What does "Werewolves 'IN GENERAL' " Mean?

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:09 pm

I thought this was enough of an issue of controversy to warrent bringing it up as it's own topic.

Within each topic, when discussing various attributes of the Werewolf, arguments frequently rise when it becomes uncertain whether the comments being made are intended only to apply to the "FREEBORN" werewolves, or to "Werewolves In General".

...but I don't think that the question has ever been clearly answered as to what one means by that.

If you are speaking about "Werewolves in General", what exactly ARE you talking about?

(How can one be speaking about Realistic/Biological, Demonic/Supernatural, Spiritual/Supernatural, Classic Wolfman, Folklore Legend, and Uber Mythological Werewolves All At The Same Time?)

Any Thoughts or Ideas would be higly appreciated...

Vilkacis · Post by **Vilkacis** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:36 pm

Jamie · Post by **Jamie** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:00 pm

I think that "werewolves in general" refers to anything that switches back and forth between a human form and a second form that is either an ordinary wolf, a monster wolf, or a "wolf man" (with possibly a large number of in-between forms possible in addition to the human form and second form, regardless of which one the second form is).
Whether this werewolf is purely biological/scientific, magical, demonic or whatnot is less of an issue (though still an important one) because it is more about the "why" of the werewolf than the "what" of the werewolf. It only affects that "what" of the werewolf in certain ways, such as a demonic werewolf would nearly always have to be evil, and a biological model would make certain methods of transformation more believable than others. Still, you could create a magical werewolf that operated in such a way that it seemed based on the biological model, or vice versa. For example, I've seen stuff about biological werewolves that needed to perform ceremonies with wolf skins, because of purely psychosomatic reasons, in order to shapeshift.
Still, in the context of our disciussions here, I can see the term "werewolves in general" leading to problems, especially when we get on our favorite subject: trying to define the ultimate werewolf. Simply put, the Freeborn werewolves are pretty darn close to the concensus ultimate werewolf, so trying to define some other concensus ultimate werewolf is kind of counterproductive.
Despite what I said before, we actually deal best with these discussions when we are defining some non-Freeborn werewolf by genre instead of dealing with some nebulous definition that could include millions of possible werewolf types.
Perhaps it would be best to talk only about "the supernatural werewolf" or "the best sort of fantasy literature werewolf" or "how I wish Laurell K. Hamilton would change the Anita Blake werewolves" and so forth instead of bringing up "werewolves in general" which is such a hard topic to get into any specifics about.
Generalities work best in definitions, but as soon as we want to talk about specifics, it can be quite hard to have a satisfying conversation on "werewolves in general".

Vilkacis · Post by **Vilkacis** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:26 pm

Jamie wrote:I think that "werewolves in general" refers to anything that switches back and forth between a human form and a second form that is either an ordinary wolf, a monster wolf, or a "wolf man" (with possibly a large number of in-between forms possible in addition to the human form and second form, regardless of which one the second form is).

Personally, I think that definition is much too limiting.

For example, I favor a view of werewolves that don't shift at all. Similar to our 'gestalt' in form, but they have no issues with silver or the full moon, they don't have any special healing abilities, nor do they have any particular bloodlust. But they do have many human-like traits such as intelligence.

I also like werewolves that don't have a complete human form -- just wolf and gestalt. I can think of many interesting possibilities with that idea.

What about people who were once human, but were cursed to be stuck in the form of a wolf? They can't switch between forms.

What about wolves that have human-like intelligence?

What about werewolf furries, with no human form?

etc., etc., etc.

Personally, I think all of those could be equally termed 'werewolf,' but none of them fit under your definition.

I think the only thing all werewolves have in common, really, is the name and some vaguely human-like traits. Even Underworld's werewolves got rid of the wolf part.

-- Vilkacis

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:50 pm

To me, a general werewolf and the Freeborn werewolves should be the same thing. There shouldn't be different werewolves under different circumstances. You probably have an idea of what my 'general werewolf' is from some of my posts throughout the forum. I frequently use the term 'general werewolf' in my posts, but only because that seems to be the tendency of everyone else.

To recap, my general werewolf (in gestalt form):
-is extremely strong
-extremely fast
-large (6-8 feet)
-entirely furry (though not shaggy)
-exhibits an increase in musculature from human to gestalt
-muscles also become more defined
-heads are predominantly wolven, with a bit of uber-canine mixed in
-has a head that is neither positioned entirely like a human, nor entirely like a wolf, but sorta diagonal
-has big, digitigrade feet

My general werewolf in wolf form is simply a really big, wolflike creature.

Kzinistzerg · Post by **Kzinistzerg** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:51 pm

naw- see, i go with jamie's def of a werewolf. the others, are, imo, not actually werewolves- they're not humans that turn into wolves or vice versa. i'm not sure what to classify them as, though, just not werewolves. Mot discussinos can include them because they have the same basis- 'how would a gestalt ww's chest look' wold also count for furries, and all other half-forms. they're just nto werewolves, though they are realted.

Vilkacis · Post by **Vilkacis** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:56 pm

The point I'm trying to make is that, even if you don't consider them to be werewolves, some do. Are you going to exclude them simply because you don't agree?

-- Vilkacis

Akela · Post by **Akela** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:14 pm

I'd have to say the only thing all werewolves have in common is the name...

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:28 pm

Vilkacis wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that, even if you don't consider them to be werewolves, some do. Are you going to exclude them simply because you don't agree?

Well, to me, that's like considering green to be orange. Sure, some random people may consider that to be the case, but that doesn't make them right.

I think that any sort of human who can physically turn (temporarily or permanently, voluntarily or involuntarily) into any sort of wolf or wolf-like creature can be considered a werewolf.

On another note, I don't like it when a person or group of people hijacks a word and changes it from the original meaning. It really annoys me that groups of therians (who cannot physically transform) are all of a sudden calling themselves 'werewolves'. That's kinda like the word 'gay'. It used to mean happy. Now, if you use that word, people are automatically gonna think homosexual. People who have some sort of 'spiritual connection' with wolves are not werewolves, IMO. Neither are wolf furries. A werewolf is a werewolf according to the old definitions of the word, IMO. Just because someone considers himself a werewolf doesn't mean he is one.

Anyway, those are my thoughts and I hope I didn't offend anyone.

23Jarden · Post by **23Jarden** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:29 pm

I'd have to say the only thing all werewolves have in common is the name...

here here

Figarou · Post by **Figarou** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:32 pm

Vilkacis wrote:
Jamie wrote:I think that "werewolves in general" refers to anything that switches back and forth between a human form and a second form that is either an ordinary wolf, a monster wolf, or a "wolf man" (with possibly a large number of in-between forms possible in addition to the human form and second form, regardless of which one the second form is).
Personally, I think that definition is much too limiting.

For example, I favor a view of werewolves that don't shift at all. Similar to our 'gestalt' in form, but they have no issues with silver or the full moon, they don't have any special healing abilities, nor do they have any particular bloodlust. But they do have many human-like traits such as intelligence.

I also like werewolves that don't have a complete human form -- just wolf and gestalt. I can think of many interesting possibilities with that idea.

What about people who were once human, but were cursed to be stuck in the form of a wolf? They can't switch between forms.

What about wolves that have human-like intelligence?

What about werewolf furries, with no human form?

etc., etc., etc.

Personally, I think all of those could be equally termed 'werewolf,' but none of them fit under your definition.

I think the only thing all werewolves have in common, really, is the name and some vaguely human-like traits. Even Underworld's werewolves got rid of the wolf part.

-- Vilkacis

Well, from my point of view, they are NOT called werewolves. They should be under a different name because werewolf = the ability to change between man and wolf. Thats how I see it. Since there is no "man" in that type of creature, why have the "were" in werewolf? The only thing you state is they have human-like traits such as intelligence.

Now, what should they be called? Its up to you. If you prefer werewolf, thats your chooseing.

Vilkacis · Post by **Vilkacis** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:59 pm

Figarou wrote:Well, from my point of view, they are NOT called werewolves. They should be under a different name because werewolf = the ability to change between man and wolf. Thats how I see it. Since there is no "man" in that type of creature, why have the "were" in werewolf? The only thing you state is they have human-like traits such as intelligence.

Now, what should they be called? Its up to you. If you prefer werewolf, thats your chooseing.

While 'were' does mean 'man,' it doesn't necessarily indicate full humanity. 'Man-wolf,' for example, could easily mean a mix between man and wolf (such as our gestalt). All the 'were' means is that there are human-like traits. Otherwise, it would be contradictory. How could something be both completely human and completely wolf at the same time?

To put this another way, lets say you are playing a game (maybe a FPS) and this big gestalt-like creature attacks you. It's huge, wolf-like, snarly, angry, and it wants to rip you apart. Lets even go so far as to say your bullets don't harm it (unless you have silver ones).

Would you call that a werewolf? Even though you haven't seen it shift?

What if it's broad daylight? Maybe it doesn't shift after all...

What if the silver thing didn't apply?

What would you call it, if not?

I think the very fact that many people, even here, refer to the gestalt form as 'werewolf' and not the human form supports my idea. You 'turn into' a werewolf...

Like it or not, languages change over time. And I don't see that it's necessarily a bad thing.

(By the way, all of Japan considers green to be a shade of blue.)

-- Vilkacis

Figarou · Post by **Figarou** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:12 pm

Vilkacis · Post by **Vilkacis** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:26 pm

I wasn't trying to make a point about the word 'gestalt.' I could just as easily said:

"I think the very fact that many people, even here, refer to the hybrid form as 'werewolf' and not the human form supports my idea. You 'turn into' a werewolf..."

Our use of 'gestalt,' by the way, is a good example of a group 'hijacking' a word and changing it from the original meaning. Yet we seem to have few issues using it as such. Thus is human language -- we are very adaptable. Sometimes, when dealing with specialized topics, you simply have to coin new terms.

-- Vilkacis

Figarou · Post by **Figarou** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:46 pm

Vilkacis wrote:I wasn't trying to make a point about the word 'gestalt.' I could just as easily said:

"I think the very fact that many people, even here, refer to the hybrid form as 'werewolf' and not the human form supports my idea. You 'turn into' a werewolf..."

-- Vilkacis

Hmmm....can you explain this?

http://calypso-blue.com/werewolf/viewto ... ght=#39552

Scott Gardener wrote:Oh, and, ever notice how some people refer to the Gestalt form as a "werewolf," as though one "turns into a werewolf" when shifting? Generally, if you turn, you do it once, after you're bitten. After that, shift all you want, you're still a werewolf in ANY form.

Vilkacis · Post by **Vilkacis** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:03 pm

Figarou wrote:Hmmm....can you explain this?

Scott Gardener wrote:Oh, and, ever notice how some people refer to the Gestalt form as a "werewolf," as though one "turns into a werewolf" when shifting? Generally, if you turn, you do it once, after you're bitten. After that, shift all you want, you're still a werewolf in ANY form.

What's there to explain?

Scott Gardener makes the same observation, but offers a different conclusion.

I can see things from both points of view. It's not unknown for words to have more than one meaning when used in different contexts.

Going by the dictionary-form definition, he's absolutely correct.

Going by the everyday use of the word, he's nit-picking.

They're both valid views. Is it necessary to say that only one is right?

-- Vilkacis

Figarou · Post by **Figarou** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:06 pm

Vilkacis wrote:
They're both valid views. Is it necessary to say that only one is right?

-- Vilkacis

Noooooo.......everyone is entitled to their point of view.

There is no right or wrong about the werewolf.

edit....If I write a story about werewolves, mine may do things differently than your werewolves.

Vilkacis · Post by **Vilkacis** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:21 pm

Anyway, none of that is really the point. I understand that my views on werewolves are not widely accepted, which is why I tend to take the base provided by Freeborn and work with that. I love all different kinds of werewolves, which is why I find myself getting a bit upset when I see someone who has a fresh viewpoint patted on the head and gently shown the door.

I think my first post, up there, best describes my view.

-- Vilkacis

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:27 pm

I wasn't aware that 'gestalt' was already an existing word. In that case, I think we should change the name of the gestalt form to something else. However, that likely won't happen because everyone seems to like it.

Your idea of a werewolf that stays permanently in the gestalt form is another example of what I would consider a werewolf. I forgot to include that in my previous post.

However, therians and furries who merely think they have some sort of connection with wolves are not werewolves by any means in my opinion.

Figarou · Post by **Figarou** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:30 pm

Vilkacis wrote:Anyway, none of that is really the point. I understand that my views on werewolves are not widely accepted, which is why I tend to take the base provided by Freeborn and work with that. I love all different kinds of werewolves, which is why I find myself getting a bit upset when I see someone who has a fresh viewpoint patted on the head and gently shown the door.

I think my first post, up there, best describes my view.

-- Vilkacis

I like all kinds of werewolves myself. (Ummm....not the classic wolfman.)

When it comes to my view of the werewolf, its not much different from anyone elses. I like plain and simple werewolves.

Vilkacis · Post by **Vilkacis** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:35 pm

Excelsia wrote:I wasn't aware that 'gestalt' was already an existing word. In that case, I think we should change the name of the gestalt form to something else. However, that likely won't happen because everyone seems to like it.

My personal preference is 'hybrid form'; although, I have been told that it's too vague. ^_^

Take a look at this page for a bunch of words that will irritate you, like 'orange' and 'girl' and 'brave':

http://www.krysstal.com/wordname.html

-- Vilkacis

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:45 pm

Those words are more of an evolution of language thing than a rapid changing of the meaning. It is when a group of people collectively decide to change a meaning of a classic word that I am annoyed, not when language itself evolves. I realize that probably sounds similiar, but there's a difference. If all of society gradually, over time started to call wolf furries and therians werewolves, that wouldn't bother me. But when the furries and therians just up and start calling themselves that, with disregard to the classic definition, that is when I am bothered.

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:46 pm

what werewolf means in my book, the definion of werewolf means Man-Wolf. but i think werewolves are 100% wolf evolved to shape shift them selves to look like thier natural rival man. that the jist of it.

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:45 am

Whoah now...

There seems to be a lot of confusion and conflicting opinions about this topic...

...which was really the point I was trying to make.

It is Not Possible to make a statement about "Werewolves In General".
NO ONE Ever is...

I thought posing the initial question would inspire all of you to come to this logical conclusion on your own...but it seems many of you missed my point entirely.

Any-time ANYONE makes ANY comment ANYWHERE Here about what they think a werwolf should be like, that person will Allways be speaking of only one version, or type of werwewolf at a time.

Either:

*The "Freeborn" werewolves. (How the individual commenting thinks they will/should be in the film, in thier own personal opinion).

*The commentors own personal favorite vision of a werewolf. (The type of Werewolf they most would like to see Anywhere....Movie...Book...Painting...Videogame...)

*Another specific interpretation of the Werewolf, imagined for a certain kind of story, game, or other purpose. (Specified somwhere in the discussion)

*A statement of known (or suspected) facts about werewolves allready existing in liturature, media or folklore.

I don't think anyone here has EVER suggested that the personal opinon and/or preference of another was "WRONG"...that they should not imagine werewolves the way they would like to.

I Believe that senseless arguments, anger and misunderstandings have been occuring here for no good reason becasue People consistantly assume that the person providing the Counter-Argumant to their own is speaking in terms of the non-existant topic of "WEREWOLVES IN GENERAL".

Making this assumption leads the person to believe that their own personal vision is being attacked, becasue if the person providing the opposite opinion WAS actually speaking of all Werewolves "IN GENERAL" then it would falsely appear that the person is saying that ALL Werwewolves should be the way they are describing them. (and that all differing oppinions are wrong)

...but no one here is EVER saying that. ...no one is EVER talking about "Werwolves In General".

We are ALL just sharing our own personal preferences and opinions, and if giving reasons why they don't think anothers suggestion should be applied, it is only becase the "arguer" assumes the first person is talking about either the "Freeborn" werewolves or the NON-EXISTANT "werewolves in general", and is trying to validate their own opinion, thinking that the conclusion of the discussion will somehow decide something as final. (such as the final-cut version of the werewolves that we will see in freeborn)

...when the first person has only been sharing their personal preference, as has the second...but both assume othewise.

To sum all of this up...stop assuming that the person you are having a discussion with is referring to "Werwolves In General". No One Ever IS. (Even if they THINK they are)

...if we would all stop making this false assumption, I think there would be much fewer heated misunderstandings here.

Figarou · Post by **Figarou** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:02 am

Werewolves in general.

Hmmmmmmmm

Are we sure that Goldenwolf and the other artists are representing the "werewolves in general" correctly?

Who is right? Who is wrong?

I said earlier that there is no right or wrong.

There are so many different styles out there. Whos to say which one is 100% correct.

Maybe werewolves don't have tails, a wolf head, or digitigrade legs. Am I right or wrong? Someone could pick up Goldenwolf's drawing and say that I'm wrong. Another person could grab the classic wolfman and say that I'm right.

Werewolves in general is what each individual makes of it.

I'm not here to argue or make a point because I don't know what a "100% true werewolf" looks like.