Here we go again. Hi. I made that old dragon meme, yes I did, and now I’m back because this wh

Here we go again. Hi. I made that old dragon meme, yes I did, and now I’m back because this whole topic bothers me way more than it should. Here’s more information on the subject. If you are lazy like me, except when it comes to dragons apparently, here are some highlights from said info: Humans are obsessed with dividing things into categories. This compulsion, though useful in a scientific context, is downright silly when applied to the vast, diverse history of imaginary things. You can’t break dragons into a cladogram of various species and subspecies. Medieval Bob and his neighbor Medieval John could describe dragons two distinctly different ways and both be valid because, surprise, dragon’s aren’t real. … Bestiaries were primarily religious allegories that starred animals. If you look at all the medieval drawings of lions, you might think that several different creatures are being depicted. Since dragons are entirely imaginary, there was even less visual consistency with their designs. Does that mean that every variation represented a new species of dragon? That was not the intention of the artists. Maybe that’s the case in your fantasy book, but not in modern Bob’s fantasy book, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Let people imagine dragons in their own unique ways. Maybe your dragon is radioactive, radioactive. The “dragons” in my meme are more different than similar, and I run the risk of erasing their unique cultural origins by suggesting that they are related. Over generalizing is problematic, but applying an artificial taxonomy to imaginary things is both nonsensical and literally erases any “dragons” that do not conform to a cherry-picked standard. I argue that this exclusionary method, based entirely on popular culture and not folklore, is more detrimental to the understanding of mythology than treating dragons as a broad archetype. What’s more, said archetype is used by linguists and folklorists to chart cultural diffusion. Draconic themes may very well be useful historical markers. Therefore, applying the broad “Dragon” label is not without reason. I am using the Chaoskampf concept from Comparative Mythology as the archetypal basis for dragons in Europe, the Middle East, and Russia, while the typically less villainous dragons of Eastern Asia follow linguistic trails comingling Indian Nagas and Chinese Long. Western dragon= chaos, slay, bad, reptilian-ish, treasure maybe? Eastern dragon= powerful badass, role model, morality depends on the individual draggo, can be snakey/turtley/horsey/birdy/doggy/deery/manface. -- source link

More pics about