The difference between learning a modern language and an ancient language is that in first year French you learn “Where is the bathroom?” and “How do I get to the train station?” and in first year Attic Greek or Latin you learn “I have judged you worthy of death” and “The tyrant had everyone in the city killed.”
Even if you don’t watch Dark Shadows, that picture illustrates a common gripe of mine- hairy people look like apes. Not wolves. Movie and tv werewolves always end up looking like wereapes. (Though it’s still sad that DS’s werewolf looked better and more expensive than Buffy’s, so many years later.)
That is a very valid complaint, which I think the effects people of the 1980s took into account when working on the wave of werewolf films of that time. The werewolves in “The Howling" began to look properly Lupine:
And the lycanthrope from “An American Werewolf in London" is truly Dire:
Even going as far forward as “Dog Soldiers" from the early 21st Century we get some nice man-wolf hybrids:
But your point stands. The few who do look like wolves crossed with men or just nightmarish wolves are far outnumbered by the ‘stick some hair and funky teeth on it and call it a werewolf’ variety.
Perhaps this is why Werewolf movies are fairly rare compared to vampire and zombie flicks, the effects and makeup are much harder to create convincingly for the meager budgets most horror films are asked to work with. In addition, werewolves lack the sex appeal of the vampire and the uncanny valley creepiness of zombies. They strike a more primal cord of fear of the beast outside the campfire that modern man may have lost somewhere along the way as we cocooned ourselves in our caves of glass and steel and put up barriers of concrete between us and nature.
We have forgotten the terror of the predator, the monster, the beast and instead craft the other into the image of ourselves. With the vampire this has turned him into the weepy, self-loathing, romantic anti-hero. With the zombie, this makes him a pop-culture icon, the butt of jokes and the star of serial drama. The werewolf doesn’t fit neatly into this human monster pile as easily. He is still the untamed beast and the most we can do is turn him into the hot shirtless guy who is at odds with the mopey vampire protagonist, though not over food or territory but over the affections of a very human girl.
I see it the other way around, actually- the werewolf is neglected not because its inhumanity is too scary, but because it isn’t relatable. How many urban or suburban moviegoing audiences have ever seen a wolf in the wild? Not me! We’re scared of other people (hence the zombies) and scared-and-tittilated by personal predation (hence the vampires), but Hollywood just doesn’t see nature as a threat. Once upon a time, hearing a howl in the distance meant you had to lock your doors and check on your children and livestock. Now, for most audiences, it seems quaint.
The sad thing for the werewolf is that it didn’t have to be this way; most old-school folk tales about werewolves overlap with those of vampires. But when fiction took over from folklore, the monsters seem to have split and the vampire got custody of all the cool demonic powers and thirst for blood. Werewolves were just wolves.
Maybe this is part of why werewolves seem to show up more in urban fantasy than horror these days.
WHY WAS I UNAWARE OF THE FACT THAT “DISGRUNTLED” IS, IN FACT, THE OPPOSITE OF “GRUNTLED”
WHY DOES NOBODY USE THIS WORD
I’m so gruntled to have found this
'Gruntled' was back-formed from 'disgruntled' by P.G. Wodehouse in 1938 for one of his best-known lines, in The Code of the Woosters:
He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.
It isn’t a real word, unfortunately; it’s only used rarely, and in jokes. ‘Disgruntled’ is actually formed from ‘dis’ and ‘gruntle’, which is a variant of ‘grunt’, and I think it’s supposed to describe what you do when you’re disgruntled, which is scowl and go ‘mrrurh’.
But! If we choose to discount facts, we can imagine that ‘disgruntled’ really was formed from ‘gruntled’, which would make it one of those poor orphaned words whose parents has died. There are lots of these. If you’re ‘ruthless’, for instance, you’ve run out of ‘ruth’, or pity, as, unfortunately, has the English language. If you’re ‘listless’, you’re out of ‘list’, which is joy or desire. You can still ‘commit’ these days, but you can’t take it back any more, as its opposite, ‘demit’, has gone to the big dictionary in the sky. We’ve kept ‘impede’, but lost ‘expede’. My hair can be and frequently is 'unkempt', but I don't get to say it's 'kempt' when it isn't. I can go 'to' a place, but never 'fro', unless I go 'to and fro'.
There are many more of these, but perhaps the most sadly neglected word in the language isn’t orphaned at all. It’s an obscure seventeenth-century one called ‘versutiloquent’, which describes someone who uses words craftily—which, by this point, I hope you and I can use to describe ourselves.
In my research over the past several months, I’ve run into a lot of different ideas of what the autism spectrum really is. Some of these seem accurate, some seem like crude over-simplifications, and some others seem just outright false.
This is my best attempt to collect and organize my thoughts on just what exactly the autism spectrum is, and what some of the implications of that are.
This is going to be a long post, so I’m putting most of it beneath a break.
Here’s the TLDR if you want to jump straight to the conclusion though:
HAVE WE TALKED ABOUT CHILDREN’SBOOK AUTHOR/ILLUSTRATOR USAGI TSUKINO BECAUSE I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO BECAUSE IT MAKES ME HEART SOAR
This actually reminded me that Usagi canonically has some drawing ability in the anime (she did that whole little sequence trying to jog Mamoru’s memory) and, well, just the idea of taking the meta of Usagi-as-young-Naoko to its ultimate end.