What Is Your Favorite Mythical Race?

[Traitorfish]

It sounds like you're talking about the huldra, which are primarily a component of Swedish folklore. The English usage of "troll" tends to refer to the Norwegian version, however questionably, which is traditionally treated as a chaotic nature-spirit or wild creature, sometimes associate with the jötun; in one poem, for example, a troll-witch declares herself to be, literally or figuratively, a "giant of the gales".
Of course, this only goes to show how imprecise folklore can be; the Norwegian troll is giant-like, the Southern Swedish troll is perhaps comparable to a fairy, while the Scottish trow, inherited from the Norsemen of the Northern Isles, is a diminutive, goblin-like creature. It doesn't help that, as I said, troll seems similar to "fairy" and "elf" in that it was often used to refer to a broad range of creatures, often a description of nature, rather than form, and only relatively recently came to denote a particular creature. (And the troll is still a broad range even then- when it can include this, this, this and this, you know that there's no real consensus.)

 

[Ramius75]

Syreen

 

[Verbose]

It sounds like you're talking about the huldra, which are primarily a component of Swedish folklore.

Nope, not at all. The huldra is a lone female figure luring lone men away on jobs deep in the forests to their doom. They've never been known to do much more than that. Troll/vittra/little-people etc. have entire societies intersecting with the human one on occasion.

 

[boogaboo]

Elves.
For Elune!

 

[Traitorfish]

Nope, not at all. The huldra is a lone female figure luring lone men away on jobs deep in the forests to their doom. They've never been known to do much more than that. Troll/vittra/little-people etc. have entire societies intersecting with the human one on occasion.

Oh, really? I'd been told that the huldra go in for the whole "marry-the-human-but-there's-a-catch" thing.

Well, like I said, folklore is complicated. Unlike the ''Monster Manual'', a folkloric "troll" is often more or less what any one individual asserts it to be.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Elves.
For Elune!

The real Elves, you mean. Blood Elves suck.

 

[frekk]

Honest politicians.

 

[kill fire]

Honest politicians.

I see what you did there.

 

[azzaman333]

Canadians.

 

[Aysee]

Elves. The Tolkien variety.

On the list, I'd have to say dragons, (the Eastern variety) or maybe even vampires, but the Twilight saga ruined them for me.

 

[Angst]

Noggles.

 

[Traitorfish]

...maybe even vampires, but the Twilight saga ruined them for me.

This seems to be a recurring idea in this topic, and it's honestly not one I understand; how can a single fictional series ruin two centuries of fiction and thousands of years of folklore? If it is so despised, why credit it with such influence?

 

[dirtyparrot]

Amazons

 

[Angst]

This seems to be a recurring idea in this topic, and it's honestly not one I understand; how can a single fictional series ruin two centuries of fiction and thousands of years of folklore? If it is so despised, why credit it with such influence?

When you say "I like vampires" today, will they think of Twilight or the mythic counterpart?

Sadly, when I mentioned vampires randomly to a female friend of mine, she began referencing all sorts of pop cultural examples, but had no idea of the sagas of the old "true" vampires. As such, the general idea of "vampire" has shifted to the Twilight rather than the mythical. So, it makes sense. Somewhat.

Personally, I prefer the vampiric race from Magic: the Gathering's Zendikar realm.

 

[Traitorfish]

When you say "I like vampires" today, will they think of Twilight or the mythic counterpart?

Sadly, when I mentioned vampires randomly to a female friend of mine, she began referencing all sorts of pop cultural examples, but had no idea of the sagas of the old "true" vampires. As such, the general idea of "vampire" has shifted to the Twilight rather than the mythical. So, it makes sense. Somewhat.

That's a false dichotomy. There's a great deal of modern fiction- more than a century's worth- between Twilight and the original folklore. That a small number of rapid fans confuse an entire body of fiction and folklore with their one over-hyped series does not imply that the rest of Western culture has followed suit.

 

[Angst]

That's a false dichotomy. There's a great deal of modern fiction- more than a century's worth- between Twilight and the original folklore. That a small number of rapid fans confuse an entire body of fiction and folklore with their one over-hyped series does not imply that the rest of Western culture has followed suit.

Well, I'm not saying I agree with the poster you replied to yourself (I don't even remember who it was), but fact is that in my social circle and age, vampires are generally considered Twilight-ish, aka., emo-masturbation. The guy probably don't want to be connected with that.

If you think (Or know) that most people think of vampires as the original, cool, mythical creatures, then I'm happy. It's just that the people I know have a hard time realizing what mythical creatures I talk about. Like when I say "troll" to a generic kid, he usually thinks of this:

Spoiler large picture :

... At least from what I've experienced. It's not that I talk about trolls all the time, but it's like Hercules; when I say Heracles, they go "Who?" Pop culture has a tendency to define. That's how my social circle is anyways. Please tell me it's not true everywhere

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, I'm not saying I agree with the poster you replied to yourself (I don't even remember who it was), but fact is that in my social circle and age, vampires are generally considered Twilight-ish, aka., emo-masturbation. The guy probably don't want to be connected with that.

If you think (Or know) that most people think of vampires as the original, cool, mythical creatures, then I'm happy. It's just that the people I know have a hard time realizing what mythical creatures I talk about.

Well, I think that most people think of vampires as the Victorian gothic archetypes, and, to a lesser extent, the neo-gothic Blade/Underworld/Buffy archetype. I'm not suggesting that pop culture is immune from mutation (in fact, vampire's entered Western culture as the Gothic archetype, rather than the folkloric form), or that most people are active folklorists, just that Twilight has had a very limited impact out side of two groups: Twilight fans, and Twilight anti-fans, neither of whom make up anything more than a small, yet very loud, portion of the population, neither of whom carry much cultural clout, and both of whom have the cultural memory of goldfish.
As such, I can't understand why the anti-fans deign to credit it with such influence. I suppose that's what it is to be an anti-fan, as much as it is to be a fan.

Like when I say "troll" to a generic kid, he usually thinks of this:

Spoiler large picture :

I'm not sure what a "generic kid" is, why they are all myopic Warcraft fans, and why they can, in any way, be taken as representative of modern Western culture. I suspect that you are, as in the vampire example, generalising based on selection bias of your social circles.

... At least from what I've experienced. It's not that I talk about trolls all the time, but it's like Hercules; when I say Heracles, they go "Who?" Pop culture has a tendency to define. That's how my social circle is anyways. Please tell me it's not true everywhere

Well, in all fairness, that one's as old as muck; it's just a result of a slightly arbitrary preference for the Roman name over the Greek among Victorian neoclassicists, it has nothing at all do with "pop culture", whatever that may be in this context. You mas as well suggest that people are ignorant because they aware of Thor, but not of Thunor or Donar; it's really just semantics.

 

[Angst]

It's Thor in Danish though.

I'm glad you're saying it's not as wide-spread as I thought it was.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Centaurs are pretty cool.

On a somewhat related note, why is Satan depicted vaguely satyr-like?

 

[Traitorfish]

On a somewhat related note, why is Satan depicted vaguely satyr-like?

That depiction is based on the Greek god Pan; the reason that he is singled out seems to be nothing more than his inhuman appearance, and the stark contrast it prevents with the saintly image of Christ, and the patriarchal image of God.
Oddly enough, this is actually a relatively recent tendency, rooted, I am lead to believe, in a slightly puritanical reaction to 19th century neoclassicism, mysticism and proto-neopaganism, in which "horned god" figures such a Pan were popular. Earlier depictions tended to make use of either a deformed, monstrous humanoid, or, if they were feeling a little more sophisticated, a superficially heroic archetype, in keeping with his status as a "fallen angel".
For example, in this Victorian illustration for Milton's Paradise Lost, he is depicted as a neoclassical warrior-angel, his villainy marked by his bat-like wings, in contrast to the traditional bird-wings of his heavenly rivals.

Spoiler :

Wings, often of this variety, are probably the most consistent feature of pre-modern depictions, yet, oddly enough, are often missing from the satyr-derived depiction. Just goes to show how arbitrary such things are, really.