This is a wonderful show. Fits perfectly with our class. Gives me ammo for the blog :)
A new episode came on last night: dragons. But not big fire breathing lizards that fall in love with donkeys (had to make a Shrek reference). These dragons were men that had the typical abilities of dragons of lore. The show is clearly based on the supernatural but occasionally, like last night, will lean closer to the world of legends and myths. However, they have an amazing ability to create their own versions of things.
These man-dragons got me thinking. For the most part, legends and myths describe fantastical creatures in the same ways. For example, there really isn't any variance (at least physically) from the Inheritance Cycle's dragons and the dragon the Redcrosse Knight slays in The Faerie Queene. But fantasy is fantasy: because it isn't real, you can make anything up like Supernatural did with their new age dragons. So why do many writers stick towards the "norm" in a genre that's characterized by its fantastical nature?
3 comments:
I think that when a creature has descended through time, tradition, canon, etc., an author may want to stick with the "norm" because it is widely accepted. If you make up dragons that aren't traditional dragons, unless you're well-established (like the Supernatural series), you may be criticized for not "following the rules."
Sorry to bring this up--don't hurt me--but just as a practical example, take... Twilight. Stephenie Meyer made up her own twist on vampires, and everyone criticized it. Now, that may have nothing to do with her vampire rules and everything to do with her less-than-desirable style, grammar, plot, etc. And maybe her version of vampires, for true vampire lovers, are too absurd/weak/stupid to be accepted as a valid version of the creature.
Aside from wanting to avoid too heavy criticism, I would also guess that maybe authors have grown up with the canon versions of the creatures and came to love them that way. So when they grow up to write about them, they want to keep them that way...
Those are my theories, anyway. ^^;
I think you are right about acceptability. I would also add that it is impossible to imagine something that is not based on the real world-- at least according to Descartes. While dragons don't exist, each of their componants does: part lizard, part dinosaur, part bird, etc. When someone arrives at an interesting creature composed of the elements of different real creatures, it tends to stick (e.g. centaur, griffin, vampire, werewolf, and so on).
Also, I could be way wrong on this but didn't people once believe dragons were real based on large reptile sightings and incorrectly analyzed fossils and such?
I agree with both above that once a creature is accepted as "the norm" too much variation can lead to being dismissed. Although dragons remain mostly the same there are countless variations on shapeshifting, magic abilities, breath abilities, how well or fast they can fly, etc. in many of the fantasy series I have read. It seems as though authors can put their own spin on a creature without changing it so much that they have to fight one's preconcieved notions of that creature.
I agree with the Twilight comment whole heartedly. My girlfriend loves the series and I always give her grief about them not being real vampires.
Post a Comment