Zack
99% hot gas
Elves, beautiful and immortal.
Nothing really, but just to say....Dragons, because the chance that they actually existed is slightly higher than the other crap you put in the poll.
I've never really understood the term "Homo superior"; it's a taxonomic nonsense, so it doesn't really lend much credibility to the concept.Homo superior. Human genetic engineering and bionics just cannot be developed fast enough.
I think the fact that you are using term which don't really mean anything is at least a little "your problem".I like the term. If you don't, your problem, not mine.
I think the fact that you are using term which don't really mean anything is at least a little "your problem".
I don't "keep" complaining about it; I issued a single remark as to the nature of the term, and then responded to your post. You're quite free to use if you like, I just think it's a bit of a silly term, being, as it is, both taxonomically incorrect and an unscientific value judgement; "posthuman" seems better. If nothing else, it's not from X-Men, which isn't exactly a reliable scientific journal.You're the one who keeps complaining about it.![]()
Other- trolls, specifically the mythical and folkloric Scandinavian variety.
Oh, indeed. Bauer's work is quite wonderful.I second this. Even more specifically, the John Bauer variety.
I'm lead to understand that they stem from the same animism that most pagan and folkloric beliefs stem from; trolls, in particular seem to have been related to the more malevolent side of nature, sometimes being associated with the giants or "jötun". It generally seems that "trolls", as a distinct entity, emerged in the Christian era, the name originally having been an adjective used to describe things which were related to a malicious or dangerous form of magic or supernatural activity, and so, like the English and French "fairy" could describe any number of things. In fact, if I understand correctly, there are still some regional differences in Scandinavia as to what is and isn't considered a troll, and the image which the rest of have is a rough average of the lot. It's possibly telling that they're about the one variety of mythical creature which even modern fantasy has failed to find a consistent archetype for.Trolls are interesting. I know nothing about how they came to be part of the mythos of the Norse though![]()
I'd say that outlook on the "troll" is a little too bleak, compared to the position they occupied in the traditional agricultural society.I'm lead to understand that they stem from the same animism that most pagan and folkloric beliefs stem from; trolls, in particular seem to have been related to the more malevolent side of nature, sometimes being associated with the giants or "jötun". It generally seems that "trolls", as a distinct entity, emerged in the Christian era, the name originally having been an adjective used to describe things which were related to a malicious or dangerous form of magic or supernatural activity, and so, like the English and French "fairy" could describe any number of things. In fact, if I understand correctly, there are still some regional differences in Scandinavia as to what is and isn't considered a troll, and the image which the rest of have is a rough average of the lot. It's possibly telling that they're about the one variety of mythical creature which even modern fantasy has failed to find a consistent archetype for.