THE PACK Message Boards

Are there any media that treat it in such?

I mean it's either a) lycanthropy is a curse, OHNOES! or b) lycanthropy is NOT a curse, but it is practiced by the "evil" guys.

What I am looking for is lycantropy being treated as something not of a curse. It doesn't have to be a blessing, and can still be a bother, but not so much as it's worth being called a curse. I mean, it could be something of "Well, lycanthropy's ok... as long as you have an expendable pair of trousers!"

.

Mighty Max, Episode #11: "Werewolves of Dunneglen"

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

I never knew Nicholson made a film about a werewolf.

And yes, I have seen that MM episode.

Well now you know lol XD

O_o never heard of Mighty max.

Ookami-Kun: Send me your email addy @ Kyllein@AOL.com. I'll send you Wulfen Blood, part one. It will get published, once I get all the #%^@editing done.

hey can i get in on that?

Why doe's being a were wolf have to be a curse? Is it that humans have to be so set in Type A, that types B-Z are abominations?

Apparently a lot of those who seem resentful of us feel that there is "too much" portrayal of werewolves as something other than creatures of horror, and yet so many of us feel that there's bloody well not enough of it. As I stop and think about it, it's movies specifically that tend to overdo horror and under-do everything else. Books tend to aim more for benign fantasy creatures. TV leans horror, but it's hard to tell because of sheer lack of any significant representation at all. Drawings and illustrations tend to go both ways about evenly, though the sheer numbers of anthro artists on places like DeviantArt doing wolf anthros tend to make it seem non-horror-heavy when one fudges the defining point of "werewolf."

Well, television needs the Horror angle because it's easy to show. Books deal with what's going on inside the Werewolf to a greater degree because that's their strong area.

Both sides are kind of over used at the present.
And let's remember that Were-Wolf means "Man-Wolf"; so by definition if a human can shift and become a wolf, he's a werewolf even if all he does as a wolf is sell auto insurance.

Each genre plays to it's strong point.

The problem with looking at media is that it twists reality. Lycanthropy is neither good nor evil; it's a set of conditions and desires. How one reacts to said conditions and desires is what is important.
Assuming, of course, you believe lycanthropy is real. *shrugs*

RedEye wrote:.
And let's remember that Were-Wolf means "Man-Wolf"; so by definition if a human can shift and become a wolf, he's a werewolf even if all he does as a wolf is sell auto insurance.

Now thats horror!

Wolf-man-24 wrote:

RedEye wrote:.
And let's remember that Were-Wolf means "Man-Wolf"; so by definition if a human can shift and become a wolf, he's a werewolf even if all he does as a wolf is sell auto insurance.

Now thats horror!

I still disagree with that definition. I think a "Werewolf" is more specific than that, while there can be any number of different kinds of Shapeshifters with the capacity to take on the form of a WOLF who would NOT be "Werewolves".

Would a magician who is practicing transformation spells, but has only learned the "Wolf" spell and no others be considered a Werewolf or a shape shifting Magician? If you declare this person a Werewolf, but then he later learns to change into a Tiger instead and never becomes a Wolf again, but retains the ability ... is he still a Werewolf? (Or was he never to begin with?)

IMHO ... All Werewolves are "Shapeshifters" ... but not all Shapeshifters are "Were[FillInTheBlank]s".


From that perspective, there are actually MANY, MANY stories about people with shapeshifting abilities that are very "Positive" in presentation.


A story about a person with the magical ability to take on the shape of a Wolf on command (like the Animagi from the Harry Potter books) who does all sorts of fantastic and wonderful things with that ability, I think sounds like a lot of fun. ... it just wouldn't be a "Werewolf", but something else entirely. (IMHO)

Confusing the issue is that "werewolves" in the 1600s WERE shape-changing sorcerers. The creature-feature werewolf came about later. The idea of werewolves being contagious or a different species rather than someone who bargained with the Devil in the woods for a potion or ointment seems to owe its origins to the 19th and 20th century.

Scott Gardener wrote:Confusing the issue is that "werewolves" in the 1600s WERE shape-changing sorcerers. The creature-feature werewolf came about later. The idea of werewolves being contagious or a different species rather than someone who bargained with the Devil in the woods for a potion or ointment seems to owe its origins to the 19th and 20th century.

True ... but it was more like "Possesed Witches" than "Sorcerers" (if I remember correctly), where, though the source or method of the possession/change differed from story to story, the common theme was usually that the person would allow themselves to become an uncivilized Beast and acted as they 'Believed' a Wolf would in that form for some nefarious purpose ... that, or they were forced to because they sold their souls to the devil or something and changing into a beast to do the devils work was part of the price for giving them witches powers, or something of a similar theme or nature.

I'm not even going to get into how various myths about other shapeshifters that were not originally seen as or called "Werewolves" have been recategorized as such since simply out of familiarity with the word, and association with a shape-changing being ... whether or not it was actually an accurate labeling or not. I ranted about that for pages on end back in old archived threads. ... and I really don't feel like tracking down links to them or repeating myself again right now.


You make a valid point though.

All in all, I would like to create a book that keeps werewolves in a realistic sense and not in some kind of comedy sense just to sell books. Its the same with TV. They want to create some kind of show that will attract audiences that will raise up ratings and get them more money.

Maybe the problem is money?

blackwolfhell wrote:All in all, I would like to create a book that keeps werewolves in a realistic sense and not in some kind of comedy sense just to sell books. Its the same with TV. They want to create some kind of show that will attract audiences that will raise up ratings and get them more money.

Maybe the problem is money?

I cannot recall a book in it that used lycanthropy as comic relief, at least not one that only had it as comic relief. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of books that took lycanthropy seriously.
The issue here seems to be what you consider "realistic" because that's going to exclude about 90% of all existing materials if your idea of a realistic werewolf is different from other people's.

Extremely few people have the resources, reputation, and talent to create a tv series or film without money being a primary concern. I suppose you might be able to talk Guillermo Del Toro into it, or Joss Whedon, or possibly J.J. Abrams, but that's about it for people who've got the reputation to pull such a "risky niche" movie off, and do a good job of it. Sure, there are thousands others who could do it, but won't, or can't.

Well, it wasn't a BOOK, but there was an eminently forgettable movie called "Abbott and Costello meet Dracula" that used the original wolf-man; Lon Chaney Jr. in his title role as a Werewolf.
And it was played for comedy...

THeres a online manga called peter is the wolf.(warning! Explicit content.)

RedEye wrote:Well, it wasn't a BOOK, but there was an eminently forgettable movie called "Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein" that used the original wolf-man; Lon Chaney Jr. in his title role as a Werewolf.
And it was played for comedy...

Fixed.

My first monster movie. Probably what got me into werewolves as well. And vampires. And Frankenstein.

Grey wrote:Why doe's being a were wolf have to be a curse? Is it that humans have to be so set in Type A, that types B-Z are abominations?

It doesn't have to be that way, but it is how a lot of people perceive it, and in the words of Will Guidara, "their perceptions are their realities."

Such is the case of the werewolf I'm surprised nobody mentioned yet: John Talbain from Dark Stalkers. Being a werewolf for him is somewhat of a curse, yes, but it's not "oh crap, I'm a werewolf." Instead, it's "oh crap, they know I'm a werewolf." It isn't really even that; he's never explicitly singled out specifically for being a werewolf, just for being one of the Dark Stalkers (that "guilt by association / ripple effect" thing I keep alluding to all the time).

Good example with Darkstalkers, but almost a decade earlier we saw the first (as far as I know) positive portrayal of werewolfery in a videogame: 1988's Altered Beast. The primitive beat-'em-up saw your character transforming into several different werebeasts (werewolf was the first one you saw) to smash an ancient evil and save a kidnapped princess.

If Lycanthropey is a curse, then I'm a blue-toothed vampire from Venus who invented a new type of table tennis for the clinically insane and blind. That explain my thoughts?

some people think of it as a curse and some don't.

blackwolfhell wrote:some people think of it as a curse and some don't.

Very true, and what they perceive depends on the definition of lycanthropy:

* Modern medicine: congenital porphyria with accompanying psychosis. This is clearly a curse.

* Classical folklore: varies from the satanic references of Richard Verstegan to the legend of the Benandanti. Could be a curse or blessing depending on the context.

* Modern media: a mixed bag of positive, negative, and ambiguous portrayals. Stephen King, White Wolf Publishing, the Underworld saga, and the therian and anthro subcultures all provide examples. Take your pick.

Perhaps what is needed are generally accepted subcategories rather than one overarching word or label.