View from the Road: What Do WoW and Twilight Have in Common?

[Spectre39]

Trying to find new spins on old concepts shouldn't be (and isn't) necessary, but it shouldn't be condemned, either

I think it's perfectly acceptable to condemn concepts that don't make sense in their own concept.

Twilight "vampires" fail because if they did exist, they'd break major laws of physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology and many other natural laws. And if you disregard those laws, without providing suitable laws to sustain them, they fail under their own laws.

Teleporters, Time Travel and numerous other "soft" sciences work because they provide a pseudo-scientific basis for their existence. If you're actually theorising a massive density, invulnerable creature that survives purely on an organic soup created by an inferior life-form; and has a biological component that itself acts intelligently, then there's an awful lot of laws you have to re-write to accommodate it. If you then want to add in a hyperactive shapeshifter than draws physical matter from nowhere, survives on the same soup, and is at constant war with a far superior enemy, which can re-create itself purely by swapping soup with another inferior life-form, then the basic laws of causality collapse into an author wishlist.

Fireballs may not exist; but thermodynamics, conservation of energy/momentum etc. that allow humanity to survive have to take account of this.

"Normal" vampires are creatures cursed by a Higher power to act like blood junkies, resembling the effects of known diseases (Porphyria/Rabies), known drug effects (PCP, Heroin) and base human fears (Xenophobia, Nictophobia, Sexual Predatory behaviour).

If Worgen have Crinos forms that draw power from Elder Gods, then I've no problem with them. If they have normal platemail that shifts with them, then there's something that needs looking at.

Alright! Good stuff my good chum. This right here is the deciding factor in whether I like an interpretation of fiction or not. It's not the existence of fantasy elements that irks me, its how well the author explains them, if at all.

If I may use an anime example: I think Fullmetal Alchemist did a pretty good job of explaining its brand of magic. You take basic chemical elements, break them down, and recreate them. You must follow the law of conservation of mass which they interpret as "Equivalent Exchange". Sure the finer details are a bit sketchy as to how they physically change an object's form, apart from a flash of light. But it more or less follows the laws it has set forth.

Now Bleach on the other hand, I'm not so impressed by. I don't watch it regularly so I may have missed something. So far, most of the "super powers" we see are blamed entirely on that ambiguous substance called "spirit energy". And any climactic secret moves are pulled entirely "Deus Ex Machina".

 

[Spectre39]

I was going to nerdrage about the very thought that WoW was anything like ... that thing I dare not say. But that was a good read regardless.

Though one part of that reminded me of something relevant to this topic.

View from the Road: What Do WoW and Twilight Have in Common?

Perhaps we expect creators to go down the check list to make sure they've got everything just right. "Drinks blood, check. Vaporizes in the sunlight, check. Sleeps in a coffin, check. Turns into a bat, check. Obsessed with counting? Ooh, we missed that one - let's go watch Sesame Street reruns for inspiration."

Read Full Article

Count Von Count: Six. Six Bats! Seven. Seven Bats! Ah ah ah!
Peter: Hey, is the Count a Vampire?
Brian: What's that?
Peter: Well he's got these big fangs. Have they ever shown him doin' somebody in and then feedin' on em?
Brian: You're, you're asking me if they've ever done a Seseme Street in which the Count kills somebody and then sucks their blood for sustenance
Peter: Yeah
Brian: No, they've never done that

 

[wtrmute]

Oddly enough, Tolkien's dwarves have nothing Scottish about them, but rather Jewish. In fact, they hit lots of the stereotypes Jews had in the beginning of the 20th Century: good craftsmen and jewelers, secretive, having their own tongue they used among themselves while using the tongue of the land with the "outsiders", and somewhat obsessed with riches (not my opinion, anyway). I frankly have no idea when dwarves became Scottish, actually...

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

I am reminded of how I invented the Lycanthropes for Guardians of London. I thought long and hard about what made weerebeats terrifying. Their ability to transform into a beastly creature and their inability to control that painful transition are a few things, as well as their superhuman strength and cunning. Which morphed into the cunning and cruel Loup Garou and their Cursed followers, master and servant. One werebeast able to control their transformations after careful meditation and training the others bound heart and soul to their master and transform at his will, not their. Invariably going into a murder frenzy during such transformations. This may be to the spirit of the werewolf myth, but lycanthropes could turn into whatever beastly animal they chose. A dog, a cat, a tiger, a bear, a rat, or a wolf were just a few beastly choices. What made the Cult of the Moon so special was how they were more akin to vampires, tough and vigilant and cunning, than werewolves which are by nature slobbering, crazy and angry.


But I suppose anyone is free to crate what characters they wish, just thinking. Maybe my ideas are sticking with the norm. At least they work in a way....whatever the author or artist or creator wants....they create.

 

[the_bearpelt]

On a quite sidenote, major bonus points for knowing who Lon Chaney is.

I don't play WoW, and while the female Worgen don't really look PRETTY, I think they looked kinda cool.

He makes a great point in this writing about "real" vampires and werewolves. People need to learn to chill about things that don't really matter THAT much. Variations are cool, too.

 

[sparkyk24]

He said of elves:
"Are they ethereal and beautiful, woodsy and wise, or are they feral and cruel with a tendency to live underground and dual-wield scimitars?"

Sounds a lot like a reference to Drizz't Do'urden. If that's the case, then those would be dark elves...an entirely different race than elves, right? Or did I miss the reference?

 

[MotenaiRonin]

Didn't nobody have offense to Bunnicula! The vegetarian bunny vampire with blood red eyes...

Really, this creature leecher preacher is fixing to teach 'er a lesson of just a little misplaced anger.

 

[Djinni]

He EATS MEAT. That's why I hate Edward. There's nothing, "Vegetarian" about him.

Um, the "vegetarian" comments in the books were just saying that the vampires who didn't drink human blood were LIKE vegetarians. They weren't trying to say they actually WERE vegetarians lol

 

[DeadAccountMoveAlong]

I will create a new dwarven stereotype for you, Mr. Funk. I don't know if I should piss everybody off by just changing one thing (Japanese accent?), reimagining them, or by making them sparkle in the sunlight.

 

[GothmogII]

I will create a new dwarven stereotype for you, Mr. Funk. I don't know if I should piss everybody off by just changing one thing (Japanese accent?), reimagining them, or by making them sparkle in the sunlight.

I'm afraid Japan already has Dwarves, badass ones:

Spoiler

Don't know if they sparkle though. :3

He said of elves:
"Are they ethereal and beautiful, woodsy and wise, or are they feral and cruel with a tendency to live underground and dual-wield scimitars?"

Sounds a lot like a reference to Drizz't Do'urden. If that's the case, then those would be dark elves...an entirely different race than elves, right? Or did I miss the reference?

Th' Drow rule supreme!! Incidentally, the Drow come to us from Scottish folklore, while Dark Elves in general are a Norse mythological creature. Although, in both cases they're reputed to be ugly humanlike things, with the Drow being closer to trolls than traditional elves.

 

[Flying Dagger]

I think the twilight books are popular because they are the combination of fantasy books that don't make people feel embaressed to confess to liking them, and the fact most female teenager fans feel they can relate to the characters purely on the basis of "I love him but it's not working out for us" which makes all further relating needless.
At a time when emotions rule so much of their lives, it can become enough to allow all the other stuff past.

Though I know some people have studied this in English, so they can probably give a better account then my guesswork.

 

[VanBasten]

What a vampire is "supposed to be"? It's a fictional creature! It does not exist!

On a somewhat related note: Murlocks exist! Yay!

 

[Dr. Paine]

Well, you are right. One interpretation or spin on whatever fantasy monster or whatever isn't more right than the other. In that sense, yeah, the Vampires from Twilight are true vampires. However, they're nevertheless still a stupid take on the vampire. See this:

Just because the execution is flawed doesn't mean that the idea of a vegetarian vampire who glitters like Lady Gaga when exposed to sunlight couldn't be interesting if done correctly.

I find unlikely. I mean, I don't mind the vegetarian part. If you want to have vampires as good guys they need to have some sort of alternative food input. As long as they're still SUPPOSED to drink blood, they're still vampires (though this part is quite critical). I don't mind that sunlight don't hurt them, but still effect them, either. I rather like the spin that they have to keep out of the sunlight, or they blow their cover.

But why did they have to glitter?! It's not that it's too "original", it's that it's non-sentical and unfitting the general "image" of the vampire. Dark, moody creatures that... glitter? I suspect that the author simply ran out of superlatives and ways to describe Edward as the most beautiful creature ever, so she made him glitter in sunlight as well. "He's sooo prettyyyyyy..."

Actually, the essential part of vampires is leeching off of human life- Eastern vampires stole breath/life energy, yet they're still vampires.

The reason Twilight's creatures are not vampires is because they are not impeded in the slightest by sunlight (even before the whole 'instant death just add sunlight' thing became popular, vampires were nocturnal creatures, sunlight would either weaken them, kill them, or have other severely negative effects), do not require human life to survive (or for that matter, they really don't require blood at all, it seems they only get 'hungry', rather than actually suffer from a lack of anything), and are near-invincible (a key part of vampire lore was just how many ways there were to kill them, lighting them on fire was the usual. Twilight ones can only be chopped up, THEN set on fire, to be permanently destroyed. And might I add only vampires/shapeshifters are capable of this?).

There are hundreds of variations between cultures and times (just what it was they took out of humans, the various weaknesses *fire seems to be the only universal one. Holy objects vary, staking into the ground could be done with iron or wooden stakes **modern times have seen a rise of a simple stake to the heart, but it was originally pinning them into their graves**, or by planting a hawthorn or rose bush over the grave, they can only be invited in, running water, etc* different powers), but those were the key three traits to actual vampires. Twilight does NOT have any of these traits, ergo, they are not vampires. (On the whole vegetarian note: some vampires would go after livestock, but it was to ruin the family. Personally, I don't mind vampires feeding from animals as long as it's made clear that they act like a meal-replacement shake- tide you over for a bit, but you'll need real food if you want to live. Hybrids between vampires and humans have shifted a fair bit too, but the usual version was that they had the strengths of their vampire father, with none of the weaknesses, and were excellent vampire hunters. Some cultures added that they had flat noses because vampires had no bones, and others said they had extremely short lives.)

As for the werewolf thing... they are far looser than vampires. In fact, before being ruthless enemies, being a werewolf in life would cause you to become a vampire in death. Some could change at will using an enchanted wolfskin, and those they bit were forced changes, or it was strictly full moon. The only universal trait for a 'werewolf' was that they could only become a wolf.

For more detailed Twilight fails, I suggest you read this. [http://www.twilightsucks.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=73]

And the only 'real' vegetarian vampire is Bunnicula, dammit <_<

 

[tanithwolf]

The reason I hate the vampires and werewolves in twilight is not so much because they're sparkly, but becuase they only really seem to be vampires and werewolves to stop the book being the same as so many other pieces of drivel.

 

[Dr. Paine]

The reason I hate the vampires and werewolves in twilight is not so much because they're sparkly, but becuase they only really seem to be vampires and werewolves to stop the book being the same as so many other pieces of drivel.

Which it didn't.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to get a story about synethes off the ground... -sigh-

Stupid fads.

 

[tanithwolf]

The reason I hate the vampires and werewolves in twilight is not so much because they're sparkly, but becuase they only really seem to be vampires and werewolves to stop the book being the same as so many other pieces of drivel.

Which it didn't.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to get a story about synethes off the ground... -sigh-

Stupid fads.

Well that's how it came across to me.

Just out of curiosity what are synethes.

 

[Dr. Paine]

The reason I hate the vampires and werewolves in twilight is not so much because they're sparkly, but becuase they only really seem to be vampires and werewolves to stop the book being the same as so many other pieces of drivel.

Which it didn't.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to get a story about synethes off the ground... -sigh-

Stupid fads.

Well that's how it came across to me.

Just out of curiosity what are synethes.

*Synesthetes, actually, I still can't remember how to spell that word xD

In a nutshell, people with crossed senses. You can taste words, see sound *the characters in the story have that one,* the most common version has a person seeing numbers and/or letters as being colored, that sort of thing.

It's a fascinating condition, and estimates on how many people have it range from one in two hundred to one in twenty.

 

[tanithwolf]

snip

*Synesthetes, actually, I still can't remember how to spell that word xD

In a nutshell, people with crossed senses. You can taste words, see sound *the characters in the story have that one,* the most common version has a person seeing numbers and/or letters as being colored, that sort of thing.

It's a fascinating condition, and estimates on how many people have it range from one in two hundred to one in twenty.

I've actually heard of that condition before and I agree it is fascinating. I'd love to experience it. What's the story going to be about?

 

[DeadAccountMoveAlong]

I will create a new dwarven stereotype for you, Mr. Funk. I don't know if I should piss everybody off by just changing one thing (Japanese accent?), reimagining them, or by making them sparkle in the sunlight.

I'm afraid Japan already has Dwarves, badass ones:

Spoiler

Don't know if they sparkle though. :3

Oh dear god. Thank you for showing this, you've saved me a lot of wasted character development time, and showed me the most badass dwarf creation evar.

 

[Zero-Vash]

I want to agree with you, Funk, but I've stood on both sides of this argument in the past, and find it more interesting to play the Devil's Advocate here. I will try to do that.

I don't think fiction should strictly adhere to certain archetypes. On the opposite, I support imagination and experimentation, trying out new ideas, twisting familiar concepts into new angles. But is there a point where this new concept strays too far from what we've come to accept? Where is the line drawn between "a new interpretation of X" and "that's nothing like X at all"? Is there even such a line? There might be.

If my interpretation of a vampire is that of a kindly creature that glitters in the sunlight, can drink blood only if it wants to, behaves in the same way as humans do, and tends to helps old ladies cross the road at night, is it still a vampire?

Maybe some of you will say "Yes, it is a vampire if you want to be vampire, since you're the author here". Okay, I agree to that. I've taken the role of author and if I so want it I can make my vampires to be large fat mammals that eat grass and produce milk. These may be called vampires, but they're not GOOD vampires. I've strayed so far from the base concept, from what we've come to expect of vampires, that calling it a vampire is no longer appropriate. I'll call it a "Cow".

And that's sort of the point I'm probably not doing a very good job at making. Whether right or wrong, whether we should or shouldn't, we've come to expect certain characteristics from certain concepts, and straying too far from these expectations might yield a concept that shares the same name, but none of the spirit.

Vampires and werewolves have been done so much by popular culture that we may have simply grown more resistant and more critical to new interpretations of these old concepts than others.

You finally put my thoughts into words. I for one dislike Twilight for many reasons. The main one actually being what it is (in)directly teaching young people (mainly girls). That it is OK to obsess over someone to the point where you will kill yourself without them. Also, that it is OK for the weird guy who gives you creepy stares is someone you can trust.

When it comes to the vampires (I won't quote it because yes they technically are) I personally have a thing against the sparkles. But as you said that's my personal taste.

As for your worgen, I like someone earlier DK idea. I personally will be making a rocketing goblin priest.