• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Why not call it a Zebra?

Guru Coyote

Archmage
This is a bit of a reverse to the "A Troll is a Troll" topic, from which it developed.
The real title for this thread might be "What to call things."

So, in my story world people have riding animals. They act and function just like horses do in our world (and many other worlds). But they are actually domesticated zebras, so they look like striped horses or actual Zebras, just with the size and strength of horses.

When I decided to call these animals 'horses,' the obviious question I got was "Why not call them Zebras, if that's what they are?"

Well, that reall is the question, isn't it? Are they Zebras?
My argument was that the name of something is usually more like a moniker for a certain characteristic, for its useage etc. In that sense, they are horses, not zebras. You can not tame a zebra, let alone ride it. These are domesticated zebras. Calling them zebra - even if they actually are - would be like calling a husky a wolf.

So, "call them what they are" is a double edged advice. Because what they are really depends on who you ask.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this :)

P.S. my bestiary contains some other - small - oddities, which I mainly have for flavor: Spiders are called Weavers and there is a mythical creature called a hedgehog which there are only descriptions of. Oh and then there is the Quatlmander, a mythical creator which the MC will soon find is not at all mythical.
 

CupofJoe

Myth Weaver
For me, this is somewhat of analogous to the apatosaurus -brontosaurus -sauropod that was going on in palaeontology a decade or so ago.
To the general public; does the "accurate" name mean more or less than an "inaccurate" but widely understood name?
I tend to the deductive - if it looks like a horse [sort of], acts like a horse and is used like a horse - then its a horse.
But that said - if all the differences are in the coat, then why not make it a "banded" horse [from the Isle of XXYYZZ...].
Zebras have been notoriously hard to domesticate, it has been done but not often or reliably and [I think] are at best pony sized...
 
Last edited:

Chilari

Staff
Moderator
What about calling it a Zebrorse? Establish that it is a domesticated creature and that the non-domesticated equivalent is slightly different with a different name, problem solved.
 

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
I get what you're saying... they function as horses so call them horses right? Here's the thing...by doing so, you're allowing the reader to question your setting. If you describe these animals as white and black striped horses, anyone born on this planet will think "Zebra". You could potentially be including a minor detail that readers may find jarring.

For my tastes, I'd rather not waste time on details that aren't plot or character relevant. What I mean by that is, if calling it a zebra cuts to the chase, and has no significant impact on story, then do so.

However, if there is a relevant point...a detail about why zebras are called horses in this setting, that impacts story, then by all means proceed. As a reader, I want my early questions to be paid off.
 

Graylorne

Archmage
I'd say the idea of untamable zebra's is a fallacy. If a people would spend several thousand years of domesticating them, you'd get a ridable zebra that's not spooked easily, is of the right size, etc. That's what selective breeding is for, after all.

So I suggest you use the common terms, like riding zebra, cart-zebra, war zebra, etc. You could make them slightly more individualistic, or whatever characteristics a zebra has.

But I'd call them zebra, because that's what they are.

If you want the hybrid variant, see: 'zebroid'
 

Guru Coyote

Archmage
Thanks for the feedback so far!

I guess the real solution would be to call it neither horse nor zebra, because both term are misleading.

The point about this reader-question needing to be addressed in a significant way is very good, thatnk you for that, T.Allen.Smith.

So the question I need to ask myself as a writer here is this: why do I want striped horses descendant from zebras? If I can put a good answer to that, I can weave it into the setting and make it relevant to the plot.
One way this might be significant - but a way I am not fully sure I will be following - is that the setting *could* very well be a future Earth, although the societies are more or less medieval. The world being a possible future earth is something I keep playing with, but which I think would be a mystery never actually answered in the story.

the thing with Zebrose or similar names is this: we have zebra-horse hybrids in our world which go by several names that are a combination of zebra and horse (or pony or donkey). And that is one thin my horses are not: they are not horse zebra hybrids, they are fully fertile and have been bred for generations.
 

Scribble

Archmage
Thanks for the feedback so far!

I guess the real solution would be to call it neither horse nor zebra, because both term are misleading.

The point about this reader-question needing to be addressed in a significant way is very good, thatnk you for that, T.Allen.Smith.

So the question I need to ask myself as a writer here is this: why do I want striped horses descendant from zebras? If I can put a good answer to that, I can weave it into the setting and make it relevant to the plot.
One way this might be significant - but a way I am not fully sure I will be following - is that the setting *could* very well be a future Earth, although the societies are more or less medieval. The world being a possible future earth is something I keep playing with, but which I think would be a mystery never actually answered in the story.

the thing with Zebrose or similar names is this: we have zebra-horse hybrids in our world which go by several names that are a combination of zebra and horse (or pony or donkey). And that is one thin my horses are not: they are not horse zebra hybrids, they are fully fertile and have been bred for generations.

I would call them zebras. One line of exposition could clear all that up for the reader, or better, embedded in description or dialogue. :)

You could simply mention wild zebras that are un-ridable as opposed to the domesticated zebras.

Question: Zebras are known for their stripes causing visual confusion to predators, the patterns making it more difficult to pick out an individual. Do the riders adopt stripes to take advantage of that?
 

Svrtnsse

Staff
Article Team
I wrote a reply to this at work a few hours ago, but it seems I forgot to press sent. T.A.S said pretty much what I wanted to say though. I guess I could sum it up with "don't call them what they are, call them what they look like".

When you're using a word the reader will associate it with something and they will do that immediately when they see the word. When you read the word horse you will envision a horse in your mind and you expect the horse to look like a horse.
The following sentence is simple and easy: "A horse stood in the field." It's not particularly exciting but when you read it you have a vision of a horse standing in a field in your mind. There aren't any particular details in the sentence but you fill them in yourself based on your perception of what a horse looks like and what a field looks like.
Now move on to the following sentence: "A horse with black and white stripes stood in the field." Try to ignore that it's a pretty dull/bad sentence and just try to imagine a horse with black and white stripes in a field. Your mind stumbles a little and turns the horse into a zebra and then back into a horse as that's what it says i the sentence. It still feels a bit weird though as you've never seen a horse with black and white stripes before.
Next example sentence: "A zebra stood in the field." It's pretty boring, but there are no associative bumps in the sentence. You accept it as it is written without questioning the existence of the zebra.
Finally: "A big riding-zebra stood in the field." This is more interesting I think. Sure, there aren't any big riding-zebras in the real world, but it's less of an associative bump then a horse with black and white stripes. We don't change the shape or coloration of the animal here, we just scale it up a little and that's a lot easier for the mind to accept.

The above is all based on my personal opinions and theories. It's not backed up by any kind of science or research so take it with as many pinches of salt as you feel like.
Also, if someone has a better expression for "associative bumps", please share. I couldn't think of anything else at the moment and the term's a bit unwieldy.
 

Svrtnsse

Staff
Article Team
Question: Zebras are known for their stripes causing visual confusion to predators, the patterns making it more difficult to pick out an individual. Do the riders adopt stripes to take advantage of that?

I would assume they don't.
The stripe "camouflage" works best against predators attacking a large group of zebras. I'm thinking that the enemies of a rider on domesticated zebra are likely to be intelligent enough not to fall for that.
 

Nihal

Vala
Actually their pattern effectiveness isn't related to the predator's intelligence, but to his visual perception. The stripes of zebras will make the animals blend into each other when the herd is charging, hence making it harder to pick an individual. Being more intelligent won't change the way your eyes work.

I believe, however, that having a rider would nullify this advantage. His shape would stand out above each animal making the task of tracking individuals easier.
 

Scribble

Archmage
Actually their pattern effectiveness isn't related to the predator's intelligence, but to his visual perception. The stripes of zebras will make the animals blend into each other when the herd is charging, hence making it harder to pick an individual. Being more intelligent won't change the way your eyes work.

I believe, however, that having a rider would nullify this advantage. His shape would stand out above each animal making the task of tracking individuals easier.

I just thought it could be an interesting tactic of the riders, in keeping with the "spirit" of riding zebras. It could be something they are known for, the dazzling display of the riders, the lines of white and black dancing in such a way to almost hypnotize the enemy, confuse their sight.
 

Asterisk

Troubadour
I'm going to ramble a bit here.... so they're zebras with the strength of horses, or horses that look like zebras. From the perspective of myself as a reader, I would think that the name zebra just isn't really.... serious. But depending on the climate of your world, it may be. If your people live in savannahs or drier areas, it would make sense. But riding zebras to war in the typical setting would make me laugh. Describing these creatures as striped horses..... for me, I wouldn't think of zebras. Just a war strategy or something. If I were in your shoes, I would make up a name. The idea is really creative and I love it. I wish you best of luck!
 

Motley

Minstrel
A whole bunch of stuff in fantasy stories don't act how they do in the real world. Woodland creatures talk, horses turn rainbow colors, farm boys actually know how to use a sword and go off to save the world.

I think if it's biologically very similar to a zebra, call it a zebra. A zebra in a fantasy story can be ridden, go to war or yodel show tunes if you want.
 

Ireth

Myth Weaver
I don't really see a problem with calling some animals by something other than their real name. Tamora Pierce did this a bit in her Tortall books, with "duckmoles" (platypuses). I have vampires in one of my novels, but I don't call them vampires; they're sumairach fala (singular: sumair fala), or blood-drinkers. There's a real-life reason for this: it takes place in our world, in the mid-1400's, centuries before the term "vampire" was coined. I had to come up with an alternative name that wasn't already being used by different blood-drinking creatures, like the Celtic Baobhan Sidhe.
 

Jabrosky

Banned
Why is the OP using zebras instead of old-school horses in the first place? Is his setting African-based? Personally I prefer "zebra".

As a world-builder my own rabbit/smeerp issues come when I have to address animals publicly known by their Greco-Latin genus names, such as most prehistoric lifeforms. If your setting's human culture is based on pre-colonial West Africa, dinosaur names like Guanlong or Lambeosaurus are going to sound out of place (the former name is Chinese while the latter was named after a white Canadian guy).
 

Scribble

Archmage
A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse, of course,
Unless, of course, the horse, of course,
Is the famous Mr. Ed!

I just had to add this :)

Carry on...
 

SineNomine

Minstrel
Zebras have been notoriously hard to domesticate, it has been done but not often or reliably and [I think] are at best pony sized...

This is slightly off topic, but IIRC this isn't the case. Zebras have certainly been repeatedly tamed by multiple people at multiple times, but have never been domesticated.

I'd say the idea of untamable zebra's is a fallacy. If a people would spend several thousand years of domesticating them, you'd get a ridable zebra that's not spooked easily, is of the right size, etc. That's what selective breeding is for, after all.

Well...there are some issues with that though. The problem with this is in assuming it hasn't been tried. Humans started domesticating large animals around 10,000 years ago and there is no reason to think they didn't try with as many creatures as they could. Certainly zebras had potential since the desert prevented horses from traveling to sub-saharan africa for a long, long time. When horses did reach the Bantu in West Africa, it was immediately adopted and put to work, so it wasn't for lack of wanting them, they could instantly appreciate their use. The reason horses didn't spread further was their vulnerability to certain diseases. Zebras aren't vulnerable to those diseases so there was almost undoubtedly attempts to domesticate them.

Ultimately, taming may simply be easier and end up making people give up on domestication anyway. Consider Elephants, all the great history of them being used in war and the fact that they are still used as beasts of burden in parts of the world. For all their great use, they have never been domesticated. To this day, they are still tamed.

Of course, this is only really tangential to the issue at hand since we are writing fantasy and you can do what you want. Bringing this back to the question the TC poses...I don't know. I think calling them horses and gradually letting your descriptions of them make your reader realize they are actually zebras is probably best. Horses and Zebras are related to the same distance that Bactrian and Dromedary camels are. We call both of those camels and no one flinches. Solid and Striped Horses fit perfectly in that same niche in my mind. Hell, if they were ever domesticated they might be called that now anyway. Or "Savannah Horse".

Actually, screw it, there is a species of Zebra known as the Imperial Zebra. Call 'em Imperial Horses and have the reader find out that the imperial in this case means zebra.
 

rhd

Troubadour
Have you tried creating a myth around your zebra-horse? It could become an opportunity to write a folk tale about it as a part of your world-building, sort of like Rudyard Kiplings Just-So stories, How the Tiger Got its Stripes, or the Zulu story of how the cheetah got the tear marks on her face. It might even help you build the romance around the animal, and depending on how relevant the animal is to your story, make it more exciting than the every day zebra for the reader. It could occupy a paragraph of your story at the most.
 
The tricky thing about this is that both known words have baggage. A horse is a horse (sorry, Scribble), and it's a lot of work to use the word but make readers see stripes, let alone the rest of the zebra's shape. A zebra... to readers who don't know horses or don't mind fudging facts, the word is fine, but to others it looks like failure of research.

Still, I think first impressions matter more. I'd recommend using the z-word instead of the h, and use things like legends and clear world-building to make it clear that you do know real-world zebras' limits, and these beasts are better. You might also make them a breed of "true zebras" or some other variation on the common animal (the Firekeeper books have "royal wolves" and what they call "cousins") to remind us that the proper term isn't simply "zebra"-- but most of the time that's what people say.
 

Guru Coyote

Archmage
Ok, first, sorry for not responding to all this great input and thoughts, I was offline due to ISP issues... and then away for a weekend for RPG reasons.

I love some of the ideas put forth, and in my own (part discovery-)writing, I seem to prefer referring to them as 'steeds' and 'mounts' and describing them with stripes.
And yes, there is a myth/legend around these animals, in so far as the ones in question are the last remains of 'The Silvertree.' The Silvertree bloodline (of steeds) has more or less been whiped out by fate, but the MC's mother is the last Silvertree breeder, now trying to re-build a viable stock from animals she can find in the various stables of the region.

One thing I am not yet fully sure of: are all 'horses' descendant fro zebra stock, and the Silvertree is the most pure... or are most other horses jus that, while Silvertree is actually once-zebra. We will see as the story/worldbuilding progresses.
One thing I do want is for the biology of all this to be 'possible' as my fantasy tends towards the alternate more than the fantastical. As I may have noted before, there are several hints that the region the story plays in *could* be a future Earth.

I see one slight issue: Zebra (and their metal image/pattern) says Africa. The region and geography of my world hints towards Mesoamerica, with The North being more or less desert, and things becoming more and more fertile the farther you go South... with people of my main region using the term 'Jungle' when they want to talk down on people from the South.

That being said, all of my 'world' has misplaced 'imagery'. My fold of the South are basically Cuacasian, while the desert nobles of the North have dark skin... I may yet call it 'red' but am not fully sure about that.
(The alternate/future worldbuilding explanation for all this is this: we have had some migrations, catastrophes etc. to mix up the cultures, ethnicities and also the fauna.)
 
Top