Wendigo wrote:That's waaaaaay too little information, Snowleopard Wolf. You're gonna need tons more to even get an idea of where to nudge you.
But we can tell you "not snow leopard" straight away, if that helps at all. :3
Mythics/extinct forms: With extinct forms, I think each animal should be taken as an individual case. We know a lot about recent extinct animals such as thylacines and dodos, and a fair amount about old extinct animals such as velociraptors, so they are plainly (in my view) viable forms. But just as I wouldn't recommend settling as a very obscure extant animal with no information on it, I wouldn't recommend settling as a very obscure extinct animal. ;P Extinct or not is, to me, completely irrelevent; what matters is how much good information there is.
As for mythics, everyone knows about my alignment with the "not viable" camp. The thing that is iffy about them to me is that they are, well, totally fabricated figments of someone's/many peoples' imagination the same way, y'know, pokemon are. The problem with falling back on them as a last resort is that it's basically saying "nothing fits, therefore I'll make something up"? xD It's very accepted that you can't settle as something you made up yourself, so why is it anymore logical to settle as something someone else made up? It's so very easy to (unconsciously) manipulate animal behaviours even in real animals that I just wouldn't even want to attempt analysis of a mythic. For example, I seem to remember reading somewhere (and please someone correct me if I'm completely wrong and remember this is just an illustration of interpretive contradictions <3) that the stiff spine of the crocotta, which stops it from turning to look behind it, could be interpreted as inflexibility in life and not adapting to change. I find this to be a really bizarre interpretation. xD If the crocotta was a real animal, it's stiff spine would have nothing to do with how adaptable it is; instead I think it would signify arrogance/over confidence (never needs to look behind because it is never preyed upon, so becomes overly confident) or naivety (never expects danger, perhaps has come to forget it can be hurt), or both. I'd say it probably has an inflated sense of self and a reckless, stubborn, fearless attitude. Then, becoming more metaphorical, you could say that they would have a narrow mind with no desire to see the bigger picture and a tendency to repeatedly blunder into things headfirst and never check up on their path as they go along. But this of course is all mere fabrication, and someone could easily come along and say that a crocotta actually has eyes in the back of its head and blow all those traits out of the water. Its clearly possible that someone could come along and claim that martens can fly (or a more plausible behaviour xD) but the difference is that someone could go out and verfiy which account is true when you're dealing with a real animal. With a mythic you can pick and choose, especially with creatures like dragons and unicorns.
And then there's the whole impossible hybrid business...they're pretty much always considered non-viable, but with the huge quantity of mythical creatures out there from all the thousands of different cultures, you rarely have to make up your own impossible hybrid. Chances are it's already been thought of and you just have to track it down. So winged wolf is non-viable...says who? What if there was a tribe somewhere that believed their cattle were preyed upon by flying canines? What if they detailed the behaviour of the flying canines down to their social structures and gestation length? That'd be a slap in the face for 'daemon canon'. ;o; "Horse-fish are impossible hybri- oh wait, hippocampus. Winged horses are impossible hybri- oh wait, pegasus. Cat-snakes, hare-deer, goat-fish - tatzelworm, jackalope, kirin..." Humans cannot imagine something that is outside of their sense experience, thus all mythics are impossible hybrids or uberfied real animals, and I don't really think turning to the mythic form of an animal is any different from turning to the neutered form of an animal or giving it an impossible coat colour, all in order to tailor its analysis.
Anyway I do not understand the point of analysing something that is untrue in the first place. xD Everyone must know by now that I'm a huge advocate for the preservation of the objective aspects of this overall highly subjective practice.
NO OFFENSE MEANT <3 Especially to Kay. I certainly don't want to go around saying that people who turn to mythic forms are lazy, and I understand that they have often put a lot of thought into it. I also understand how frustrating it must be to not be able to find a fitting form within the realms of the non-mythical and that those with mythic forms feel that they really have exhausted all other possibilities. I just don't agree with the logic behind those forms. P: <3
Aaaand I associate Siffbutt with autumny colours, such as reds, oranges and white (for snow) His literal colour scheme is red-on-white, which seems to have led me to finding it a very aesthetically pleasing combination. Like, really, I want red and white furniture and autumn-themed bedrooms some day, a desire which has only developed recently while I've associated Siff with those colours for far, far longer. wth? xD Weeeeird.
by ~Kaleidoscope~ » Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:37 am 
