Re-Mything

[Mindfire]

A question just occurred to me. And it has to do with this trope: Call a Smeerp a "Rabbit" - TV Tropes We're all familiar with the idea of inventing in-universe names for things, even mundane things, and there's generally an agreement that you can only take that so far before it becomes ridiculous and breaks suspension of disbelief. (Though where that limit is exactly is subjective.) But what about the opposite? Suppose you invent something for your world and stick a familiar name on it? How far can you go with re-imagining something, how far can you get from the commonly accepted version, before it's no longer the thing that the name refers to? Right now this probably sounds like some weird version of the Ship of Theseus paradox and might be hard to follow, so I'll contextualize it with something concrete. I'm chiefly talking about fantasy creatures (thus the TvTropes link). And there are some creatures I've included in my mythos that arguably don't closely resemble their image in the popular consciousness. Examples:

• Harpies, which I have re-imagined as giant bat-like creatures rather than the bird/woman things they were in the Greek myths.
• Manticores, which instead of the original chimerical conception are really nasty saber-tooth tigers. (And for the paleontology buffs among you, yes, I intentionally said tigers.) Though I could make a case that this is closer to the actual meaning of "manticore" given what Wikipedia tells me about its origins but whatever.
• Panthers (no not that one, this one), which I have opted to depict as antlered predatory cats with invisibility powers.
• Dragons, which are mostly not reptilian but somewhat golem-like incarnate forces of nature, born from the elements of the earth and knit together with lightning and fire- that just so happen to be shaped sorta like winged lizards and breathe fire (or ice, it depends). Though they did spawn monsters that actually are reptilian. Because magic. This may be my biggest deviation.

So how far can much can you re-imagine before you have something different entirely? Does it need only a superficial resemblance to the original or are there some key elements that have to be there for the name to make sense? Have any of my re-imaginings crossed that invisible line? I'm not wringing my hands over this, just musing.

 

[Ireth]

I think "calling a smeerp a 'rabbit'" would just be confusing. If your creature is so very different than the thing belonging to the name we know, then just give it a new name.

 

[Mythopoet]

I think you're describing something that pretty much all fantasy authors already do when it comes to mythological creatures. We tend to take the names and basic idea of various legendary creatures and imagine them our own way.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I'm sort of doing this with the elves, dwarves, dragons, and vampires. If you look closer at them, there are substantial differences to them compared to the "established" versions. However, and I think this is important, at first glance they seem to be just like what you'd expect something with that name to be.
Most of the differences are "under the hood."

The key here is the first impression the reader gets from the word. If your creature satisfies the first impression, then you're probably good to go, but if it doesn't, I'd be careful. I don't like the idea of forcing them to re-evaluate their impression of something after it's already been introduced.

 

[Penpilot]

I don't see anything wrong with it. But you'll probably face a more difficult challenge the more you deviate from the classical definition of that creature. What I mean by that is you'll probably have to be more clear on your definitions to be sure that there won't be any confusion.

When the word elf is used it carries with it a certain amount of baggage, certain expectations to what an elf is. This can work for an against you. It works for you because you don't have to explain certain things, because of the built-in expectations and it works against you when you deviate from the expectations, because now you have to explain to reader why certain expectations are wrong. Also, anything that doesn't get explicitly stated or inferred about a creature will automatically default to the classical definition.

If you say the elf has claws and fangs and explain nothing else, people will picture a thin creature with long fangs and thin claws. If you don't explain they live in swamps, people will picture them living in the forest. ETC.

 

[Swordfry]

I see nothing wrong in creating your own unique monsters along with unique names. Unless say things like harpies are known in the myths of your world, but really turn out to just be giant screeching bats that sound like screaming women, thus the part woman thing. Kind of like how many people on Earth once though Komodo dragons were real dragons, but turned out to just be large, non magical lizards. So maybe try and anchor these monsters to some real world mythology, thus explaining the known names, but put a spin on what they really are.

I like your idea for dragons, btw, pretty cool.

 

[Jabrosky]

It may not be of direct interest to the OP, but one approach I've entertained is taking certain fantasy creatures and giving them a quasi-plausible evolutionary heritage. Mermaids might be descended from primates who descended from the treetops to water instead of dry land (a bit like the old "Aquatic Ape" hypothesis), or alternatively from fish who developed human-like intelligence along with forelimbs for climbing onto land. Maybe dragons come from crocodiles or lizards which evolved flight and scalding venom. Leviathans could be giant sea-going snakes with a penchant for super-size calamari with a side of sailors, and so on. But this trick might be harder to do with more explicitly magical creatures.

 

[shangrila]

It depends on two things for me; what name you're using and how far you deviate from the original.

I see no problem with the ones you've listed above. Harpies, for example, are so varied in pop culture that it would be tough to pin down a specific image for them. Panthers with horns isn't too far either, though you might have to continually mention the horns when describing them to combat the established image they have.

Now, if you tried to use the name Minotaur to describe a giant walking lizard then you might have problems.

 

[Jabrosky]

More on topic, anyone else wonder if "cockatrice" sounds like a great pseudo-medieval name for raptors?

I can totally see medieval Europeans in a high fantasy world using "cockatrice" to label those feathery predators who hunt in packs in some faraway jungle.

 

[Mindfire]

Pretty similar. Although I always thought raptors looked kinda dumb with feathers, scientific accuracy be damned.

 

[spectre]

I like some of the way Robert Jordan did this in his series WoT, what with the Golem and whatnot. Reinvention is really cool and there was a certain amount of reinvention even into household character's like Capt. Nemo, Dr. Jekyl, or Frankenstein in movies like Van Helsing and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It seems to work well from the storytelling point of view, for me at least.

 

[shwabadi]

I think, if anything, it's necessary. While the word might have a slightly different meaning, there's still some familiarity for the reader, some grounding in their reality. I'd sway from call your 'dragon' creatures dragons, though. While manticores and panthers have slightly vaguer definitions within modern culture, a dragon is a very iconic and solidly cemented idea, especially within pop-culture.
I'm certain there's another greek/roman monster you could pull the name from that doesn't have a super memorable pop-culture image. You could just straight up call them golems, or winged golems? The Japanese have an interesting creature called the Raiju (らいじゅう), though I don't think the name would fit your mythos very well considering it all sounds more taken from greek and western mythology.

 

[MineOwnKing]

This was an obstacle for me at first when trying to name the architects of my alternative universe.

I was actually trying to do something a little different in that I did not want them to be recognized as Angels, or have any type of association with religious elements.

Yet the similarities were overwhelming, so in the end I lost. My atheist principles were dashed and I relented to acknowledging them as a type of angel but with a different name.

To stop the bleeding of my literary soul after its mad dash into atheistic martyrdom, I softened the atomic aftermath by devoting a chapter on the science of their great works. Thus they become more scientifically fantastical and less divine. I hope.

My irreverent inclination trumped however in that the god of the angels was not singular, but instead made up of the united will of mortal souls hived together in dream dormancy.

In the end I think if your style of writing is engrossing and focused, much leeway is allowed and forgiven by the target audience.

I am an atheist, transcendentalist, humanist, romantic turned creation myth drama master, so I guess anything is possible.

 

[Mindfire]

I'm actually rather astonished and astounded that you are so dogmatically atheist that you can't bring yourself to allow for angels or divine beings even in a fictional fantasy universe. But then again, I'm so dogmatically Christian that I find it impossible to imagine a universe where God doesn't exist, so I suppose I don't have much latitude for judgment.

 

[ArenRax]

Dragons for me are Intelligent, Immortal(sort of), and are born with soem sort of element(not elementals as in fire,wind,earth etc...but being born with Arcane energies, or shadow dragon.) They have developed numerous techniques to transform and boost there power, like the element form, where a Dragon is engulfed in its element and they sometimes or most of time physically change.
Titans are a deity above gods as they can do more,have more power, and have a better understanding of things.
Archons are a tier above Titans....and etc.
My angels are saint like beings although the whole light and dark thing is still around.
Devils are race and not just the one.

 

[Saigonnus]

Dragons in my world don't fly, breathe fire and are not the hulking monstrosities they are in traditional gaming or fantasy.

They are large, 12 to 20 feet long and live in small family groups of 3-5. They have highly acidic saliva, evolved to digest food rapidly. Their claws are long and developed for climbing rockfaces or trees. Not to mention killing prey.

I think if you re-myth creatures, they should fit within the framework of the world you are putting them in, with their own history and culture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArenRax]

Exactly. My MC is a human slayer who is given a 2nd chance at life by being turned into a dragon through an ancient dragon ritual.