
Sorry! I got caught up with the concept of staving off a feral horse with a stick!ingolmo said:Seems like no one's agreeing with me, so, like most true animal lovers, I will have to keep my thoughts to myself.
And AraCelebEarwen, the word for cat in Quenya is Meoi.
ingolmo said:the word for cat in Quenya is Meoi.
Ah, but Tolkien is neither Indian nor Chineseingolmo said:Well, Hammersmith, dragons have a very postive image in Chinese mythology, and snakes are considered holy in Hindu cultures.
I think a lot of stuck up middle age writers can be blamed for the evil wolves. But at the end of the day, wolves *do* kill people, and there is a lot to be said for his contrast between the domesticated hound and the evil werewolf in the Silmarillion.ingolmo said:Wolves were first associated with werewolves to get them a negative image, and then the stuck up fantasy writers of the middle-ages wrote their stories with wolves in a bad image. Look at the Little Red Riding Hood, and the Three Little Pigs.
Aesop. Think of the crow and her cheese. I can't think off the top of my head of any other fables about crows or ravens, but I know they exist. It's another example of classical fantasy getting in the way of the Norse and other, fairer mythology.ingolmo said:As for ravens and crows, I'm not too sure what's given them the bad mark.
Probably it's just that both are scavengers, and the crows also got his voice against him (which is personally my favorite of all birds after the owl.)
I'm befuddled about ravens though. In a lot of cultures, counting either Norse or Celtic, or both ravens are a symbol of wisdom and knowledge. A modern-day common example of that is Ravenclaw house in Harry Potter, where it is famous for it's brains. Now I've heard that Tolkien's taken a lot from Scandinavian mythology and culture, especially Norse. Then why does he have ravens in a bad image?![]()
Like I said. They trap things, which may provoke something adverse in the human psyche.ingolmo said:Now, the spiders. First of all I would like to state that only 17% of the worlds spiders are poisonous, and from those 17%, only about 10% can kill humans. That means that 1.7% of the world's spiders can kill humans, and most of those are either unluckily endangered, or they live in remote places such as rainforests or deserts where only nomadic, or native tribal humans live. So WHAT is there wrong with spiders?!![]()
![]()
And neither was he Scandinavian. A lot of Tolkien's tales had something in common with Norse mythology, and Quenya was based on Finnish.Hammersmith said:Ah, but Tolkien is neither Indian nor Chinese![]()
More humans kill wolves than wolves kill humans. And if on a rare occasion wolves do attack humans, they were probably provoked by humans.Hammersmith said:I think a lot of stuck up middle age writers can be blamed for the evil wolves. But at the end of the day, wolves *do* kill people, and there is a lot to be said for his contrast between the domesticated hound and the evil werewolf in the Silmarillion.
*No comment* But that's still unfair.Hammersmith said:Aesop. Think of the crow and her cheese. I can't think off the top of my head of any other fables about crows or ravens, but I know they exist. It's another example of classical fantasy getting in the way of the Norse and other, fairer mythology.
But they don't trap humans do they?Hammersmith said:Like I said. They trap things, which may provoke something adverse in the human psyche.
Actually, stories of wolves attacking and killing people are greatly overblown. In North America there was not a single, documented human fatality due to a wolf attack in the 20th Century. Of the relatively few known instances of aggression by wolves on humans the vast majority were either by rabid animals or were provoked by the humans involved. Anyone interested in wolves can get information at The Wolf Society.Hammersmith said:But at the end of the day, wolves *do* kill people,
But the Scandinavians are spread throughout Europe historically, and their stories are more part of the collective European mindsetingolmo said:
And @ Greenwood - NO! Of course, wolves have a bad deal of it. But I'm not talking about modern wolves. No, for settlers, in dark age and medieval Europe, wolves were cast as evil in tales because they were a daily threat to livestock and thus the livings of the people. Also note my reference to the use of the wolf as the "evil version" of the dog.ingolmo said:More humans kill wolves than wolves kill humans. And if on a rare occasion wolves do attack humans, they were probably provoked by humans.
Of course it's unfair! But it's part of a literary tradition.ingolmo said:*No comment* But that's still unfair.
No, but their acts seem unnatural and alien to the human psyche. Just like how humans are put off by animals who eat/are eaten by their young, or cannibal animals.ingolmo said:But they don't trap humans do they?![]()