What the hell?

Considering it's generally thought of as a curse, not a benefit. The power to turn into a massive wolf you have no control over doesn't seem like a power to me.

Being a werewolf is obviously a curse; and vampirism is a curse as well. Nevertheless, these cursed people possess powers -- abilities -- that normal people don't. In my previous post I never distinguished if the "power" was benevolent or malevolent, positive or destructive. Most "powers" can be both anyway, depending on how the person uses them and the intent of the heart. Furthermore, one variant of the medieval myth/superstition was that the werewolf retained his/her intelligence, which can be observed in modern times in movies like "Red Riding Hood" and "Big Bad Wolf," even "The Howling."

being able to turn into a wolf is not and has never been exclusive to werewolves. It's a shapeshifting ability, in no way related to werewolves.

It is related to a werewolf because what, after all, is a werewolf? Someone who has the power to shapeshift into a wolf (or wolfman). Whether the power's a curse or not is irrelevant. I realize you disagree that a true werewolf can morph into a wolfman, but -- whether you acknowledge it or not -- this has been added to the mythology at some point (likely way earlier than you suggest, which I'll address below) and is now part of the mythology. Just ask ten people what a werewolf is and at least eight will likely aswer: "A cursed person who morphs into a half-wolf/half-human creature, usually when the moon is full." If you can't accept this then that's your problem.

There is a difference between mythology and fiction. You're confusing the two here...Fiction does not "add" to mythology.

It's a good point, but mythology could be defined as the (result of the) fiction -- the storytelling -- of it's era even though some people actually believed the myths. Many -- probably most -- didn't; and knew it was all make-believe (i.e. fiction).

As you know, myth is the unconscious creation of a whole culture or cultures. For instance, the werewolf myth existed in many variants as a widespread concept throughout Europe in the late medieval era (and earlier, albeit less popular). Look up 'werewolf' in the dictionary or encyclopedia and it shows that morphing into a wolfman creature is one of those variants. In fact, the term 'werewolf' in Old English is werewulf, meaning "man-wolf."

Back in those days they didn't have TV, movies or internet (before the printing press they didn't even have books in a mass-distributed sense) so they entertained themselves around the campfire or fireplace with stories, including spooky tales of werewolves and vampires, which were based on the loose folklore of the culture (by 'loose' I mean not written in stone). This is storytelling and storytelling is fiction. So mythology, folklore and fiction are inextricably linked. With this in mind, do ya think that one of these storytellers somewhere along the line came up with the innovative idea that the werewolf morphed into a creature that was half-wolf and half-man? To say it didn't happen would be an insult to the intelligence/creativity of our ancestors.

On that note, imagine one of our ancestors in, say, 1107 AD telling a scary werewolf tale around the campfire and a staunch mythologically correct listener is offended because the storyteller dared to say one of the characters morphed into a wolfman rather than a larger-than-usual wolf. The offended listener cries out, "NoooOOOOO!! By all that is holy, ye cannotest do that! A true werewolf turns into a large wolf, not a wolfman!!!!!" If you find this ridiculous than perhaps you can see how I feel about your rigid mythological correctness on this thread.

In any case, all the werewolf movies/books that have come out of America in the last century or so could cumulatively be construed as modern mythology possessing the "many variants" of classic folklore -- only more so -- and this adds to the entirety of the mythos, whether people like you care to admit it or not.

Consider vampirism as an example: Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" was obviously based on European mythology and is reverently regarded as a revered "textbook" on the topic. It came out in 1897, only a little over a century ago when motion pictures were already being screened for the public.

Brilliantly idiotic argument right there.

Well, if it's such an "idiotic argument" then you should be able to easily counter it, but instead you say nothing except resort to ad hominem tactics (which people always do when they discern they're losing the debate; it's quite sad, really).

I challenge you again: By all means, cite from the "Sacred Text of Werewolves" to prove your points. We both know you can't because no such blueprint-for-all-true-werewolves exists. Werewolf-ism is a widespread concept with many variants. Not to mention, fantastical creatures like werewolves and vampires don't exist -- they were birthed via a jumble of myth, folklore and fiction compiled over many centuries via storytelling, which is fiction.


My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

reply share

add reply

formatting help