf) and possibly Old French garoul(werewolf).
-
The sounding of the two words together LOOP GAR-OO sounded out, sounds childish and like babble-speak. It's hard to put faith behind the word, to really fear it. There isn't enough harshness to the sound of the word like the other two. That is why the other two are more widely used and more widely accepted. It just sounds goofy. LOOP GAR-OO. /cringe.
You're right, it does sound goofy. Yet another reason I like France and the French. Also, I believe the term is used down in Louisiana, where the French heritage is stronger. I don't know if Quebecois uses the term, Shecky might know.
-
You're right, it does sound goofy.
Honestly, 'lycanthrope' sounds even goofier, like some anglophone prat showing off daddy's first-year-Greek dictionary before they even went to language class.
-
Honestly, 'lycanthrope' sounds even goofier, like some anglophone prat showing off daddy's first-year-Greek dictionary before they even went to language class.
I don't like 'lycanthrope', to me it's too unwieldy with too many hard (as in rocklike, not difficult) sounds. Also, I may have read to many LKH books. Loup-garou flows, like one could break into a yodel down the road:
"When I'm calling you-ooo-ooo-ooo'
Dooby-dooby-doo, with my loup-garou..."
But 'lycan' was referenced by Castle last night FTW.
-
Me actually being of French heritage...I personally like Loup-Garou. If I were to have werewolves in my stories, I'd go with it. :P lol
-
As I am of none of the heritages above, can I hold all three in contempt as superstitions derived from western insecurities ? ;D
-
I'm not sure of the proper term here, it's in the same vein as 'cacophony'. The sounding of the two words together LOOP GAR-OO sounded out, sounds childish and like babble-speak. It's hard to put faith behind the word, to really fear it. There isn't enough harshness to the sound of the word like the other two.
The p is silent, French being a language in which terminal consonants are nigh-always silent.
I think lou'-garou has a kind of wind-in-branches menace like the word Cthulhu, myself.
Try it sometime, mention all three words to a random lay person and see which one they prefer and which one they find disjointed to the genre. There is no hard sound in the word, so it does not agitate the reader into picking up on it, fearing it, symbolizing it. It just sounds goofy.
That is the sort of reaction that does sound parochial and monoglot to me, i'm afraid.
They are established terms I've heard of, understand, and can visualize.
There is a sample bias going on here in what you are familiar with, then.
Assuming that Jim, or any of his other readers, will have the same sample bias and therefore the same reactions and prejudices with response to this word is totally unwarranted.
-
I don't like 'lycanthrope', to me it's too unwieldy with too many hard (as in rocklike, not difficult) sounds. Also, I may have read to many LKH books. Loup-garou flows, like one could break into a yodel down the road:
"When I'm calling you-ooo-ooo-ooo'
Dooby-dooby-doo, with my loup-garou..."
But 'lycan' was referenced by Castle last night FTW.
"Relp, Raggy, it's a roogaroo !"
-
Considering how many variants on shapeshifter that JB has included, it seems reasonable to me that he'd go with synonyms to classify the different types. Loup garou is another synonym, and actually is one of my favorites because it rolls off the tongue a little like the sound of a howl. It's evocative to me, so to each to their own.
As for ghouls, I vote go for it. In White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade, ghouls were actually humans that were kept as servants to vampires. No flesh eating involved, but the association that the reader brought with them helped create a certain dark association. The echoes of cannibalism resonated to me, even if it wasn't present in the text. It sounds like your ghouls have similar traits, in that they don't actually consume flesh, but with the body switching, they kind of do. I personally groove on details like that in fiction. :) Redefining old legends is most of the fun in urban fantasy, I think. Heck, it actually adds to the realism. Having a character say things like, "And I bet Mama told you that stakes work on vampires, too," makes things seem more plausible, because it's like gathering the readers together, and whispering secrets about how things really work. People, in my experience, eat that kind of thing up. Everyone likes being in on how it really goes down, even if they know it's just a book.
-
Having a character say things like, "And I bet Mama told you that stakes work on vampires, too," makes things seem more plausible, because it's like gathering the readers together, and whispering secrets about how things really work.
i'm sure I've read a vampire ranting at a human on a "Well, if someone shoved a sharp piece of wood through your heart it wouldn't do you much good, would it ?" theme, but I can't recall where. (The "look what you did to my good shirt" aside in Anno Dracula is not it, but in the same general theme.)
-
It sounds familiar, and my first instinct is the Night Huntress series by Jeaniene Frost, but I'm tea deficient and weatherpated today, so I'm very likely wrong. That example is exactly the gist of what I meant. It makes the reader perk up and take notice when conventions are challenged like that.
-
I'm not sure of the proper term here, it's in the same vein as 'cacophony'. The sounding of the two words together LOOP GAR-OO sounded out, sounds childish and like babble-speak. It's hard to put faith behind the word, to really fear it. There isn't enough harshness to the sound of the word like the other two. That is why the other two are more widely used and more widely accepted. Try it sometime, mention all three words to a random lay person and see which one they prefer and which one they find disjointed to the genre. There is no hard sound in the word, so it does not agitate the reader into picking up on it, fearing it, symbolizing it. It just sounds goofy. LOOP GAR-OO. /cringe.
From a personal standpoint, since you seem to care for some reason... lycanthrope and hexenwulf seem appropriate in my mind. They are established terms I've heard of, understand, and can visualize. Though 'LYCAN' by itself is an awful term also.
At no point did I say I didn't know WHAT a loup-garou is. Jim, as you point out, paints that picture vividly. I merely said it was a stupid sounding term. Like Jackalope or the word Neurovore. It just sounds idiotic, like its trying too hard and failing miserably. Someone then mentioned that I should know what it means simply because its a French word. I countered that I don't speak French, I am American... reading an AMERICAN book. At which point that person promptly surrendered. However someone else decided to call me ignorant. I'm betting it was the part where I said I was American, they just visualized the stereotype... Go figure. Hey, did you know French people don't shave their arm pits? Yours, or someone else's, complaint was that it is an established term in the genre. My response is that the argument is crap. I do not read the genre, I was only exposed to it because it was part of the Dresdenverse that I do enjoy reading. So your argument is that I am an ignorant monoglot just because I do not read the same things you do. When addressed with a complaint, you feel compelled for name calling. How mature.
Tard.
/never said I was mature, either.
This goes so far past the line of "unacceptable" it laps the entire globe and crosses it again. Let's skip straight to strike three: one more post like this and you're out.
-
And, on a further note, saying "loup-garou" is a stupid term because it doesn't have harsh sounds is not unlike saying Darwin had a crap theory because fainting goats exist.
It's a claim that isn't thought through, and highly suggests your own knowledge of the mythology from which all this was drawn needs some boning up.
Your homework for tonight is the explain why the the Beast of Gevaudan may or may not have been a loup garou.
-
Didn't think this post was going to go in the directions it has... It's like I opened up a can of squirming worms. I can understand WHY Jim went in the direction he did with the werewolves. Since each one was slightly different, it was a good way of keeping things from getting confused for the reader while adding more interest. Personally, I liked what he did. Thought it was enjoyable and added much more depth than just say going with one term. Back to the original purpose of this post...Ghouls.
Okay. So, it's obvious that I've learned not a lot of people are as familiar with what a ghoul is as I thought. Unlike say vampires or zombies or, ugh, werewolves. And since most of what I'm doing seems to fit ghoul mythology--don't know what the mythology is? (just look it up on Google or Wikipedia)--I think I'm going to use the word ghoul for my creature. It just makes sense. I see no reason now in changing it.
-
Your homework for tonight is the explain why the the Beast of Gevaudan may or may not have been a loup garou.
I rebel, because I'm a rebel. Revel in my rebelness.
/skips away... tra lala lala lala
-
Do you have a flag?
-
In writing, 'tis the knowledge of the teacher, not where they teach that makes a great class to take.
I'm taking a class with some incredible writers, who aren't sci fi readers. Initially, their comments were "how does that work?" type variety. And i would, "huh?" Assume nothing and describe all. See other posting here to do it in an entertaining way.
I'm using a time travel device. I created it and I described it, but from the wonderful sci fi writer was the Star Trek concern---"aren't you afraid they will change the time line?" UHm, yeah,great question. I've been using without thought the Crichton Time Line and more realistic in my opinion to assume. About ten inventers invent the same device at the same time usually--but only one gets the Kudos. Killing one off isn't going to change a thing. Another is already there and ready to go.
So, I need to go back and explain that--dang it! :-) Thank goodness for readers who will actually ask you questions and call you on something you missed doing!
Actually, the ”Timeline” version makes precious little sense. If you can only bring yourself, that’s one thing (though I still suspect if you manage to kill both Newton & Liebnitz that’s going to screw over history), but they can bring stuff.
As in, a small library of all the mathematical and scientific advances of the last 300 years. Print a bunch of copies and start publishing them during the enlightenment and see if things progress as they did for real…