# Monsters as a race of people. Where would they call home?



## Rojack79 (May 7, 2019)

This is probably one of the most important questions I can ask here. I have a list of the various monsters that are going to appear in my series but the one thing I want t get settled before I doanymore planning is pin down where certain 'races' would live. From what I've been able to gather about dragons for example, they would mostly stick to western Europe rather than say the middle east. Other races are not quite so easy. Werewolves for starters have cropped up on just about every continent except for the articles regions. So can someone offer some advice on how I could narrow down a habitable zone for these various monsters that will be sharing the world with us in my stories? By just in case anyone's curious here's a small list of some of the creatures that'll apear in the series at one point or another,

Dragons, Werewolves, Vampires, Various forms of Undead, Constructs such as golems, Demons, and a slew of other creatures.


----------



## CyberWar (May 8, 2019)

I'd just stick with the historical origins of these monster myths. Say, vampires and strigoi live mostly in Romania and the Balkans, werewolves generally prefer Central and Eastern Europe, ghouls lurk in the deserts of Arabia and the Middle East, golems can be found wherever there are Jewish Kabbalah masters with the knowledge (and willingness) needed to create them, etc.


----------



## Rojack79 (May 8, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> I'd just stick with the historical origins of these monster myths. Say, vampires and strigoi live mostly in Romania and the Balkans, werewolves generally prefer Central and Eastern Europe, ghouls lurk in the deserts of Arabia and the Middle East, golems can be found wherever there are Jewish Kabbalah masters with the knowledge (and willingness) needed to create them, etc.



This is great but some of these creatures can exist just about anywhere. How do i go about making them realistic in the same vain as humans? I'm more that certain some of them would want to travel and see the world. How do i do so In a logical believable manmer?


----------



## Darkkin (May 8, 2019)

Have you put yourself in the shoes of the Monster species?  Try walking around and viewing the world through their eyes.  Their needs, society, and culture will have many parallels to those of people.  Look at insect colonies, family groups of whales and dolphins, troops of apes...the list goes on.  Watch some nature documentaries and listen to the narrators and the characterise the creatures.  If the species is on even footing with humans, why treat them as different.  Write them as you would any character in a story.  Walk among them, talk to them, observe.  Consider the basic needs of the species, consider what landscapes would best support those needs. 

 Teen monster who wants to travel but his parents are freaking out about it because of the monsters (humans).


----------



## Bardling (May 8, 2019)

If they specifically prey on humans, then they need to live near (or with) the human culture they are most used to - Its harder to hide if you don't know what might draw notice.  If they prefer isolation, then look to the wastelands of various regions and if there is room for a sizable population there.

Golems specifically would not have their own territory, but would live among their creators.  Werewolves would need forests, preferably large ones that can support multiple wolf packs.  Vampires would be limited by the difficulty of long distance travel while avoiding sunlight to their native lands or the coasts until relatively recently.

Look at it that way.


----------



## Rojack79 (May 8, 2019)

Thanks for the advice everyone. I'll be sure to look into the various cultures I can use in order to give these characters more depth.


----------



## CyberWar (May 8, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> This is great but some of these creatures can exist just about anywhere. How do i go about making them realistic in the same vain as humans? I'm more that certain some of them would want to travel and see the world. How do i do so In a logical believable manmer?



Naturally. Which is why you'd have to take the particular monster's specific needs in mind. Demons, werewolves and vampires can essentially blend in everywhere as they can pass for humans, but more region-specific creatures would have to devise clever ways to travel undetected. Ghouls, for example, need to remain near cemeteries with a supply of fresh corpses to feed on, but their hideous appearance would hinder them from travelling unless they found a clever way to infest new lands (say, by hiding in the coffins of soldiers shipped home to the West from some Middle-Eastern war). Larger monsters like dragons would likely come in conflict with the authorities because of their predatory habits, so you'd need to figure out if you want them to be intelligent and possible to reason with, or animalistic and therefore constrained to specific regions by force. Other monsters could live in a voluntary association with humans, such as Chinese dragons who are generally seen as benevolent creatures, or the domovoi who serve the humans whose house they live in if treated well.

Basically, research each monster's habits, preferences and weaknesses as described in mythology, and build them in your story accordingly.


----------



## Rojack79 (May 8, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> Naturally. Which is why you'd have to take the particular monster's specific needs in mind. Demons, werewolves and vampires can essentially blend in everywhere as they can pass for humans, but more region-specific creatures would have to devise clever ways to travel undetected. Ghouls, for example, need to remain near cemeteries with a supply of fresh corpses to feed on, but their hideous appearance would hinder them from travelling unless they found a clever way to infest new lands (say, by hiding in the coffins of soldiers shipped home to the West from some Middle-Eastern war). Larger monsters like dragons would likely come in conflict with the authorities because of their predatory habits, so you'd need to figure out if you want them to be intelligent and possible to reason with, or animalistic and therefore constrained to specific regions by force. Other monsters could live in a voluntary association with humans, such as Chinese dragons who are generally seen as benevolent creatures, or the domovoi who serve the humans whose house they live in if treated well.
> 
> Basically, research each monster's habits, preferences and weaknesses as described in mythology, and build them in your story accordingly.



I'll have to make a condensed list of creatures just for this series then. It'll be small but hopefully I'll be able to make the most out of it.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 9, 2019)

Oo, lots of things to consider here. 

The only sure locations you have would be based on the origin of the myth, but even these aren't inviolable. Man didn't originate in Scandinavia, after all, but he did go there and adapt to the new habitat via genetic shifts, culture and technology which allow him to live somewhere he wasn't originally designed for/adapted to. You might see similar shifts in monster species. Longstanding communities of werewolves, for instance, might be white or change color with the seasons in northern areas. Depending on how long the species/condition has existed, it's quite possible that monsters have out-competed humans in some areas. Again, depending on how you run your critters, werewolves might actually be the dominant species in especially harsh conditions because they can have fur coats, natural predatory instincts, have a pack mentality, and bring down larger game with less technology vs their human counterparts. This adaptability could allow them stronger footholds in harsh frontier environments like Canada. By the time human ingenuity caught up to allow them in these locales, the monsters would already be the dominant species, already be in large stable communities, already have functioning trade routes, etc. It would be far more difficult to supplant them.  

Monsters should move for all the same reasons as people. Generally, people move for 1) physical security, 2) social security, 3) economic security (ties in with both others). Physical security would include water, food, shelter, avoiding death. Social security would include moving to obtain social freedoms or avoid social persecution. People like being around people like them--similar religions, cultures, values, ethnic backgrounds. While people naturally form ghettos (communities of similar people), they don't like being forced into such communities (like concentration camps). There will always be someone who rebels in any social community. Economic security includes work, obtaining currency and buying power, trade routes (and even forming colonies and inventing new technologies around resource acquisition, preservation, storage and distribution). 

Given real life antipathy toward many varieties of monsters, they might have a mass exodus at the "discovery of the New World" just like how Protestants fled Europe due to religious persecution. Monsters probably have very different religions, values, arts, and takes on human history. 

They might have different diseases, too, and this can be a fascinating playground because diseases have shaped human history more than most people have realized. Think about how the various Black Plagues would've shaped Europe if some creatures were more or less susceptible than others. Werewolves might've been the first hit severely, especially if they work as rat catchers, hunters, trappers or depend on rats for sustenance. But other monsters might not be susceptible to plague at all... _so they could've taken over Europe's hardest hit areas while their human competition was weakened_. According to a lot of scientific evidence, Native Americans were over 90% wiped out by introduced smallpox before the Mayflower even landed. Might some monster race have filled that void before the European colonists became strong enough to isolate and conquer what remained of the natives? How might diseases like rabies affect monsters? Prior to WW2, most deaths during war were actually due to disease and not enemy combat action, but if one race has the upper hand in resistance to a prevalent disease (such as, because they're already dead), they might just take over the world with relative ease. Napoleon's Grande Armee mostly died due to typhus and not combat with Russians, for instance, but if he'd had typhus-resistant vampires, you can bet Russia might've been conquered. Perhaps Hitler purposefully infected his dying troops with some new mutant strain of vampirism or lycanthropy, or raised them all as zombies to continue fighting. There is soooo much room to play with here. You could certainly use diseases to keep your monster populations in check, because if monster races have existed as long as we have, they'd've probably wiped us out a long time ago. Monster races are generally stronger than we are in profound ways, and on an even playing field, there's no reason we would have to be the dominant species on Earth. 

You could also look into earlier and more unusual variants of common monster tropes. Diving into the origins of modern monsters could help inspire you and make your versions of these monsters fresh and interesting. I hate vampire fiction, but the modern vampire was based on many earlier creatures which might be very interesting to read about. Myths change with the times and show up for fascinating historical reasons (often involving an influx of new peoples/cultures/religions... and diseases). Because these myths change over time, you can also feel free to mishmash aspects of these monsters abilities, needs and origins. Werewolves and vampires are largely based on the same disease, for instance (porphyria). You could explain that by the creatures actually being the same thing (but viewed from different angles by different people/cultures/eras). Maybe different bloodlines of the same monster species possess certain traits in differing degrees such that some have more traditionally vampiric or lycanthropic traits. 

Ghosts, zombies and vampires have a lot of shared territory, too. You can try looking up the Bride of Corinth, jiangshi, draugr/aptgangr, nachzehrer, vetala, revenants, pontianak/kunti/matianak/kuntilanak, and lang suir. They're all undead with potential.

There are a lot of fascinating monsters which have yet to really get the limelight treatment. Every culture has its own monsters, and with so many cultures being underrepresented in fiction, you might find a neat market by tapping into this. Plus, it could always inspire you and help add depth to the world you're making.  

Filipino mythical creatures!
[video=youtube;giCK8Sou3HU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giCK8Sou3HU[/video]


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 9, 2019)

Mystery Science Theater 3000's (reboot) song "Every Country has a Monster"
[video=youtube;EiJylMyfu9I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiJylMyfu9I[/video]

Hopefully, this can help inspire you and maybe give you some new monsters and locations to consider.

I don't see why monsters have to be any more or less segregated in location than any other creature. White people aren't adapted for living in Death Valley, but they live there anyway. Humans aren't adapted for life in space, but people live on the space station. We'd be more likely to find a yeti happily living in the Himalayas, but there's nothing saying he'd only be able to live there (any more than other people born there must stay there their entire lives). A sufficiently motivated yeti might be living in Los Angeles, writing screenplays with his feet in buckets of ice water, struggling to pay his electric bill.

Some races/cultures/peoples/species are more adaptable than others and are thus likely to be in places they aren't native to. Generalists travel because they're adaptable. Specialists die out when the universe shifts a few degrees. The more specific conditions have to be for a given creature, the fewer places it's likely to thrive. 

If our screenwriter yeti dies if he gets over 15 C, then he's not likely to live in any place where a power failure will kill him. If he has to eat a certain variety of rock salt found only in the Himalayas, he's going to live somewhere he can get a steady supply (but global economies and faster, more reliable trade practices will push this boundary until he can live nearly anywhere eventually). If yetis have lethal respiratory reactions to the smell of alcohol, they're not likely to develop their own varieties of moonshine or go to Oktoberfests--and won't live in places full of breweries or around bars. 

If you need a monster race to stay in some specific place, a nutritional/thermal/humidity/light-related or disease-based reason is a good route to go. Physical reasons are more likely to keep something contained even than cultural ones. Rebellion is possible and even likely if culture is the only thing keeping something in line. The more stringent the cultural expectation, the less likely a rebel will pop out publicly and the less likely a rebellion will be successful. However, no one successfully breaks physical laws of being. The yeti can be a screenwriter in Los Angeles against the wishes of his village elders, despite conflicts with the dominant religion, despite the threat of permanent exile and excommunication, even. But he can't deprive himself of that special salt, smell beer or live without air conditioning.


----------



## waterborne (Jul 9, 2019)

Nanotechnology and neuroweapons turn people into monsters by governments as a way of social control.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 9, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> This is probably one of the most important questions I can ask here. I have a list of the various monsters that are going to appear in my series but the one thing I want t get settled before I doanymore planning is pin down where certain 'races' would live. From what I've been able to gather about dragons for example, they would mostly stick to western Europe rather than say the middle east. Other races are not quite so easy. Werewolves for starters have cropped up on just about every continent except for the articles regions. So can someone offer some advice on how I could narrow down a habitable zone for these various monsters that will be sharing the world with us in my stories? By just in case anyone's curious here's a small list of some of the creatures that'll apear in the series at one point or another,
> 
> Dragons, Werewolves, Vampires, Various forms of Undead, Constructs such as golems, Demons, and a slew of other creatures.



Why would dragons live in Europe at all necessarily? You've got a bajillion variants of mythological dragons to consider (pretty much every culture has a dragon), and, of course, the biology/physiological needs of dragons to consider. Are they warm-blooded, poikilothermic? How much play is expected in their core temperature? How fast/slow is their metabolism? How quickly do they grow? How big do they get? How long do they live? How smart are they? While these may not be nitty-gritty details that show up in the work itself, it's a good idea to understand the biology if you're going to use it to keep a species in a specific place. 

Europe is a temperate climate, so you're not going to pigeonhole a species there as easily as one which is designed for especially hot or cold, bright or dark, dry or humid, low or high altitudes. A generalist, mesophile species is going to be able to spread more comfortably than an extremophile. Temperate environments breed up some very adaptable creatures because there is such seasonal variation in conditions. An animal designed around a hot, humid environment may not be able to live in a cold, dry one or even a temperate one. There's also cultural and ecological reasons a given race might stay in a certain place. If they have to compete with other species/races for a particular resource, they may be forced into a location that other species doesn't want to or can't invade. If dragons have a weak point (maybe they're too cold by dawn to move quickly), and other races exploit this to kill them, the dragons would probably be forced to relocate to ever smaller territories in ever more inhospitable places to avoid being killed in the sluggish morning hours.


----------



## Amnesiac (Jul 9, 2019)

They live under my bed, of course! (There are a couple that reside in my closet, too...)


----------



## velo (Jul 9, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> I don't see why monsters have to be any more or less segregated in location than any other creature. White people aren't adapted for living in Death Valley, but they live there anyway. Humans aren't adapted for life in space, but people live on the space station.



This is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.  What has allowed humans to inhabit a wide variety of environments is our mental capacity which allows us to adapt to new survival situations with behaviour vs biology, the latter obviously takes a lot longer.  

if a monster has higher reasoning skills, then yes it might be able to adapt.  But we also have opposable thumbs and the ability to make and use tools.  Humans live in the arctic because they can figure out how to sew suits of seal skin with needles and thread they've made.  Unless a monster has all these abilities than having them live in a habitat they have adapted to seems like it would only add to the verisimilitude of the story and promote suspension of disbelief.  I've found that the more details you keep grounded in real-world science the more believable some of the "larger" aspects of fiction can be.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 9, 2019)

velo said:


> This is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.  What has allowed humans to inhabit a wide variety of environments is our mental capacity which allows us to adapt to new survival situations with behaviour vs biology, the latter obviously takes a lot longer.
> 
> if a monster has higher reasoning skills, then yes it might be able to adapt.  But we also have opposable thumbs and the ability to make and use tools.  Humans live in the arctic because they can figure out how to sew suits of seal skin with needles and thread they've made.  Unless a monster has all these abilities than having them live in a habitat they have adapted to seems like it would only add to the verisimilitude of the story and promote suspension of disbelief.  I've found that the more details you keep grounded in real-world science the more believable some of the "larger" aspects of fiction can be.



Not disagreeing with this, but most monsters also have opposable thumbs and either used to be human or are humanoid, are, therefore, able to make/use tools. Even ones that aren't able to use some tools can likely still use others, and can still adapt to new environments via all the same sorts of shifts in technology and culture that have pushed us to new places. From what I can recall, all the monsters except dragons in the OP are specifically humanoid and able to make tools. 

Opposable thumbs also aren't the only things that can make tools. Dolphins and birds both make tools, and neither have thumbs. Some fish species and cephalopods like octopus have also been documented using tools. Even animals which are viewed as "dumb" can still manipulate the tools created by humans to achieve a desired effect (such as opening doors and containers). There's no reason a dragon can't make tools using its paws, mouth, or magic. No reason they can't barter or trade for things they can't make, either.   

A rat doesn't have "higher reasoning skills" but it's still everywhere we are, thriving in places that are inhospitable to us, living on foods we couldn't, evading our best traps, evading the best predators, and it's able to get into pretty much anything, anytime, anywhere. Adaptability requires a certain plasticity of body and/or mind, but it's not wholly dependent on either. A creature can thrive in a lot of places just by being able to withstand a wide variety of conditions. Even a monster race of less adaptable physique could use technology to overcome its biological limitations--whether it invented such tech or not (yeti with air conditioning), and a monster with greater physical adaptability might find homes in a wide variety of places just because it has fewer biological restraints. 

Not every person could've tamed fire or invented the smart phone, but pretty much everyone can strike a match and text their mom, so even if a monster is on the dumb side, they could probably still use facilities and tools made by those of greater intelligence and ingenuity. And even if the monster could not have invented or used tools designed for expressly human use, it could probably invent tools for its own use or at least serve as a market for tools designed and manufactured by entrepreneurs of some other race.

A monster cannot be considered as being of a "race" without having reasoning skills at least approaching that of a human. Otherwise, it's basically an animal or an automaton. Thus, I assume that any monster race is at least around a human level of scientific reasoning (if not far beyond us). So, yup, still no reason why they couldn't exist in more or less the same places we do.


----------



## velo (Jul 10, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Not disagreeing with this, but most monsters also have opposable thumbs and either used to be human or are humanoid, are, therefore, able to make/use tools. Even ones that aren't able to use some tools can likely still use others, and can still adapt to new environments via all the same sorts of shifts in technology and culture that have pushed us to new places. From what I can recall, all the monsters except dragons in the OP are specifically humanoid and able to make tools.



Fair, but humanoid form does not equate to human abilities nor do opposable thumbs.  Gorillas have opposable thumbs but can not adapt quickly through behaviour which is why they are threatened by habitat loss.  

Obviously a monster that was once human (werewolves, vampyres) will exist anywhere humans do and the infection/curse has spread to. 



seigfried007 said:


> Opposable thumbs also aren't the only things that can make tools. Dolphins and birds both make tools, and neither have thumbs. Some fish species and cephalopods like octopus have also been documented using tools. Even animals which are viewed as "dumb" can still manipulate the tools created by humans to achieve a desired effect (such as opening doors and containers).




There is a difference between using tools and making tools.  Picking up a stick and using it to collect termites for a tasty treat (some primates) is not tool making but tool use.  Tool use can be seen as part of adapting to a specific environment whereas tool making would be necessary for a creature to adapt quickly (i.e. faster than biology can adapt) to an non-native environment.  



seigfried007 said:


> A monster cannot be considered as being of a "race" without having reasoning skills at least approaching that of a human.


 
Disagree.  Race is a not a great term, admittedly, but it does apply to non-human animals in biology.  Perhaps species or population would have been a better term.  

Even humans have regional epigenetic characteristics among phenotypes.  Human populations that settled near the equator tend to have high amounts of melanin pigment in their skin to protect from the high levels of sunlight.  Those that settled in the far north have less.  The Inuit people developed genetic traits to help them deal with the high fat content of their diet and be resistant to heart disease.  The Tibetan people adapted genetically to live in an atmosphere with less oxygen.  So on and so forth.  It wasn't until we learned how to travel long distances that these traits began to mix.  

To get back to the point I think applying these small frameworks of real-world science within a mythology can do a lot from the readers' standpoint to help immersion and suspension of disbelief.  The more realistic something is the less likely a reader is going to taken out of the story.  Giving monsters a habitat feels like a really simple way to increase the realism of something entirely fantastical.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 10, 2019)

We seem to be agreeing about pretty much everything and just quibbling over terminology. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.

Seems like the biggest sticking point concerns defining monsters as people or animals right off the bat. The author is free to pick which monsters are people or animals. I've seen all of the monsters mentioned in the OP as people or animals, so it's no big deal to me and could be written in an interesting manner regardless. Both people and animals are, however, generally more complicated than is allowed for in most fiction--particularly if one is looking at long-term, globally spanning influence throughout thousands of years of historical interactions. Everything I've written is under the interesting assumption that the monsters have just as much willpower, drive, mental prowess and time on Earth as humans--because this scenario leads to the most complex big-picture scenarios and requires the most thought. Worst case in assuming the most complicated scenario is that I give too much info and put too much thought into it--but even that might be stimulating to write or read, might help flesh out a world or inspire _somebody_.      

Maybe your school of biology uses "race" differently, but I don't believe I've heard anybody in the life sciences community (as opposed to social sciences) use it referring to anything but humans (and even then, it's largely discredited as a concept and only used as a shorthand to describe ethnic traits). "Subspecies", "variants", "strains" and "breeds" get used all the time, but again, we're still talking about the same species (can breed and produce fertile offspring). Those terms don't have the massive social weight and connotations as "race", so they're safer to use if one's trying to be an objective scientist and discuss variations in a species without bringing up the whole political/historical/societal "race" thing. Social sciences use "race" in everything, but it still onnly refers to human "races". Apart from human "races", the only time I hear that word is "the human race" (or for competitions like footraces, but that's different ;-) ). Monstrous species might require stronger language if the author wants to get it across that the species isn't human remotely. 

The term "tool" gets redefined by seemingly everyone in every field. I've heard so many definitions--particularly as someone looks to exclude animals. If someone discovers an animal doing something interesting with a "tool", someone else will redefine "tool" to exclude the animal, and yet another person might modify the definition to include even more animals. And no one agrees. Those chimps aren't just using sticks--they're specifically picking and honing those sticks for a very specific use, and they have to learn how to appropriately make and use those sticks--it's a multi-generational art that chimps have to learn from each other. It can be a startlingly complicated process, but as usual, there's a human taking a metaphorical crap on the barest notion that an animal could possibly make and use a tool. (as a funny side note, people can't make and effectively use those same tools. Hilarity and frustration has ensued when researchers have tried to fish for termites using sticks) I've heard both astoundingly simple and complex definitions, and who uses which definition seems to mirror the attitude of the speaker every time. The one that ticks me off most though is when one species gets preferential treatment--even when the tools are the same. Happens a lot when Darwinian primate-purists discard tool use in any other group (especially birds, which are still fighting against "bird brain", I guess). If the same definition is used equally across the animal kingdoms, I can at least respect it as an issue of preference and try to converse about it. 

Interestingly, gorillas have been known to make bridges and a few other structures/tools, if I recall correctly. Animals don't always act themselves when we're watching, and many live in inhospitable or remote locales, so we just don't see the full range of their behaviors and ingenuity. There's still so much to learn. I'd rather err on the side of animals being more intelligent than we give them credit for than deny them intelligence they have--but I'm the same with people. It's a better life philosophy than treating everyone like idiots until they prove you wrong.   

I think authors too often get stuck in the habit of making monstrous races/aliens/peoples stick to a "habitat" that probably shouldn't confine them. I think there have to be good reasons for confining them because otherwise they aren't as likely to come across as _people_. Monsters are either going to be animals or people, and if they're people, they aren't likely to stay put just because an author wants them to form a neat, happy little ghetto. Even animals will go everywhere they can thrive, and they don't have those higher reasoning skills. Why do authors even want races to live in neat little ghettos? It seems to happen across all speculative fiction, and I can only suppose it's just because strict mono-culture ghettos are tidy and easy to write (even if they're not realistic most of the time). Even if 99.999% of yetis live in the Himalayas, that one yeti might be found against all odds trying to live out his dream in Los Angeles (but compelling reasons should exist both to keep the yetis in the Himalayas and for the one lone yeti to have left home for LA). 

It's unbelievable to have monsters either confined or liberated without reasoning. If there isn't a good reason for them to be or not be somewhere, the alternative option should at least be considered. If yetis need to breathe, we're not going to find them floating merrily in space without some kind of technology. If yetis die when they get above 15C, they're very unlikely to be anywhere hotter than that without a darn compelling reason and technology to facilitate that change of locale. If the author has stated that yetis are people, it stands to reason that they are motivated by all the usual drives and capable of forging their own destinies. If yetis are animals, then they lack that but would still spread as they could--assisted by other peoples or not. If there isn't a compelling reason to travel, most creatures won't risk trials of the unknown, so they won't emigrate unnecessarily. If, however, a good reason is presented (even if it's just boredom and a thirst for adventure), a creature is likely to wander off so long as nothing is preventing it from doing so. A dog has everything it truly needs at home, but it might wander off anyway.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 10, 2019)

Man I probably just have to boil my ideas down to there basic necessities and go from there. Make a list of all the monster's available all of the magic, myth's, legends and plot outlines and just start from scratch creating my own fantasy world.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 10, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> We seem to be agreeing about pretty much everything and just quibbling over terminology. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.
> 
> Seems like the biggest sticking point concerns defining monsters as people or animals right off the bat. The author is free to pick which monsters are people or animals. I've seen all of the monsters mentioned in the OP as people or animals, so it's no big deal to me and could be written in an interesting manner regardless. Both people and animals are, however, generally more complicated than is allowed for in most fiction--particularly if one is looking at long-term, globally spanning influence throughout thousands of years of historical interactions. Everything I've written is under the interesting assumption that the monsters have just as much willpower, drive, mental prowess and time on Earth as humans--because this scenario leads to the most complex big-picture scenarios and requires the most thought. Worst case in assuming the most complicated scenario is that I give too much info and put too much thought into it--but even that might be stimulating to write or read, might help flesh out a world or inspire _somebody_.
> 
> ...


 
Honestly for me I see all of these "monsters" as people more than monsters mostly because thay all seem to have the same drive as humans anyway so why not see them as people more than just smart animals? I personally want to tell the story of a group of humans and monster's going on a quest together to save there world so for me it feels imperative that i get there world view in order including there desire to roam and live in other areas.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 10, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Honestly for me I see all of these "monsters" as people more than monsters mostly because thay all seem to have the same drive as humans anyway so why not see them as people more than just smart animals? I personally want to tell the story of a group of humans and monster's going on a quest together to save there world so for me it feels imperative that i get there world view in order including there desire to roam and live in other areas.



Saving the world is always a compelling reason 

Origin location of the myth is a good place to start, but you don't *have* to stick with it or even necessarily research it. It's just an idea to shove 'em in a location. 

Figuring out what weaknesses and limits a given monster has might give you some inspiration for how to use them and where to stick them. 

You might also try tying regional monsters in with their human neighbors--by trade, religion, culture. For instance, maybe yetis are able to interact with the spirits of their dead, and this is why they're hesitant to live anywhere else (because they can't give up their past). Eastern religions, like Shinto, might have borrowed some of their religious aspects from the yetis around ancestor ties and worship. Maybe male yetis are mostly white and female yetis are mostly black, and this led in part to the yin-yang concepts of balance and duality. There is sooooo much room to play with. 

It's your world. Don't be afraid to _really_ play with it.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 10, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Saving the world is always a compelling reason
> 
> Origin location of the myth is a good place to start, but you don't *have* to stick with it or even necessarily research it. It's just an idea to shove 'em in a location.
> 
> ...


 
Oh I plan on flipping my world on it's head. I've been working on this going on ten years now and I'm hoping that I can pull this grand adventure off.


----------



## velo (Jul 10, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Man I probably just have to boil my ideas down to there basic necessities and go from there. .



That's really the essence...none of this needs to be explicitly explained in your story but however you want to build your world is the framework.


----------



## velo (Jul 10, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> We seem to be agreeing about pretty much everything and just quibbling over terminology. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.



Agreed.  I just like a good exchange of ideas.    However, as writers, I tend to think terminology is important.  



seigfried007 said:


> Maybe your school of biology uses "race" differently, but I don't believe I've heard anybody in the life sciences community (as opposed to social sciences) use it referring to anything but humans



From Merriam-Webster.  Race, 2nd definition, noun, use #3
a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species
also : a taxonomic category (such as a subspecies) representing such a group
b : BREED



seigfried007 said:


> (and even then, it's largely discredited as a concept and only used as a shorthand to describe ethnic traits)



100% agreed.  Ethnic phenotypes are just that, variations on a common human theme.  



seigfried007 said:


> The term "tool" gets redefined by seemingly everyone in every field.



Not sure that's fully accurate but my view is that any time an animal makes use of any object not a part of its body to perform a task, that's tool use.  I am drawing a distinction in terms of tool making, however.  Selecting a reed or stick and stripped away excess is not manufacture, it's modification.  Those two words are very distant in terms of the intellectual ability needed to perform them.  



seigfried007 said:


> but as usual, there's a human taking a metaphorical crap on the barest notion that an animal could possibly make and use a tool.



Not me, mate.  I absolutely believe that animal intelligence is far greater than we realise because humans have a serious issue recognising any intelligence different than their own.  That's the real issue, honestly, is that the way of thinking is entirely different between a chimp, a lizard, and a human.  It's a contextual experiential thing that there exists no translation for.  Birds, as you mention, have shown incredible problem-solving skills.  



seigfried007 said:


> Interestingly, gorillas have been known to make bridges and a few other structures/tools,


Well, not exactly the Golden Gate...

"A second example was also captured on film, when Efi, a gorilla from another group, used a stick to lean on for support while she foraged for food with her free hand. She then used the same stick as a bridge to help her cross a patch of swampy ground, says Breuer."  SOURCE HERE



seigfried007 said:


> I'd rather err on the side of animals being more intelligent than we give them credit for than deny them intelligence they have-



I agree.  However, I was using the rather large gap in tool-making ability between other primates and humans as context in my earlier comments.  As in I don't see Gorillas making tools to the level that would allow them to adapt to new environments.  In no way do I wish to take away from what many species are able to do.  Some scientists have stated, with convincing evidence, that Chimpanzees have entered the stone age based on their use of tools.  



seigfried007 said:


> I think authors too often get stuck in the habit of making monstrous races/aliens/peoples stick to a "habitat" that probably shouldn't confine them.
> ...
> and I can only suppose it's just because strict mono-culture ghettos are tidy and easy to write


Not quite my point.  In no way was I saying that, for example, this stretch of woods belongs to hobgoblins and the next to forest trolls.  But a monster without the ability to adapt to new environment would by necessity live in that environment.  As you said, things that need to breathe air are rarely found happily floating in space.  Water monsters cruising around land isn't going to...well...hold water.  

Let's look at dragons.  In most mythologies dragons keep relatively to themselves in caves or other dens, often on mountains.  This does not mean dragons can not be found in the lowlands but they are unlikely to live in heavily wooded areas that would limit take off/landing, for example, or areas without a lot of game within their reach.  In the mountains dragons can feed on goats and other animals or visit the local village in the valley for a few sheep or firstborn humans.  Would we see a dragon in a desert?  In fiction anything is possible of course but it strains the underlying logic of the world to think that a large, winged creature would be able to survive in an, effectively, flat and featureless are with very few prey species.  

I suppose if I had to sum up my meaning it would be to make the environment fir the creatures you put in it.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 10, 2019)

velo said:


> Not quite my point.  In no way was I saying that, for example, this stretch of woods belongs to hobgoblins and the next to forest trolls.  But a monster without the ability to adapt to new environment would by necessity live in that environment.  As you said, things that need to breathe air are rarely found happily floating in space.  Water monsters cruising around land isn't going to...well...hold water.
> 
> Let's look at dragons.  In most mythologies dragons keep relatively to themselves in caves or other dens, often on mountains.  This does not mean dragons can not be found in the lowlands but they are unlikely to live in heavily wooded areas that would limit take off/landing, for example, or areas without a lot of game within their reach.  In the mountains dragons can feed on goats and other animals or visit the local village in the valley for a few sheep or firstborn humans.  Would we see a dragon in a desert?  In fiction anything is possible of course but it strains the underlying logic of the world to think that a large, winged creature would be able to survive in an, effectively, flat and featureless are with very few prey species.
> 
> I suppose if I had to sum up my meaning it would be to make the environment fir the creatures you put in it.



Ah, but see, this is where I think you miss something...

From the point of view of a scientist (or somebody who studies cryptids, in this case) you would be dead on. But as writers who can do what we want, picking an environment that naturally fits a fantasy creature actually seems like a bad idea. Writers must subvert expectations. Must innovate to find the flickers of originality. That is especially vital if we are talking about done-to-death monsters like dragons.

The fact dragons dont typically inhabit forests is all the more reason to figure out how to put them there. We can create forest dragons. Why can’t we? The creature must obviously be modified, yes: A dragon that was no bigger than a cow could live in a forest no problem (large birds live in forests), their design and behavior and entire identity would have to make sense. It’s not easy to do, but it’s possible.

A story I just wrote and submitted includes a gigantic, prehistoric monster (not unlike Loch Ness but more fishlike) that literally swims through outer space. It’s absurd when I put it that way, but in the context of the story it works. Certainly I feel it’s an innately more interesting monster than if it lived in the sea where it “belongs”

I hear “forest dragons” and I am immediately more interested than I would be about some classic Tolkien dragon that lives in a cave. I hear “Bigfoot on Venus” and I feel a spark of intrigue that I do not feel about one that lives in a wood or mountain. “Volcanic insects”, “Porn star witch”, all kinds of ways. Environment isn’t always the key to originality but it can be. It is no longer generally acceptable, IMO, to write about a vampire who lives in a castle. 

Of course, the tough part then becomes believability, because it is much easier, safer, to keep things conventional. But expectations must be subverted, especially when dealing with monsters that are themselves not original. Execution is another thing.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 11, 2019)

velo said:


> Agreed.  I just like a good exchange of ideas.    However, as writers, I tend to think terminology is important.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But I'm talking about life sciences papers--not Merriam-Webster. Each scientific discipline and professor and textbook uses its own definitions. You might as well be throwing Urban Dictionary at me for all the relevance Webster's got with published scientific literature and debate. The fact that you pointed to the third definition should state that it's not exactly the most common use of that word anyway. My experience in the college biology department give me a different take on which departments use which words how. My experience in the public health/epidemiology department at the same college told me that not all sciences use the same words the same way. 

Same thing goes for "tools" and "tool use", as I've already stated. Even within the same scientific discipline, everyone defines the terms differently. "Modification" can also be termed any number of ways. After all, we're not creating the atoms in the material. But when a human sharpens the end of a long stick to make a pike, we still it call it a weapon and a tool... and that's less complicated than termite sticks. 




> Not quite my point.  In no way was I saying that, for example, this stretch of woods belongs to hobgoblins and the next to forest trolls.  But a monster without the ability to adapt to new environment would by necessity live in that environment.  As you said, things that need to breathe air are rarely found happily floating in space.  Water monsters cruising around land isn't going to...well...hold water.


Again, if the monsters are people, that's all irrelevant. Even if the monsters aren't people, they can still be adaptable (like mice, rats, cats, dogs, coyotes, raccoons, bedbugs, cockroaches, fleas, bears, pigeons, swine, mosquitos, lice, and every other species that has followed us around, sucked our blood, hitchhiked on our boats or bodies, dug in our garbage and ticked us off). The urban environment isn't the "natural habitat" for any creature--including man. 

Of course, it's a great idea to put a critter in a suitable home, but I think it's equally important to recognize that "life finds a way". While some species stay put, others don't, and that's not only okay and realistic, it can add a lot of depth to worldbuilding. 

I've seen a lot of fantasy where certain races either "never leave the shire" or where "ugly races are banished to ugly places" and "beautiful/fair/noble races all live in harmony". Total crap and old hat. It's even worse when the races are all basically rubber forehead aliens with no real differences that ought to matter. Why must orcs be evil and live in some desolate hellhole? Why do elves live in forests? Neither race/species has specific bodily needs that require these habitats. This sort of crap happens all the time. Drives me crazy. 



> Let's look at dragons.  In most mythologies dragons keep relatively to themselves in caves or other dens, often on mountains.  This does not mean dragons can not be found in the lowlands but they are unlikely to live in heavily wooded areas that would limit take off/landing, for example, or areas without a lot of game within their reach.  In the mountains dragons can feed on goats and other animals or visit the local village in the valley for a few sheep or firstborn humans.  Would we see a dragon in a desert?  In fiction anything is possible of course but it strains the underlying logic of the world to think that a large, winged creature would be able to survive in an, effectively, flat and featureless are with very few prey species.
> 
> I suppose if I had to sum up my meaning it would be to make the environment fir the creatures you put in it.



The largest pterosaurs preferred flat ground, and being the closest thing to dragons that have ever lived, I'd say they had their reasons more than you're giving them credit for. Flat lands tend to be crowded full of the largest herds of herbivores. You don't see the kinds of herds on rough terrain. Do consider that quetzalcoatlus was as tall as a giraffe, could eat a good size critter pretty quick--and could gallop like a dang horse on all fours. Yeah, it'd take some G force to get that sucker off the ground from a standstill, but the fact that it happened is pretty dang fascinating. Dragons, being often described as larger and heavier than pterosaurs could still have the preference for flat and relatively arid lands, which do have great thermals that help gliding, and also have abundant visibility and prey. Prey in large herds can't hide--but the whole point of herds is protection in numbers. The more friends you have, the more likely one of them is going to get picked off by the predator and not you. Bigger herds actually mean more protection for each creature in the herd, but grasslands are the best suited for massive herds to form. It takes about 10,000 prey animals to sustain a lion (not feed it individually or as a pride, even. They won't eat that many prey animals, but the prey population must have enough weak, sick, young animals to pick off to support the pride; plus, the herd has to be able to replace its numbers and grow alongside the lions... or else you get fun parametric curves and die-offs). Just think of how many are required to sustain a _dragon_. Part of this will depend on the dragon's metabolism, how it utilizes flight (walking vs flying, flight styles, etc), what range it's comfortable keeping its core at. 

Erratic winds, cold, decreased oxygen in the air, poor visibility, relatively less prey, and foul weather would all play against dragons living in mountainous regions. Prey in mountainous regions can escape with far greater ease than those in grassland environments--plus, they're often smaller and so less worth the effort of catching them. Rough terrain makes for rough, tough, wily, jumpy creatures. A dragon's not going to be flying around in the mountains, cruising for mountain goats if it can help it because those goats are far more mobile in that terrain than it is--especially in flight where it could easily collide with terrain in pursuit of  such a nimble creature that can change direction in all dimensions so much faster than it can. 

Forests of any kind are certainly unlikely habitats, unless the dragon is very young and small. If they're say, cannibals, you might very well find all the baby dragons in forests. Also, even if dragons aren't cannibals, there may be fierce competition over territory and prey with other dragons or large predators (especially creatures like giant eagles, rocs, griffins, etc.). As a dragon is most vulnerable when it's young and small, all kinds of competitors are exceedingly likely to kill off baby dragons. Lots of large predators specifically kill off the young of competitors within the same species--and some even kill their own offspring--even if they don't eat them. 

Dragons, being so large and clumsy, probably can't incubate their own eggs and would have to pull a megapode (build a giant mound that heats as it decomposes, thus warming the eggs and protecting them. Lots of dinosaurs did or are presumed to have done this). Eggs have a finite size and thickness--there's only oh so far they can go before they can't work. Even the largest of dinosaurs didn't have eggs so much larger (if at all) than those of an ostrich. So... unless dinosaurs are livebearers, they're stuck being quite small when they hatch. Livebearers are another matter entirely, but could be sizable because I don't believe a dragon's pelvis would require an especially awful gateway to independent living unless that baby was huge. 

The whole "dragons in caves" thing is grossly overdone. A creature with that much armor has no need to live in a cave, can't fly in a cave, and is therefore actually more  vulnerable to attack in a cave than about anywhere else. Depending on the size of the dragon, caves that could even contain it are few and far between--and often have small entrances. If dragons are burrowers to help them thermoregulate, their fondness for caves and burrows could at least be explained. I see no reason why they couldn't form temporary (or permanent/semi-permanent) burrows to keep a more stable temperature during the heat of a Sahara afternoon, to shield eggs from excessive moisture loss in an arid/high altitude environment, or to hibernate during long Scandinavian winters. They might even use burrows like traps for prey, and might only fly as absolutely necessary or for cultural/mating purposes. 

***
Holy crap, it is so late, and I have spent entirely too much time thinking about this. It's just so much more stimulating to think about this than to revise and write on Pinocchio.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 11, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> But I'm talking about life sciences papers--not Merriam-Webster. Each scientific discipline and professor and textbook uses its own definitions. You might as well be throwing Urban Dictionary at me for all the relevance Webster's got with published scientific literature and debate. The fact that you pointed to the third definition should state that it's not exactly the most common use of that word anyway. My experience in the college biology department give me a different take on which departments use which words how. My experience in the public health/epidemiology department at the same college told me that not all sciences use the same words the same way.
> 
> Same thing goes for "tools" and "tool use", as I've already stated. Even within the same scientific discipline, everyone defines the terms differently. "Modification" can also be termed any number of ways. After all, we're not creating the atoms in the material. But when a human sharpens the end of a long stick to make a pike, we still it call it a weapon and a tool... and that's less complicated than termite sticks.
> 
> ...



Wow. I have to admit I didn't know a whole lot of this going into this story but now that I do I will definitely be going back to the drawing board. So far the most that I have on my monsters is that my werewolves are going to be nomadic, constantly moving from place to place in search of food and that there are going to be a multitude of vampire subspecies involved along the way. 

Some will be subterranean super cannibals while others will be living beings that subsist on the blood of others. I plan on having a lot of variety when it comes to my monsters but the only hard part I see is how do I group them up. For example vampires are a type of undead but what about others? Werewolves are a type of Beast Folk but what about Hellhounds?

 The term mythological beasts could apply to all creatures that are not human but inhabit the world. My point is that I'm not to concerned about what word is use for them or even how it's used because even if i use the right word for this person or creature someone is going to go and point out that "that's not the proper word!" Plus I can always fix an improper word choice in the editing phase. Well I feel I should say in the second draft phase but still.

 For me these creatures are people in all of the ways that word implies meaning that they will have all of the same qualities as us, higher brain functionality, logical reasoning, and most will have the same humanoid type of body structure unless otherwise noted. Now that being said a lot of them will have a bunch of animal characteristics as well as animalistic features like ear's or a tail even in human form. 

That's a bridge that I'll cross when I get to it but for now let's go on with the facts being that I see these creatures as people no matter if they can speak our language or not. I was mostly just curious about where these creatures would or could live if they travelled across the globe because that seams like the information that a hunter would need. 

It was just frustrating trying to research were they would or could live and coming up blank or just seeing reference maps to Europe granted that's were most of the story takes place but still I'd like another opinion besides "oh that old hag lives down by the swamp" that I see in just about everything work of fiction I've ever read that has a hag as a monster. Still though I thank all of you for the help. Keep on discussing your topic. I find it very useful and informative.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 11, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Wow. I have to admit I didn't know a whole lot of this going into this story but now that I do I will definitely be going back to the drawing board. So far the most that I have on my monsters is that my werewolves are going to be nomadic, constantly moving from place to place in search of food and that there are going to be a multitude of vampire subspecies involved along the way.
> 
> Some will be subterranean super cannibals while others will be living beings that subsist on the blood of others. I plan on having a lot of variety when it comes to my monsters but the only hard part I see is how do I group them up. For example vampires are a type of undead but what about others? Werewolves are a type of Beast Folk but what about Hellhounds?
> 
> ...



Its your story so by all means handle it how you like, I just feel the compulsion to keep staying here: There are no rules when it comes to mythical creatures. Researching dragons is great but as dragons are fictional you are essentially deriving any information you glean from such research from, well, other fantasy authors work. Which means right off the bat any time you use such “research” you are by necessity losing originality. 

Research says vampires are a type of undead? They don’t have to be. A vampire could be pretty much anything. Plenty of real world, not-undead creatures drink blood. The closer you make your version of vampire fit the established profile of “vampire” the less interesting it will probably be. What if the vampires weren’t malevolent at all but rather misunderstood creatures that on biting their victim actually help them in some way, and in the story this makes them healers? There are so many great ways to subvert reader expectations and you must must must consider every possibility to do this if you want your story to stand out from a very crowded field. 

Essentially you can create originality simply by constantly taking everything you know or “research” and asking “but what if it isn’t like that?” This is the heart of speculative fiction.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 11, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Wow. I have to admit I didn't know a whole lot id this going into this story but now that I do I think I'll go back to the drawing board. So far the most that I have on my monsters is that my werewolves are going to be nomadic, constantly moving from place to place in search of food and that there are going to be a multitude of vampire subspecies involved along the way.



Only take what suits your story, and be sure to have fun with it.


Although, I am compelled to ask, why the "multitude of vampire subspecies"? Anything that predates upon mankind is going to have a time of it. 10,000 prey/lion is nothing to the numbers of people it would take to sustain a vampire. Really think about it. A predator's population is wholly determined by the numbers of its prey species. While it seems like there are a lot of people right now, do consider that the metropolis we take for granted has only existed about 200 years because technological advances in medicine, microbiology, sanitation, engineering, animal husbandry, transportation, refrigeration/preservation, mass production, and farming simply weren't available or able to keep up with the rigors of urban living. 

Sure, a few vampires might be able to exist in a modern metropolis, but in ancient times? Nope. People were too far apart, dying off of too many other causes, and lacked the special emotional distance required by a society in order to shelter a vampire around. The fewer the people in the area, the more fight they will put up as a community. We're back to herd mentality. A serial killer can stalk a country, but not exclusively in the small town or family he lives in. He'll run out of victims, or the victims will start fighting back (and win because they outnumber him). 

Aesop had a great fable about a dog and a rabbit. The hunter asks the dog why the dog couldn't catch the rabbit--which is so much smaller and weaker than him. Surely, this big, strong dog with his long, strong limbs and his great teeth could take out one little, terrified rabbit. And the dog answers, "Because the rabbit was running for his life, and I was only running for my dinner." 

Terrified prey have lots of defense mechanisms that get glossed over in our often predator-glorifying media. They're literally running for their lives, and once they know it, the game's on. They do try to fight back every way they can. Humans are no exception to fight/flight response and going to great lengths to kill our killers and protect our own. If a serial rapist is prowling the streets, single women start packing heat, knives, pepper spray, taking martial arts classes, shacking up with bigger, stronger men or travel/live in groups. Prey get paranoid. And eventually, one of those potential prey is quite possibly going to kill that predator, one way or another--hauling it to justice, injuring it so it can't hurt anyone else, causing it to starve to death, crushing its skull, whatever.  

To get past our indomitable desire for self-preservation, a predator has to convince us that we're not in any danger and/or that someone else will take care of the problem. If neither of these conditions is satisfied, there's going to be a mob with torches and pitchforks. The more people are around, the more likely the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility will kick in. Look up the rape and murder of Kitty Genovese for a great discussion on this dark side of human herd mentality.  

Even if vampires have a lot of strength and magic on humans, at some point, humans discovered those weaknesses... through killing vampires. Imagine being the first vampire getting killed by a stake through the heart, for instance. Here he was thinking he was invincible and just going to have a light snack... then, *WHOMP*  *Stabby McStabbypants has entered the chat.

*Another to consider with prey is how quickly they reproduce and mature. Humans mature and reproduce slowly--particularly when considering how small we are for all that time and resources we take to reach adulthood. We also don't have many offspring. A good prey species reproduces quickly, matures quickly, and has a great feed-to-finished-weight conversion ratio (more of what it eats adds to its mass). Humans are about the worst prey species I can think of on every quality--plus, we're dangerous and stubborn as a species, so if the monster is shown to be a big enough threat, why, we'll chase it to the ends of the earth, invent all new specialized weapons and equipment, and hang its head on a wall if it's the last thing we do. Bad enough predators of humans get wiped out quickly. So long as a monster is acknowledged to be a predator of mankind, we're going to wipe it out everywhere we find it.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 11, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Its your story so by all means handle it how you like, I just feel the compulsion to keep staying here: There are no rules when it comes to mythical creatures. Researching dragons is great but as dragons are fictional you are essentially deriving any information you glean from such research from, well, other fantasy authors work. Which means right off the bat any time you use such “research” you are by necessity losing originality.
> 
> Research says vampires are a type of undead? They don’t have to be. A vampire could be pretty much anything. Plenty of real world, not-undead creatures drink blood. The closer you make your version of vampire fit the established profile of “vampire” the less interesting it will probably be. What if the vampires weren’t malevolent at all but rather misunderstood creatures that on biting their victim actually help them in some way, and in the story this makes them healers? There are so many great ways to subvert reader expectations and you must must must consider every possibility to do this if you want your story to stand out from a very crowded field.
> 
> Essentially you can create originality simply by constantly taking everything you know or “research” and asking “but what if it isn’t like that?” This is the heart of speculative fiction.



Nah. 

Limyaael's Fantasy Rants took this one with gusto. Two big tropes when it comes to fantasy races come to mind: Our Critter X is different, and Our Critter X are all the same. Dwarves are about the only race that gets the "all the same" treatment. Elves, dragons, vampires and werewolves are about the worst offenders.

Just making something different and "imparting originality" doesn't make a story better or a creature more compelling on its own. Ultimately, the story is what sells it. 

Research is pretty much always a great thing to do. We don't want to fall into cliches. We don't want to write the same stories as everyone else, but we want to be recognized and read. Sometimes, this takes market research to know what the readers expect and want to see. Sometimes subversions are a great thing, but in an of themselves, they don't make the story. The gimmick isn't the story. Research doesn't need to deprive an author of originality--a lack of imagination is what does that on its own. All research can really do is broaden horizons. The author is under no obligation ever to write exactly what someone else has written before. Knowing what others have written can inspire a fresh new perspective and get ideas churning--and also let us know potential pitfalls in advance.  

Scientific research is never a bad thing (#bionut). 

*Steal my ideas.* You'll never come up with the same story as I would--even if we both decided to write a yeti screenwriter in LA. Plus, I don't see myself getting back into straight fantasy ever. I've been out of the writing game a long time now, but I'm pretty sold on science fiction--even if it's sometimes pretty soft and might even feel like fantasy. Fighting over who's got the best gimmick is pointless. 


That said, your advice was totally sound, and some of the vampire ideas are fascinating. The Anita Blake series gimmick on why vampires are allowed to feed is that the bite has a drug-like effect on the host species. Thus, some people actually like being fed upon. 

Would be kinda cool if vampires were more like Victorian doctors--bleeding people out for a presumed medical benefit--and even cooler if that bleeding actually had a medical benefit. What if they got the reputation for drinking blood undeservedly and it turns out they're just surgeons? Maybe they're a race of empaths and are thus predisposed to medicine because they can't stand the pain of persons around them? Maybe they're a symbiotic or parasite of sorts on mankind. Maybe they're intellectual vampires who subsist on stimulating conversations and starve in dull environments. The less likely they are to kill us and more likely they are to help us, the more likely humans are to tolerate/encourage their presence.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 11, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Its your story so by all means handle it how you like, I just feel the compulsion to keep staying here: There are no rules when it comes to mythical creatures. Researching dragons is great but as dragons are fictional you are essentially deriving any information you glean from such research from, well, other fantasy authors work. Which means right off the bat any time you use such “research” you are by necessity losing originality.
> 
> Research says vampires are a type of undead? They don’t have to be. A vampire could be pretty much anything. Plenty of real world, not-undead creatures drink blood. The closer you make your version of vampire fit the established profile of “vampire” the less interesting it will probably be. What if the vampires weren’t malevolent at all but rather misunderstood creatures that on biting their victim actually help them in some way, and in the story this makes them healers? There are so many great ways to subvert reader expectations and you must must must consider every possibility to do this if you want your story to stand out from a very crowded field.
> 
> Essentially you can create originality simply by constantly taking everything you know or “research” and asking “but what if it isn’t like that?” This is the heart of speculative fiction.



You know I had thought of doing the whole living vampires but figured people would hate them for not being undead, I put it on the back burner of I decided to revisit it at any point in the future but its mostly stayed there collecting dust. And now I'm really inspired to take some creative license with my monsters. Ok yeah I'm making a list and seeing just what I can do with these guys.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 11, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Nah.
> 
> Limyaael's Fantasy Rants took this one with gusto. Two big tropes when it comes to fantasy races come to mind: Our Critter X is different, and Our Critter X are all the same. Dwarves are about the only race that gets the "all the same" treatment. Elves, dragons, vampires and werewolves are about the worst offenders.
> 
> ...



This is true as well. I had an idea to make a subspecies of living vampires that were blood mages who used there talents to help the sick and dying. These guys may one day see the light of publication of I can get there motivation down.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 11, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> This is true as well. I had an idea to make a subspecies of living vampires that were blood mages who used there talents to help the sick and dying. These guys may one day see the light of publication of I can get there motivation down.



Don't write "vampires", in this case. Give them a different name (not one associated with modern vampires at all) and properly liberate them from the shackles of expectations. "Vampire" a loaded term, heavy with the connotations imparted by so many other writers, movies, and video games. Existing creatures always come with baggage. They have their fans and detractors. But new races don't. They're fresh and exciting automatically--especially if they don't read like carbon copies of other existing creatures but with a funny new name and perhaps a prosthetic rubber forehead. 

I've only written one straight fantasy novel (had a prolific fantasy phase in my early twenties), but even then, I discovered that making up my own dang races was a very fulfilling experience. 

I've got two major long fiction projects currently. One's a stand-alone fantasy romantic tragedy turned... far future science-fiction series that still pretty much reads like a fantasy. Other than humans, the races are all-new. Whole story started due to Twilight mania around my workplace at the time (~2009ish). Supposedly, Twilight was a great romance in part because the love story was "impossible". I didn't view it as "impossible", in part because it "worked" in the novels. Matter of fact, in the right circumstances, with enough skillful cajoling and torment, I think most people could form a reasonable romance with almost anyone (might take more extreme circumstances for some people though). So I set out to make the impossible romance, which meant that I had to make at least one new species--one that was biologically incompatible with another sentient race--because humans simply can't make impossible romances with each other (we just make for _exceedingly, perhaps even nigh-infinitely unlikely _romances). I wound up using two non-human races: the Alasei, and the knyrans. Neither of these races has any prior versions in fiction, so I can say anything I want about both of them without ticking anyone in the readership off for grossly changing an existing mythological creature.


***Edit***
After thinking on this more, Alasei are a kind of Cat Folk, even if they're not one someone else made up. As an unabashed #bionut and animal person, I included a lot of weird details in their design and made some of these central to the plot. Lots of fictional cat people are basically "little bit beastly" Cat Girls. If it's important to set off an erotic adventure, cat girls have heats sometimes in fiction, but otherwise, such cat details don't show up unless it's to embarrass a female cat lady. Nobody ever seems to pay attention to the more veterinary aspects of cats when making anthropomorphic cat peoples though--and without this, they come off as humans in a different skin, furry window dressing on a rubber forehead alien. While some dedicated furries might be attracted to Alasei, the beastly sex appeal that seems to follow cat people is not something I've intended to indulge (even if a POV Alasei gets some, the race as a whole isn't intended to be sex on a stick just waiting to happen).  I've intentionally done a lot to subvert common cat people tropes.

Knyrans, however, are an altogether different monster. They've been gradually changing since my childhood, and they've always been complicated. While they don't look as "beastly" as Alasei (which are basically bipedal Siamese of very roughly human size and proportions), knyrans have other "not human" qualities that often take other races by surprise (or themselves, if they're not raised by their own kind). Like debilitating heats/ruts that might involve blackout periods, rape and murder.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 11, 2019)

*Blood mages vs Vampires*
So, these blood mages use their talents to help the sick and dying... why do they need another motivation? It can, at this point, be as easily a cultural aspect to an existing class of mages. They just choose to go into medicine--perhaps for any of the same reasons that doctors do nowadays. Maybe they have a magical art that requires blood sacrifice to cure an illness. Perhaps the art requires sacrifice of equal weight or value to whatever is given. Maybe the amount of cure is directly proportional to the amount of blood sacrificed. This could be for any number of reasons. It might be part of a divine spell--a spell component or part of a sacrifice to some other entity, much like ancient religions sacrificed animals and crops to their gods (only the gods actually answer for blood sacrifice in this case). It could also be a food item--this race feeds on blood and needs to eat to live, so this is just payment and actually has nothing to do with the magic itself. Maybe, because of their diet, they're very sensitive to the changes in sick persons (just like we don't want to eat diseased animals) and thus able to more accurately diagnose us. While such distinctions in our state of health might have evolved to keep them from getting sick by eating infected persons, they can use it to practice medicine on us more effectively, and thus we tolerate them so long as they play nice (treating us in exchange for non-diseased blood or money)  and thus they've turned a parasitic or predatory relationship into a mutualistic one. 

*Re: Cannibalism*
Also, just because you've mentioned it earlier, cannibals eat their own kind (so a vampire can't be a cannibal unless it's a diseased human). Cannibalism itself gets a bad rap but is a morally gray area, as played by a given culture and set of circumstances. It's detestable, forgivable, preferable, or even an honored tradition in some places at some times to some peoples. The more research I did into the practice (not something one should generally do at 2am alone in dark house), the more nuanced it got. You want to stick your given moral/cultural compass on its head, give cannibalism some nuance. It doesn't take much imagination for anyone born in a Western culture to turn cannibals into bad guys or monsters. I'm not saying cannibals are always "good guys", of course, but I did find it rewarding to make a culture of cannibals who weren't intrinsically horrible. Come to think of it, I've made a few cannibal cultures that weren't so bad. 

Even when working with human cannibals as strictly bad guys, do keep in mind that subsistence cannibalism is very difficult to make work ecologically speaking because humans have such a low feed conversion ratio, so if humans form a large or the largest portion of the diet, frequent bloody wars with other tribes are necessary to sustain such a culture. Such diets will most likely need a lot of supplementation with the meat of other animals and lots of plants. While we all know why cannibals don't eat clowns, fewer people know that cannibals don't like eating smokers (true story, they apparently taste terrible), so, even among your man-eating monsters, they might prefer eating some people to others.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 20, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> *Blood mages vs Vampires*
> So, these blood mages use their talents to help the sick and dying... why do they need another motivation? It can, at this point, be as easily a cultural aspect to an existing class of mages. They just choose to go into medicine--perhaps for any of the same reasons that doctors do nowadays. Maybe they have a magical art that requires blood sacrifice to cure an illness. Perhaps the art requires sacrifice of equal weight or value to whatever is given. Maybe the amount of cure is directly proportional to the amount of blood sacrificed. This could be for any number of reasons. It might be part of a divine spell--a spell component or part of a sacrifice to some other entity, much like ancient religions sacrificed animals and crops to their gods (only the gods actually answer for blood sacrifice in this case). It could also be a food item--this race feeds on blood and needs to eat to live, so this is just payment and actually has nothing to do with the magic itself. Maybe, because of their diet, they're very sensitive to the changes in sick persons (just like we don't want to eat diseased animals) and thus able to more accurately diagnose us. While such distinctions in our state of health might have evolved to keep them from getting sick by eating infected persons, they can use it to practice medicine on us more effectively, and thus we tolerate them so long as they play nice (treating us in exchange for non-diseased blood or money)  and thus they've turned a parasitic or predatory relationship into a mutualistic one.
> 
> *Re: Cannibalism*
> ...



That's a villain in the making. A selective cannibal that has a taste for a certain race of people. Man the idea's are endless!


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 21, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> That's a villain in the making. A selective cannibal that has a taste for a certain race of people. Man the idea's are endless!



Anybody can turn a cannibal into a bad guy. They're more rewarding as comedic relief, memorable side characters, "noble savages", and heroes though 

Have you watched Santa Clarita Diet? Might give you some inspiration. I haven't seen it, but I've heard it's funny (and probably horrific). I have heard that cannibalism is kind of addictive. I'm not sure if there's a chemical that does it, or if it's ease/thrill of the hunt or tastiness (heard we're like pork, so, if you start thinking of everyone around you like bacon-on-the-hoof, that might explain it). 

In the Forbidden People, there's a large nation of cannibal knyran tribes. Each tribe has its own laws concerning who eats who, why and how. Some tribes only eat their own dead as part of ritual sacrifice or funeral rites. Some will eat persons of a different tribe or tribes, but not those of others. Some are vegetarian except for ritual sacrifices and funeral rites. Some will eat anybody--including a different subrace of knyrans and humans--as part of funeral rites honoring those fallen in combat (they eat people who were "worthy foes" or are presumed to carry some kind of magic and strength). To be eaten by the culture is to be honored.  It's a hefty compliment and rite of passage into the honored afterlife--but that doesn't mean any other culture on the planet takes it that way (because it's horrific and an intense dishonor to everyone else). 

Some super important characters are cannibals from this tribe--and another one is the main character/author of his own novel/collection of essays "The Suicide Book of Dark Secrets". In perhaps the most touching story in the whole book, he describes how he found a woman he had deeply respected after she'd been tortured, raped and stabbed. He tries to run away with her and get help, and she keeps requesting that he perform the rite, eat her, and send her on--but he refuses. He finds their home village deserted and ransacked, and still tries to keep her alive, until all hope is lost, and she starts the rite of passing on her own. Faced with her inevitable death and wanting to make this passing easier on her, he finishes the rite and eats her heart raw to give her an honorable death. Man admits--even revels to an extent--in his villainy through most of the book, but he treats this act of cannibalism with tenderness and respect, so it's an interesting contrast.   


Even in cannibal races/cultures, there can be different sects, protocols and reasons behind the act.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 21, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Anybody can turn a cannibal into a bad guy. They're more rewarding as comedic relief, memorable side characters, "noble savages", and heroes though


 Honestly while I thought of making a comedic cannibal character the thought of one person eating another one is just a bit to much for me to stomach at the moment. Maybe later when I get more novels under my belt but for right now I can say that you've sparked my inner writer to write a story with a cannibalistic hero. So going to put that on my back burner for now.



seigfried007 said:


> Have you watched Santa Clarita Diet? Might give you some inspiration. I haven't seen it, but I've heard it's funny (and probably horrific). I have heard that cannibalism is kind of addictive. I'm not sure if there's a chemical that does it, or if it's ease/thrill of the hunt or tastiness (heard we're like pork, so, if you start thinking of everyone around you like bacon-on-the-hoof, that might explain it).


 I've heard of it and saw it on either Hulu or Netflix. I might watch it now just to see how it is.



seigfried007 said:


> In the Forbidden People, there's a large nation of cannibal knyran tribes. Each tribe has its own laws concerning who eats who, why and how. Some tribes only eat their own dead as part of ritual sacrifice or funeral rites. Some will eat persons of a different tribe or tribes, but not those of others. Some are vegetarian except for ritual sacrifices and funeral rites. Some will eat anybody--including a different subrace of knyrans and humans--as part of funeral rites honoring those fallen in combat (they eat people who were "worthy foes" or are presumed to carry some kind of magic and strength). To be eaten by the culture is to be honored.  It's a hefty compliment and rite of passage into the honored afterlife--but that doesn't mean any other culture on the planet takes it that way (because it's horrific and an intense dishonor to everyone else).



I've heard of this happening in real life with some tribe in the amazon that would eat there dead to honor there ancestors very cool concept.



seigfried007 said:


> Some super important characters are cannibals from this tribe--and another one is the main character/author of his own novel/collection of essays "The Suicide Book of Dark Secrets". In perhaps the most touching story in the whole book, he describes how he found a woman he had deeply respected after she'd been tortured, raped and stabbed. He tries to run away with her and get help, and she keeps requesting that he perform the rite, eat her, and send her on--but he refuses. He finds their home village deserted and ransacked, and still tries to keep her alive, until all hope is lost, and she starts the rite of passing on her own. Faced with her inevitable death and wanting to make this passing easier on her, he finishes the rite and eats her heart raw to give her an honorable death. Man admits--even revels to an extent--in his villainy through most of the book, but he treats this act of cannibalism with tenderness and respect, so it's an interesting contrast.



And now I really want to read this story. It's peaked my interest in a way no other story about a cannibal ever has.



seigfried007 said:


> Even in cannibal races/cultures, there can be different sects, protocols and reasons behind the act.



True. I did plan on my cannibals having there own culture that no one else understood and I still have some research to do on the subject of cannibalism in general but one day I will definitely write a story about a cannibal hero and there struggle's in the world.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 21, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> And now I really want to read this story. It's peaked my interest in a way no other story about a cannibal ever has.


Okay, I'm going to try to condense this collection down to the relevant cannibal parts so you can understand the context. Hopefully, it can help with some story ideas and worldbuilding.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 21, 2019)

Excerpts from the Suicide Book of Dark Secrets

You're looking for the very last story: The Death of Poison Flower. I've put in a lot for context because, after reading it through, I realized that not much was going to make sense. The very first post is just background info on the races, peoples, countries involved. The second post is excerpts about the narrator as a person (he's a pretty funny, ornery kinda guy). The third is about what his life was like among the cannibals before the war started. The fourth is about two memorable deaths during the war. 

He actually changes quite a bit throughout the journaling process. Starts out funny, tongue-in-cheek, proud, but by the end of it, he's laid out his most vulnerable moments and thoughts, come to terms with some of his past, realized that he's not actually as evil as he says he is--and doesn't want to be evil (or a stooge) anymore.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 21, 2019)

This is going to be good. I'll have to read it when i get home seeing as i'm currently at work right now but as soon as i get done my feedback will be in your P.M.


----------



## kilgore (Sep 4, 2019)

geographical origin, but avoid overt stereotypes that could be misinterpreted


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 4, 2019)

Are we talking about our Earth or some alternative one where monsters exist? Either way, it seems to me you could (if you want) address the migration crisis by, I don't know, having pogroms or something drive certain monsters out of a certain area, and have to move to a new home. Maybe they end up on the road with their mortal enemies (vampires/werewolves or ice monsters/dragons) and have to learn to get along if they want to avoid being wiped out by humanity?


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 8, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> Are we talking about our Earth or some alternative one where monsters exist? Either way, it seems to me you could (if you want) address the migration crisis by, I don't know, having pogroms or something drive certain monsters out of a certain area, and have to move to a new home. Maybe they end up on the road with their mortal enemies (vampires/werewolves or ice monsters/dragons) and have to learn to get along if they want to avoid being wiped out by humanity?


This would be an alternate earth were they exist. That is an awesome idea. Even if they exist in huge numbers I could in theory make i to where they have a nice foothold in society and have to learn to live with humans and vice versa.


----------

