View from the Road: What Do WoW and Twilight Have in Common?
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Great post, I myself am not a Twilight fan, but I do support people being able to have their own spin on things. Like someone said above, vampires and werewolves generaly have a certain criteria to abide by, but does that prevent them from adding in new things? Now I dont support Twilight's version of vampires, hell, they for the most part, just seem like faster stonger humans, but if you take in the definition of a vampire, removing the need for blood and the alergic reaction to sunlight, thats all they are, faster stronger humans. Although, I still dont get the sparkly part, I would understand if she made her version of vampires have to eat a mineral or something that over the years would surface to their skin and make them sparkle, but then again, did they sparkle in the books, or was that just the movie version?
Meh, heres an example of doing something different; in one of the books I read, dwarves were pirates rampaging any coastline they came across, now thats different. For some reason though I could imagine that happening, a nordic like race of dwarf. I being a "veteran" WoW player, have always liked the lore behind Worgen, interdimentional beasts who somehow infected humans, and those humans shut themselves off from the world to prevent the curse from spreading. A bit different, but still abides by the werewolf curse/disease criteria.
Thats my 2 cents, sorry it was so long! One more thing, why is everyone getting so uptight about the whole furry thing now? I mean Tauren, Bull/cow people, have been in the Warcraft universe since some of the earliest games were released.
Meh, heres an example of doing something different; in one of the books I read, dwarves were pirates rampaging any coastline they came across, now thats different. For some reason though I could imagine that happening, a nordic like race of dwarf. I being a "veteran" WoW player, have always liked the lore behind Worgen, interdimentional beasts who somehow infected humans, and those humans shut themselves off from the world to prevent the curse from spreading. A bit different, but still abides by the werewolf curse/disease criteria.
Thats my 2 cents, sorry it was so long! One more thing, why is everyone getting so uptight about the whole furry thing now? I mean Tauren, Bull/cow people, have been in the Warcraft universe since some of the earliest games were released.
I'm all for subverting the tropes, but I find the pussification of vampires in Twilight to be absolutely hilarious. There's nothing wrong with the idea of a vampire romance: after all, vampires have always been highly sexualised: but in order for it to be effective you have to maintain the terror that a vampire inspires. Edward Cullen inspires absolutely no terror in anyone because he is, to borrow a phrase from Yahtzee, 'a mopey solar-powered disco ball'. The real problem here is that Meyer's idea that they sparkle in the sunlight has come to symbolise all the qualities that detract from Edward's menace: angst, emotional vulnerability, effeminacy.
Meanwhile Blizzard have gradually been pushing World of Warcraft further and further into a cartoonish direction that some people consider to be at odds with the series' dark beginnings. This isn't new, I remember the drama that developed when it was first revealed that the Orcs would become a 'good' race in Warcraft III. The problem is that once you make something a playable race, you instantly remove a whole lot of the menace it once held. A playable race in WoW means it has to have living spaces, culture, accents and above all else: females. It's easy to forget how many fantasy monsters are always stereotypically masculine, and so adding female representations does a lot to reduce their appeal as tropes of dark fantasy. Look at the Tauren, for instance: Blizzard have taken a Greek Monster and mixed it with Plains Indian culture to create something that certainly wouldn't scare anyone.
Meanwhile Blizzard have gradually been pushing World of Warcraft further and further into a cartoonish direction that some people consider to be at odds with the series' dark beginnings. This isn't new, I remember the drama that developed when it was first revealed that the Orcs would become a 'good' race in Warcraft III. The problem is that once you make something a playable race, you instantly remove a whole lot of the menace it once held. A playable race in WoW means it has to have living spaces, culture, accents and above all else: females. It's easy to forget how many fantasy monsters are always stereotypically masculine, and so adding female representations does a lot to reduce their appeal as tropes of dark fantasy. Look at the Tauren, for instance: Blizzard have taken a Greek Monster and mixed it with Plains Indian culture to create something that certainly wouldn't scare anyone.
I get most annoyed when people think they know what is the "real" or "classic" version of something, but they don't. Dracula is the classic vampire, and in the original novel the sunlight merely reduced his power and he turned into a wolf, not a bat. Same with Frankenstein's monster, who is not named Frankenstein (that's his creator) and who is actually highly intelligent, not a lumberig idiot.
Actually, dwarves vary too. It's just much rarer to find an example that isn't exactly the same as most of what you see. The most originality on that concept can be seen if you look before Tolkien, who basically invented the modern conception of the dwarf. Germanic tales before his time, which he used for inspiration, differ in a number of ways. For example, size was often more exaggerated, with dwarves sometimes doing fairy-size activities like fighting with cranes.
That aside, it's certainly a painful experience to hear someone making an arbitrary point about realism, as though it's relevant to the qualities of a fantasy game. There are enough generic werewolves, vampires and aliens everywhere else - there is no reason for Blizzard to copy those. They already did that with the elves anyway, they are pretty much straight out of Tolkien with a few new variations like the night elves' relationship to trees, the blood elves' magic addiction and other organic stuff that just comes from existing in the WC universe.
On the other hand, we shouldn't be telling people what to think. If they want to be wrong, we can correct them, but I don't like phrasing like "don't say they're werewolves". The people who say what they want anyway, of course, since they probably don't read this column due to not being interested in WoW. It's no big deal.
That aside, it's certainly a painful experience to hear someone making an arbitrary point about realism, as though it's relevant to the qualities of a fantasy game. There are enough generic werewolves, vampires and aliens everywhere else - there is no reason for Blizzard to copy those. They already did that with the elves anyway, they are pretty much straight out of Tolkien with a few new variations like the night elves' relationship to trees, the blood elves' magic addiction and other organic stuff that just comes from existing in the WC universe.
On the other hand, we shouldn't be telling people what to think. If they want to be wrong, we can correct them, but I don't like phrasing like "don't say they're werewolves". The people who say what they want anyway, of course, since they probably don't read this column due to not being interested in WoW. It's no big deal.
It also has a firmly entrenched place in Western culture. Vampire myths and the like have existed for hundreds of years. Everyone, or close enough as to not matter, in Europe and the US knows what a vampire is and has more than likely heard at least one story about them.John Funk said:
The problem with Twilight vampires is calling them vampires is akin to calling Frankenstein's monster a zombie. Sure, technically it's accurate, but there's so many connotations and subtle (or not so subtle) differences that the essence of the creature is lost in translation.
My only real... concern, for lack of a better word, about Twilight vampires is that because of their absurd popularity, the true essence of the vampire (specifically the fact that it's a monster and that there was, and possibly even still is, a very real fear of it) will be lost in its entirety. It's just disappointing to lose one of the best monsters in all of human history to the rabid self-insertion, wet-dream-transcripts of an aging woman.
If I remember in the second book in the Dresden Files series there are 4 different kinds of thing that care considered werewolfs.
1. People who have primal spirits living in them. Can't actually transform into wolves, but have increased strength, speed and regeneration when giving into there primal side. especially on a full moon.
2. People who use magic to shape shift themselves into wolfs. No more supernaturally strong or fast than normal wolves would be.
3. People who use dark artifacts to transform into wolfs. These are supernaturally fast and strong, but the artifacts have corrupting effects on the user.
4. People who are cursed to turn into supernatural wolf beasts on the full moon. Pretty much impossible to kill by anything but silver. Lose all control when transformed and will rage and attack anything during the transformation.
Now are one or any of theses definitions "right". I've seen variations on these used as werewolf in many different kinds of literature. #4 is probably closest to the traditional wolf man from the old B&W movie, so you could say the others aren't the same as that one, but I wouldn't say they are wrong.
Though that is one of the things I like about the Dresden Files books is that they do use a lot of different fantasy concepts from different sources and mix them together.
1. People who have primal spirits living in them. Can't actually transform into wolves, but have increased strength, speed and regeneration when giving into there primal side. especially on a full moon.
2. People who use magic to shape shift themselves into wolfs. No more supernaturally strong or fast than normal wolves would be.
3. People who use dark artifacts to transform into wolfs. These are supernaturally fast and strong, but the artifacts have corrupting effects on the user.
4. People who are cursed to turn into supernatural wolf beasts on the full moon. Pretty much impossible to kill by anything but silver. Lose all control when transformed and will rage and attack anything during the transformation.
Now are one or any of theses definitions "right". I've seen variations on these used as werewolf in many different kinds of literature. #4 is probably closest to the traditional wolf man from the old B&W movie, so you could say the others aren't the same as that one, but I wouldn't say they are wrong.
Though that is one of the things I like about the Dresden Files books is that they do use a lot of different fantasy concepts from different sources and mix them together.
I agree but alas...John Funk said:By all means, hate Twilight. Not trying to say you shouldn't.Roos1993 said:
Just don't get angry because RAWRTGHFH THEY'RE NOT REAAAAL VAMPIRES RARWRWRRGFGHGGBLBLHBVBLAFB
SPARKLES!!!!
But you do have a good point.
I would like to point-out that I (and many others) have accepted all breeds of Vampire, but there's just something a little... rainbow tinted you could say? About Vampires who glitter in the sunlight.
I've accepted Vampires who can walk about freely in the sunlight and simply dislike it. I've accepted that some Vampires can walk in the sunlight but lack any of their strengths while immersed within it. I've accepted that when sunlight is deadly to them it can be as subtle as them just falling over dead or as violent as spontaneous combustion. I've accepted Vampires who can swim in a river just fine and ones that become immobilized in any limb that's submerged. I've accepted Vampires who have an incense that makes daylight seem like night and vice versa. I've accepted Vampires who never need to drink blood, who need to drink blood daily, monthly, yearly, etc. I've accepted Vampires who die if they don't get blood, I've accepted them when they become monstrous aberrations when they don't drink enough.
Maybe they turn into bats, maybe they can turn into mist, some even turn into wolves, while there are others who scoff at the mention of said "myths". They've formed secret societies, they've ruled mankind, maybe there's just the one village that a vampire always visits. Sometimes blood tastes different based on the victims emotions or sexual purity, sometimes drinking blood lets them see into the mind of the victims to gather information.
I could probably go on and on and on about the countless variations a vampire can have and still be accepted as a Vampire. And heck, I can even accept the idea of a "vegetarian" vampire who drinks the blood of animals so he doesn't have to victimize humans (while also accepting some mythologies where drinking the blood of animals is viewed as barbaric, akin to rummaging through a dumpster for food) but when I saw the scene where Edward revealed that his skin glitters in the sunlight I wanted to find the author of the series so I could slap her in the face. She can go ahead and call him a Vampire because it's her story in her world, but I will never accept "glittering skin" as a possible trait for a Vampire.
I've accepted Vampires who can walk about freely in the sunlight and simply dislike it. I've accepted that some Vampires can walk in the sunlight but lack any of their strengths while immersed within it. I've accepted that when sunlight is deadly to them it can be as subtle as them just falling over dead or as violent as spontaneous combustion. I've accepted Vampires who can swim in a river just fine and ones that become immobilized in any limb that's submerged. I've accepted Vampires who have an incense that makes daylight seem like night and vice versa. I've accepted Vampires who never need to drink blood, who need to drink blood daily, monthly, yearly, etc. I've accepted Vampires who die if they don't get blood, I've accepted them when they become monstrous aberrations when they don't drink enough.
Maybe they turn into bats, maybe they can turn into mist, some even turn into wolves, while there are others who scoff at the mention of said "myths". They've formed secret societies, they've ruled mankind, maybe there's just the one village that a vampire always visits. Sometimes blood tastes different based on the victims emotions or sexual purity, sometimes drinking blood lets them see into the mind of the victims to gather information.
I could probably go on and on and on about the countless variations a vampire can have and still be accepted as a Vampire. And heck, I can even accept the idea of a "vegetarian" vampire who drinks the blood of animals so he doesn't have to victimize humans (while also accepting some mythologies where drinking the blood of animals is viewed as barbaric, akin to rummaging through a dumpster for food) but when I saw the scene where Edward revealed that his skin glitters in the sunlight I wanted to find the author of the series so I could slap her in the face. She can go ahead and call him a Vampire because it's her story in her world, but I will never accept "glittering skin" as a possible trait for a Vampire.
Good Article. I agree with the other posts that a fictional creature has boundaries that are more or less based upon the mythos created before it. These are wide undefined boundaries that can be pushed my good writing. In the case of Twilight, the champires moved beyond those boundaries. The author used the name vampire much like a bad video game company uses a movie character license. She used the vampire name for her creatures to better sell her book much like Superman 64. In both cases the idea of vampires/superman are placed on the substandard product because without them neither product would sell.
Lastly, I'm sure there has been more than one debate on The Escapist about fast vs. Slow zombies.
Lastly, I'm sure there has been more than one debate on The Escapist about fast vs. Slow zombies.
...because dying, then re-animating while dead purely by ingesting the blood of living creatures and, in the process, gaining strength, speed, and possibly the ability to shapeshift into, say, a bat doesn't break any laws of physics, biology, etc., amirite? I don't recall reading any convincing explanation for how any of that happens, why it works, or why some vampires can basically say, "Screw the rules, I have plot armor!" and be godlike without the usual explanation ("I'm a million years old" or "I drank the blood of a god") to support the power they're throwing around.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Your kung fu is weak.
Unrelated points: -seems like TVTropes links are popping up a lot in Escapist articles lately. Did you all become addicts or make some kind of arrangement with their site or something? ;p
-I have to admit the female worgen model looks almost more feline than canine to me in some respects (something about the face in particular), but who cares, it's a fantasy cartoon character in a game I'm not even playing anymore which hasn't even shown female worgen before - for all we knew women just grew new genitals along with the fur prior to this point.
-I find myself compelled to write a story in which vampires not only sparkle in the sun but sustain themselves not on blood but on a strict diet of Zima and Tic Tacs and somehow make it good.
I am amazed you didn't talk about "Lol Worgen is just milking the Twillight hype" posts.
Because for some reason a lot of people hate worgen because they think worgen Blizzard is adding Worgen just because Twillight is so popular. (And not because Werewolfs are friggin awesome!)
Because for some reason a lot of people hate worgen because they think worgen Blizzard is adding Worgen just because Twillight is so popular. (And not because Werewolfs are friggin awesome!)