|
Post by Quickstride on Apr 16, 2006 15:01:27 GMT -5
Okay, so there's a lot of dragon enthusiasts on this board, so this seems like a good topic to start off the new forum.
Dragons are by far the most popular fantasy monster. Virtually no fantasy story is complete wihout at least one- even Middle Earth had them (although they don't appear in LoTR, Smaug is very much a part of The Hobbit.) Dungeons and Dragons, as the name suggests, features them prominently- between the core books and supplements, dozens of varieties can be found for play with version 3.5. They're everywhere.
This popularity, of course, has changed the dragons from its more mythological predecessors, reinventing it for the contemporary world and creating a new standard. But is this popularity good for dragons, and good for fantasy overall?
The modern version of a dragon- four legs, two wings- seems to be derived from the medieval heraldic form of the creature, which was in turn a product of the nebulous nature of dragons in mythology and legend- rarely were dragons described as anything more than some large serpent or generic reptile. I've nevered found a myth describe them in quite this way- Europe really loved its wyrms or guivres (legless dragons) and there are several unique creatures associated with dragons (such as the six-legged, turtle backed tarasque and the spiny, aquatic peluda)- but Euopeans didn't seem to have a very clear idea as to what a dragon looked like (a perusal of bestiary pictures yields many interesting samples of what would have been considered "real" dragons.) The heraldic form that found its way into modern fantasy seems to have done so because it combined most of the best traits of Europe's draconics into one representation.
All well and good, but this creates a problem between modern and mythological definitions, at least when the two are mixed. Mythologically speaking, dragons are generally considered any monster with some degree of reptile in their make-up (globally, this includes Asian dragons and can also include monstrous serpents, such as Quetzalcoatl, and the Rainbow serpent. Extremely broad definitions can even include the bunyip, which only sometimes has reptilian characteristics.) This may seem too broad, but given the almost universal nature of serpent mythology and European dragons' strong connection with snakes (I think at one point they were even considered to be what snakes looked like before God punished them) it's very difficult to disentangle or even differentiate snake mythology from dragons.
The contemporary dragon, however, exists in a much narrower sense of the word. "True" dragons are the four legged, winged type- everything else is just some other sort of reptilian monster. Even the wyvern, which is basically just a heraldic dragon minus two legs, is sometimes considered a "false" dragon.
This can create two problems- the most glaring is that is can cause confusion when trying to talk about draconic creatures that aren't heraldic dragons. Many people are fascinated by how universal the concept of a dragon is- but that's only when the broader definition is used. An example of this is The Discovery Channel's dragon special from last year- they made a big deal about what a global phenomena dragons are, yet even the species designed to look like Asian dragons or serpentine dragons were just heraldics with stubby wings. The prehistoric dragon didn't even get the dignity of being called a wyvern (I haven't seen it since it aired, but I believe they also used fake pictures to simulate other cultures' depictions of dragons, to give them the more European look.) I have little problem with calling dragon-like creatures from other cultures "dragons," as there's no definitive definition to begin with, but I also feel that to try and force them into the European mold instead of taking them on their own terms is a disservice.
The other problem is that this narrow definition brings a certain amount of sameness to the fantasy genre. The majority of dragons have the same basic characteristics as their heraldic parent, and little is done in the way of anything new- sure D&D does a great job of differentiating its dragons in terms of specific body shape, but they follow the same four legs, two wings formula and other differnces (such as habitat, alignment and breath weapon) are more for gameplay purposes than anything else.)
There's also the issue of dragons, through their near mandatory inclusion in a fantasy story, taking away roles that couldhave easily gone to a lesser known mythic, such as a gryphon or a manticore or even one of the aggressive types of unicorn (that's another essay, though!)
This is, of course, all a matter of opinion, however- people love dragons in their current form, and seem quite pleased with things as they are. Dragons permeate fantasy because people want them to, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. I just wonder if dragons and fantasy would benefit even more if these things were considered.
Thoughts?
(Edit: Feel free to take this subject in any direction you want- I've posted my opinion on dragons in fantasy, I'm interested in hearing yours!)
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Apr 16, 2006 15:27:28 GMT -5
Good post Quickstride! I'm going to try to reply but its LATE for me so I can't promise absolute consistency!
To me the word 'dragon' is more of a word for an entire family of fantastical creatures, not so much one specific type. I don't automatically think of one type as 'modern'. You do find Wyverns and Wyrms and all sorts of seaserpents in modern art for instance on Elfwood and Deviantart. The word 'dragon' is like the word 'dinosaur', a group of animals includes animals as different as the stegosaurids and the tyrannosaurs. Dragons have the potential to be subdivided into many subfamilies, dragon cladistics anyone? It could be interesting to make an 'evolutionary tree' there. The description of a snake BEFORE God punished them does sound like it'd fit a dragon... I never seriously stuied it but yes it makes sense. While we're on the subject of dragons in more or less modern fantasy I must admit I love the Silmarillion story 'Of Túrin Turambar'. The dragon in it (Glaurung) is evil but well, I love the story. I know that right now in the fantasy genre the 'good' dragon is the popular type but evil dragons are cool too. I didn't really like Smaug but on the whole, The Hobbit never was Tolkien's most interesting book. There are plenty of dragon legends from the past even in this area but I am sure you're all familiar with the basic European dragon legends... Dragons are just creatures that get reinvented and adapted all the time. Its probably a good thing because otherwise they might end up forgotten. Besides we need fantasy, stories and art to keep our imaginations alive, at least I do, despite all my attempts at being a scientist I can't do without art.
|
|
|
Post by Quickstride on Apr 16, 2006 15:40:03 GMT -5
Actually, I've seen attempts at dragon classification, and have even tried it myself. It follows a path that may be similar to how the actual myths evolved.
While there definately are examples of other draconics out there, by far the most common form I've seen of the dragon in the fantasy genre is the heraldic. There's nothing wrong with changing to suit the times- it happened to myths historically, and it happens now- but sometimes I think that more is lost than is gained. I look at what happened to the unicorn- a once proud, dangerous beast with a varied history that's been dumbed down into a pretty, horned white horse- and I fear for other mythics. The unicorn, in fact, should serve as a warning all around that popularity isn't always for the best.
(I'm currently reading The Silmarillion- haven't gotten to that part, yet.)
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Apr 16, 2006 15:47:39 GMT -5
Well yes there is a degree of overpopularization that can be dangerous... Like unicorns indeed don't need to me my-little-pony-fied like they have been though I suspect Azonthus likes it. As for dragons popularity, I HATED the movie 'Reign of Fire', I went to watch it in hopes of seeing some good CGI and maybe a nice story but you KNOW what it was, don't you? I wouldn't let any new dragon-based creations alter my view of the whole, it'd be a loss to start thinking less of anything just because of one big misser like 'Reign of Fire' or the MLP unicorns or any other experiment gone wrong. Good fantasy is hard to come by and anything can and will be warped and twisted in order to make money. We've seen that with the Dinotopia miniseries but the Book Dinotopia survived it didn't it? The Silmarillion is good. Its also impossible to summarize hence why the bookforumdiscussion about it never got off the ground really... Many people can't get through it.
|
|
|
Post by Quickstride on Apr 16, 2006 15:55:07 GMT -5
I don't know, I just think back to The new Narnia movie, and how despite the CGI technology they used to create almost every other creature the unicorn still ended up as a horned horse... That idea has become so popularized that they knew they could get away with it.
I haven't seen Reign of Fire, actually- I heard that it was pretty bad.
You know what was actually a pretty good dragon flick? Dragonslayer. Vermithrax is considered to be one of the most anatomically plausible dragons to grace the big screen- she was kind of bat-like in that her wings were also her forelegs. Plus, I'm a sucker for stop-motion.
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Apr 16, 2006 16:12:34 GMT -5
I haven't seen the Narnia movie, I don't watch a lot of movies because I don't have anyone to go see movies WITH. I watch them when they hit TV. I did read the Narnia book though. 'Reign of Fire' is the classical example of a bad dragon movie. I don't recommend it to anyone! The dragon CGI is reasonable but the story itself is one of the worst in dragon history. I'll have to Watch Dragonslayer someday then. Its indeed anatomically impossible to put a pair of wings AND a pair of forelegs onto one set of shoulders. The muscles of the 'foreleg' would block the 'wing' and or vice versa OR they wouldn't be able to move foreleg and forewing in a separate manner... Those four legged winged dragons are pretty but completely anatomically impossible. The only way to make a dragon anatomically possible and capable of slight would be to give it one pair of legs and one pair of wings and NO forelegs/arms.
|
|
|
Post by Quickstride on Apr 16, 2006 16:20:10 GMT -5
Hehe... I've actually thought about how it would be possible to create such a creature- I wouldn't say it's entirely impossible, as nature has done some truly bizarre things, but without a "real" example of such a vertebrate it'd require a lot of original biological engineering. And Nature herself seems much better at that sort of thing than we are.
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Apr 16, 2006 16:35:17 GMT -5
Genetic engineering hasn't progressed that far yet and even if it had it'd be pretty unethical... It might be possible in the future but hardly desirable.
|
|
|
Post by Quickstride on Apr 16, 2006 16:37:10 GMT -5
Oh, I'm not saying we should do it... unfortunately, I'm sure that eventually someone will try. I'd rather stick to theory.
|
|
Barry
Scholar
You Steal me Mountain Dew, I kill you!
Posts: 634
|
Post by Barry on Apr 16, 2006 18:36:04 GMT -5
Genetic engineering? I'd rather stick to theory as well. I wouldn't want to see it happen if it could happen. A good example "Jurassic Park" You know how things went in that movie. Like Quickstride said I stick with theory any day.
For more dragon discussions like this you can visit my board here. The New Dragon's Lair
|
|
sil
Junior Scholar
Leader of one, Lover of Music, Liver of Life
Posts: 202
|
Post by sil on Apr 17, 2006 9:49:30 GMT -5
Alright I must put in my two cents (its probobly more like thousands of dollars, but its just an expression!)
In my opinion, each form of modern dragon just expands upon past depictions. I could never put past dragons and modern dragons into the same category, as even modern dragons span a far to vast casum.
This post will expand upon the many different views of modern dragons, and how far apart they can trully be.
First, we'll go with my favorite, the Dragons of Pern. Now we won't get into the aspects of their creator, she's to strict, blah blah blah, but only there physical history and such. Try to take a back-seat aproach to this, alright? Anyway, the Pernese dragon was genetically created from the planets indiginous creature, the fire-lizard. This was done by using the Eridani genetic manipulation. They breathe fire by chewing a phosphine bearing rock, and once it mixes with chemicals in one of their stomachs, and contacts with oxygen, it combusts. Their body shape follows the now clasic (although it wasn't always so) heraldric shape, four limbs two wings. I don't think I should go into the details of mating flights and Impression, if you want to find out more, read the books. I highly recomend them.
Another recent dragon rising is the Inheritence trilogy by Christopher Paolini. This series was the thing I had been looking for. A LoTR type world, with elves and dwarves and humans and such, and of course dragons, but the dragons were on the side of good. Now Alagaesia dragons also follow the four leg two wing type, but unlike Pern they have scales and can come in a variety of colors. It was said if you saw many dragons together, it would look like a living rainbow. After Du Fyrn Skulblaka (The war of dragons and elves) the two races entertwined their destinies and created the Dragon Riders to keep peace. But enough of that. Alagaesian dragons breathe their fire with magic, no science involved. They follow the more widely believed mythilogical side of dragons.
Then there is the previously mention Dragons World: A Fantasy Made Real special on Discovery. In it they attempted to try to make dragons into a plausible creature that could have existed, just didn't. They breathed fire with hydrogen, which was produced in their gut by bacteria, and used the storage tanks as the added lift in flight. The catylist in their fire breathing mixture was platinum. Quickstride, they DID create false artwork to turn Incan, Mayan, and even Asian views on dragons into something that fit their story better. But to create dragons in PRehistoric and modern times, they needed two types, and the type that survived had six limbs.
There's a book out there, called Dragonology, by a mysterious Dr. Ernest Drake (there really is no proof if he existed or not). This book takes a much more historical aspect, showing many different forms of dragons, including the clasic heraldric dragon, to wyverns, and more uncomon types like Marsupial dragons (they really have pouches!), and lindworms, which were mentioned in Marco Polo's diary, and dismissed as caimans. This book goes into in depth theories on evolution and fire breathing (a venom mixed with a spark from flint, not as believable as some other theories), including spells that can tame a dragon and what one should do if confronted by one. And interesting read with good illistrations.
There are many other forms of modern dragons out there, including D&D types, and others from various authors. I only touched on the ones that I found interesting. But to sum it all up, there are many different deffinitions to the word dragon these days, and one should only take the chance to find them all before they make up their mind. And if any of this twaddle sparked your interest, head over to the library and pick up a copy of the books, or rent the movies, all the ones I mentioned I find very interesting and I think any one with an open mind would to.
Thanks for reading my much more than two cents, and happy Reading, writing, drawing, what ever it is you do in your free time.
~Sil
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Apr 17, 2006 11:33:19 GMT -5
same category, as even modern dragons span a far to vast casum. Not you too!!! What is it with people using all sorts of word I don't know today? What is a 'casum'? Its the same as with the dinosaurs and the birds, not all dinosaurs look like birds but technically all birds are dinosaurs. Dragons evolve too. (Proceeds to hide from Azzy after having spoken about Evolution) First, we'll go with my favorite, the Dragons of Pern. Well I guess the genetic manipulation bit in those books WAS fun... ;D I just don't think the whole mental link between rider and dragon could work that way... Now Alagaesia dragons also follow the four leg two wing type, but unlike Pern they have scales and can come in a variety of colors. Dragons NEED scales... Ok, maybe I am old fashioned but I hate it when people make a dragon have any other skin type! Dragons without scales are like cats without hair. *Starts running from a mob of Pern Fans* Aaaaaaaaieeeee!!!! I never read those books you mentioned, I'll put them on the literature list in the bookforum. But enough of that. Alagaesian dragons breathe their fire with magic, no science involved. They follow the more widely believed mythilogical side of dragons. Scientifically fire breathing is just NOT going to work so any attempt at making a 'scientific' fire breathing mechanism in a living creature is brave but futile... *Still trying to stay ahead of Pernese lynch mob* I'd like to quote the site www.intuitor.com/moviephysics here: Hmm ok, more later.. But 'magic' is the only way to cover for firebreathing.
|
|
|
Post by Quickstride on Apr 17, 2006 12:35:26 GMT -5
Okay... I want to reply to both but I'm not quite cool enough to get the Quote command to do that for me, so bear with me, please. First, we'll go with my favorite, the Dragons of Pern. Now we won't get into the aspects of their creator, she's to strict, blah blah blah, but only there physical history and such. Try to take a back-seat aproach to this, alright? Anyway, the Pernese dragon was genetically created from the planets indiginous creature, the fire-lizard. This was done by using the Eridani genetic manipulation. They breathe fire by chewing a phosphine bearing rock, and once it mixes with chemicals in one of their stomachs, and contacts with oxygen, it combusts. Their body shape follows the now clasic (although it wasn't always so) heraldric shape, four limbs two wings. I don't think I should go into the details of mating flights and Impression, if you want to find out more, read the books. I highly recomend them. I can't comment too much on Pern, as I've actually not read those books (I'll probably get around to the first few, as I like to read a little bit of everything) but I did know a bit about them- the scalelessness, the genetic engineering, etc. I consider them more a variation (if one of the more extreme ones) of the modern heraldic. Another recent dragon rising is the Inheritence trilogy by Christopher Paolini. This series was the thing I had been looking for. A LoTR type world, with elves and dwarves and humans and such, and of course dragons, but the dragons were on the side of good. Now Alagaesia dragons also follow the four leg two wing type, but unlike Pern they have scales and can come in a variety of colors. It was said if you saw many dragons together, it would look like a living rainbow. After Du Fyrn Skulblaka (The war of dragons and elves) the two races entertwined their destinies and created the Dragon Riders to keep peace. But enough of that. Alagaesian dragons breathe their fire with magic, no science involved. They follow the more widely believed mythilogical side of dragons. These sound like fairly standard fantasy dragons to me. Then there is the previously mention Dragons World: A Fantasy Made Real special on Discovery. In it they attempted to try to make dragons into a plausible creature that could have existed, just didn't. They breathed fire with hydrogen, which was produced in their gut by bacteria, and used the storage tanks as the added lift in flight. The catylist in their fire breathing mixture was platinum. Quickstride, they DID create false artwork to turn Incan, Mayan, and even Asian views on dragons into something that fit their story better. But to create dragons in PRehistoric and modern times, they needed two types, and the type that survived had six limbs. They should NOT have continually claimed dragons to be a universal theme if they weren't going to acknowledge other cultures' versions for what they were/are. They would have been perfectly fine focusing on just European dragons instead of pretending that other cultures shared a similar view. As for the prehistoric dragon, it created more problems than it was really worth (it was basically just an excuse to have a dragon fight a T. rex.) They'd have done better starting off with a four legged dragon that evolved into the river and forest varieties, then looked into giving their creation wings and/or extra limbs. The evolution would probably look like a mess regardless of what they did, and obviously some transitional forms must be missing between the prehistoric and river dragons, but as they didn't show any of them it just made the extra limbs look pretty useless. What good is going to the trouble of growing six limbs if you're still just going to use four? Just so I don't sound too negative about this special (it DID have some interesting ideas) I rather liked the sleek look of the mountain dragons. [/quote] There's a book out there, called Dragonology, by a mysterious Dr. Ernest Drake (there really is no proof if he existed or not). This book takes a much more historical aspect, showing many different forms of dragons, including the clasic heraldric dragon, to wyverns, and more uncomon types like Marsupial dragons (they really have pouches!), and lindworms, which were mentioned in Marco Polo's diary, and dismissed as caimans. This book goes into in depth theories on evolution and fire breathing (a venom mixed with a spark from flint, not as believable as some other theories), including spells that can tame a dragon and what one should do if confronted by one. And interesting read with good illistrations. I've seen this book- it's fun, but don't take it too seriously ("drake" is actually an English term for dragon.) It features many "real" (from mythology) types of draconics, but also some completely made-up ones, like the marsupial dragon. Thanks for reading my much more than two cents, and happy Reading, writing, drawing, what ever it is you do in your free time. ~Sil I sit on the Internet arguing about creatures that don't exist when I should be doing important schoolwork. ;D Thanks, though.
|
|
|
Post by Quickstride on Apr 17, 2006 12:47:14 GMT -5
same category, as even modern dragons span a far to vast casum. Not you too!!! What is it with people using all sorts of word I don't know today? What is a 'casum'? Its the same as with the dinosaurs and the birds, not all dinosaurs look like birds but technically all birds are dinosaurs. Dragons evolve too. (Proceeds to hide from Azzy after having spoken about Evolution) I think he meant "chasm." Dragons NEED scales... Ok, maybe I am old fashioned but I hate it when people make a dragon have any other skin type! Dragons without scales are like cats without hair. *Starts running from a mob of Pern Fans* Aaaaaaaaieeeee!!!! I never read those books you mentioned, I'll put them on the literature list in the bookforum. Some cats don't have hair! They called sphynxes. I think they're pretty cute. Anyway, I've seen mammalian dragons every now and then, and some historical dragons have mixed parts from non-reptilian animals, so I'm not inherently opposed to scaleless dragons. Scientifically fire breathing is just NOT going to work so any attempt at making a 'scientific' fire breathing mechanism in a living creature is brave but futile... *STUFF QUICKSTRIDE CLIPPED FOR THE SAKE OF LENGTH* Well, like four legs and two wings, I wouldn't call it entirely impossible... just highly specialized and without a living example to base it off of. Most attempts I've seen at explaining it (some by natural scientists by trade who are pondering this for fun) give a general explanation of how it could be possible but leave the fine details to the imagination- not an entirely unreasonable solution, as there's still much we don't understand about what some real animals do- we just know they do it. Now I must really get my work done, or I'm in trouble.
|
|
|