The wolf - man is kind of interesting because it opens a whole new 'man' topic. Namely that, in English, Man is gender neutral as human and gender was prefixed as wo-man for female and wer-man for male. Hence werewolf = human/wolf of the male type.
Since we mentioned ancient Greeks--and werewolves--it's worth pointing out that the oldest surviving werewolf story comes from ancient Greece. King Lycaon and all but one of his sons were turned into wolves by Zeus as punishment for their various crimes (like trying to feed Zeus human flesh). I guess the theory was, "Act like an animal, become an animal." We see the same motif in later fairy tales.
There was also a claim that anyone who prayed at the temple of Zeus Lycaeus would become a wolf (which one would think would have a negative impact on attendance).
Sadly, there are no stories about goat-headed men in Greek mythology--but there are in Egyptian mythology. (Could be be coming close to discovering the origin of Goatfury?)
The god Khnum is regularly portrayed with the head of a goat. Sadly, I don't seem to be able to insert a picture. He is often portrayed with green skin, a way of emphasizing his nature as a fertility god. His major temples are all near riverbanks, and water, as we know, is essential to agriculture. He is also pictured next to a pottery wheel, as he is also sometimes given a role in creation. In some stories, he fashions the universe. In other stories, he fashions humans. (Egyptian myth were remarkably flexible, with local variations, based on the interests of a particular city. "Our god can beat up your god--or even take his place!")
It's interesting to read this. I can't say that I know that much on this subject. I'd just seem rather idiotic if I were to pretend to know what I don't. What are your thoughts on the differences in the musical Jekyll and Hyde and literary doppelganger though? As I've said I don't know that much on this subject but literary doppelganger has to do with change doesn't it? Changing or evolving into someone else, etc. Dr. Jekyll turns into Hyde in the musical isn't that basically the same but not as literary doppelganger? It is afterall a physical change created by the medication he gave himself. That's a story I've been rather obsessed with. Personally, I think that's because I can relate to the character as you have absolutely no control when you have a seizure. It's just that you don't go around killing people and you basically only harm yourself. I certainly could relate well with that character when trying to help the legalisation of CBD oil here in the South by finding out if it helped to control my seizures. Interestingly enough, it did to a point. I would do that same thing with THC oil but I think I pissed some off when CBD oil was legalised here. Although, I'd probably do the same thing again because that could help save a life. Anyway, I do wonder about the connection... change interests me...
Anthropomorphism is the basis of the majority of the fiction I write. One of the fictional universes I use is even called Anthropomorph, because I couldn't think of a better name...
Interesting piece! The International Union of Geologic Sciences rejected the proposal to add the Anthropocene as a specific geologic period. Seems to be a term most dominantly used as a catch phrase for news outlets. But, with the evidence of nuclear tests, micro plastics, and burning fossil fuels, humans have assuredly left a marking impact on the planet.
It's a useful term, and of course we are nowhere near done reshaping the planet, so perhaps geologists will reconsider one day. For now, at least it's raising awareness of how much impact we have had, so I'll take it as a pseudo-win for language!
I think some of the hesitancy was based on uncertainty of a start date. The mid 1900s makes a good case, but humans have had an impact with agriculture and logging for thousands of years. If we can agree on a more certain date, it could still happen.
I feel like we could sort of be like "around now, give or take a few thousand years" and we'd be roughly in line with other geological time line estimates.
The wolf - man is kind of interesting because it opens a whole new 'man' topic. Namely that, in English, Man is gender neutral as human and gender was prefixed as wo-man for female and wer-man for male. Hence werewolf = human/wolf of the male type.
In Latin, "man" is "vir." Sounds way cooler!
The goat art always makes my day!
Since we mentioned ancient Greeks--and werewolves--it's worth pointing out that the oldest surviving werewolf story comes from ancient Greece. King Lycaon and all but one of his sons were turned into wolves by Zeus as punishment for their various crimes (like trying to feed Zeus human flesh). I guess the theory was, "Act like an animal, become an animal." We see the same motif in later fairy tales.
There was also a claim that anyone who prayed at the temple of Zeus Lycaeus would become a wolf (which one would think would have a negative impact on attendance).
Sadly, there are no stories about goat-headed men in Greek mythology--but there are in Egyptian mythology. (Could be be coming close to discovering the origin of Goatfury?)
The god Khnum is regularly portrayed with the head of a goat. Sadly, I don't seem to be able to insert a picture. He is often portrayed with green skin, a way of emphasizing his nature as a fertility god. His major temples are all near riverbanks, and water, as we know, is essential to agriculture. He is also pictured next to a pottery wheel, as he is also sometimes given a role in creation. In some stories, he fashions the universe. In other stories, he fashions humans. (Egyptian myth were remarkably flexible, with local variations, based on the interests of a particular city. "Our god can beat up your god--or even take his place!")
Bill, I think this is me at the Vatican: https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.18172-8/22042128_10213666529674933_6566785637282903710_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=7b2446&_nc_ohc=WOrg6Fy7ulYQ7kNvgEL62yu&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-2.xx&oh=00_AYDTRQ2NSNVI90lqdkEwEmp23EMfiALDDNgB-C6mfW6olw&oe=66A8E0CB
Who is that supposed to be? I found a couple of other photos of the same piece, but it’s never identified.
My memory is a little fuzzy, but I think it's just an unidentified "goat's head" or something to that effect. I was, of course, taken aback!
It's only now that it hit me how ironic it is that one of the frontrunner AI companies is called Anthropic.
doh!
It's interesting to read this. I can't say that I know that much on this subject. I'd just seem rather idiotic if I were to pretend to know what I don't. What are your thoughts on the differences in the musical Jekyll and Hyde and literary doppelganger though? As I've said I don't know that much on this subject but literary doppelganger has to do with change doesn't it? Changing or evolving into someone else, etc. Dr. Jekyll turns into Hyde in the musical isn't that basically the same but not as literary doppelganger? It is afterall a physical change created by the medication he gave himself. That's a story I've been rather obsessed with. Personally, I think that's because I can relate to the character as you have absolutely no control when you have a seizure. It's just that you don't go around killing people and you basically only harm yourself. I certainly could relate well with that character when trying to help the legalisation of CBD oil here in the South by finding out if it helped to control my seizures. Interestingly enough, it did to a point. I would do that same thing with THC oil but I think I pissed some off when CBD oil was legalised here. Although, I'd probably do the same thing again because that could help save a life. Anyway, I do wonder about the connection... change interests me...
Anthropomorphism is the basis of the majority of the fiction I write. One of the fictional universes I use is even called Anthropomorph, because I couldn't think of a better name...
Interesting piece! The International Union of Geologic Sciences rejected the proposal to add the Anthropocene as a specific geologic period. Seems to be a term most dominantly used as a catch phrase for news outlets. But, with the evidence of nuclear tests, micro plastics, and burning fossil fuels, humans have assuredly left a marking impact on the planet.
It's a useful term, and of course we are nowhere near done reshaping the planet, so perhaps geologists will reconsider one day. For now, at least it's raising awareness of how much impact we have had, so I'll take it as a pseudo-win for language!
I think some of the hesitancy was based on uncertainty of a start date. The mid 1900s makes a good case, but humans have had an impact with agriculture and logging for thousands of years. If we can agree on a more certain date, it could still happen.
I feel like we could sort of be like "around now, give or take a few thousand years" and we'd be roughly in line with other geological time line estimates.
Considering most geologic estimates include +/- a few thousand years, or even million years, that's probably a fair point