Hide background
READ THIS!

Welcome to the Otherkinphenomena forum.

You really have to follow these instructions! Instructions will update as you progress.

If you wish to post on, or access most of the content of our forum and our community, please click here to register first, then follow the instructions below. If you have already registered, please log in, in the above "Hello There, Guest!" box.

Thanks for understanding and see you around.



Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Popular Media Creatures vs. Mythological Creatures
Elinox
Member is Offline
Professional Pirate
Kintype: Lupine & Feline
Otherkin: Yes
Gender: chaotic good
Reputation: 2
Posts: 2,441
Points: 10173.00
Contribution: tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick 

.
Post: #1
Popular Media Creatures vs. Mythological Creatures
I've been wondering, at what point does a creature go from being something in 'popular media' to 'mythological' status? And why are some types of 'kin more acceptable than others? (Believing you're a griffin is more acceptable than believing you're a pikachu, for example.)

I'm going to use dragons as an example because I'm more familiar with them, but I'm pretty sure this could apply to most, if not all, 'traditional' mythological creatures (unicorns, fairies, elves, werewolves, angels, demons, etc.).

At some point in the distant past, dragons were thought of in society as real creatures, or at least creatures that probably existed but that you didn't want to look for or run into, or something your cousin's best friend's aunt saw one dark and stormy night. They have been found in stories and art across many cultures worldwide for centuries. So at what point did dragons go from something that everyone knew about/wrote about/made art about to something mythological? Granted, nowadays people still write about them and create art depicting them, but there had to come a point where it became ok to identify as a 'mythological' creature rather than something just 'more commonly known of'.

Is it because dragons are known across cultures? Or because the idea of the creature has been around for more than 20 years? If there's a specific timeframe that's acceptable, why don't we see more Thundercats-type creatures, etc?

[Image: sGaXcqG.png]
Banner by me. If you want one too, see here.

"You're the best kind of crazy." -Murphy, The Dresden Files
2011-10-03 18:50
Find
Quote
Give Thanks
Miniar
Member is Offline
Artist
Kintype:
Otherkin:
Gender:
Reputation: 0
Posts: 2,042
Points: 10460.00
Contribution: tick tick tick tick 

Post: #2
Re: Popular Media Creatures vs. Mythological Creatures
I suppose it has to do, in part, with whether they're purposely invented to sell a product or whether they're a part of culture through other means, which again doesn't explain the lack of chupacabra-kin either...

[Image: Signiature.jpg]
"Those who can't approach discussion with a basic level of intelligence and maturity shouldn't expect to be taken seriously." ~ Qualia Soup
2011-10-06 13:54
Find
Quote
Give Thanks
simim23
Member is Offline
Eager beaver
Kintype:
Otherkin:
Gender:
Reputation: 0
Posts: 739
Points: 3895.00
Contribution: tick tick 

Post: #3
Re: Popular Media Creatures vs. Mythological Creatures
Technically, I could be a Chupacabra, in the loosest sense that I like eating goats. Delicious goats.

Does a dragon know they are oriental or western? Those are human definitions. If you're a five-toed dragon, humans might call you an Eastern dragon, but your dragon culture might call yourself a "Xinghualan'kynthos" (I made that up; I don't know what dragons call themselves.)

I could call myself a smart-ass, for instance. I can't call myself whatever you'd call me in Russia, because I don't know Russian.

What I mean to say is that, for all we know, there are bunch of 'kin who might actually be chupacabras, or gnomes, or drow, or thundercats, or whatever, but they're calling themselves something completely different because that's the label they know of in the contextually and culturally relevant world they currently exist in.

I mean, if I've never heard of a transvestite, I could very well be one, but I wouldn't call myself by such a word as I don't even know the term exists.

So what if a person claiming to be Pikachu-kin comes in? Maybe they've never heard of Pikas. Maybe they really are a rodent-like creature that can channel electricity. Maybe they're a thunderbird(which has mythological origins) who happens to be a thunderrat.

However, did the creators of Pokemon genuinely sit down one day and base their entire storyline, anime, manga, videogame franchise on real events, whether actual or perceived? I doubt it.

Then you go, but hey! Griffins and dragons may not have existed either.

Here's the tricky deal. We don't know that. Maybe they were never physically here, like a ghost or in the sense that an angel appears in a spiritual sense. Maybe dragons manifested and un-manifested to a realm outside of our perception.

We can't guarantee humans sat down one day and went, "Hey guys, I wanna tell this cool story about a knight and a damsel in distress and I need a big, scary, non-human creature to be the villain. How does the word dragon sound?"

We can definitely guarantee some guys sat down and created Pikachu. Of course, in the interest of fairness, there may have also been women involved.

Of course, if you ascribe to the idea that none of our kin-types actually ever existed and this is largely a big psychological adoption of archetypes to the point we completely identify as them, then none of this theoretical mumbo-jumbo applies and you can be Pikachu all you want.

Although personally, I'd refrain from identifying with a character who rakes in large sums of money for a corporate trademark and franchise. It's kinda like selling out as Otherkin.

Simim: Rainbow poop at your disservice.
[Image: 313pq88.png]
2012-02-08 22:47
Find
Quote
Give Thanks
skorpio
Member is Offline
Eager beaver
Kintype:
Otherkin:
Gender:
Reputation: 0
Posts: 340
Points: 1865.00
Contribution: tick tick 

Post: #4
Re: Popular Media Creatures vs. Mythological Creatures
simim23 Wrote:However, did the creators of Pokemon genuinely sit down one day and base their entire storyline, anime, manga, videogame franchise on real events, whether actual or perceived? I doubt it.

Still, Satoshi Tajiri-Oniwa, the creator, said the idea for Pokemon came from when he was younger, he used to collect insects.

"Think you're escaping and run into yourself. Longest way round is the shortest way home."
- James Joyce
2012-02-10 22:35
Find
Quote
Give Thanks
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)