Urban Fantasy discussion

I’ve recently started reading a new UF author by name of Cecy Robson. I’m not having much luck with her. While her technical skill seems to be outstanding, I keep running into WTF moments with characters and the like, but she did inspire a question I’ve wanted to ask other readers/writers. Were does it stop? (I’m so punny.)

At what point have were’s gone over the edge into absurdity? Cecy has a wereraccoon and wererats within the first couple of chapters. I realize that were has become a catchall term for shapeshifter in most UF and PF fiction, but should it be? The mythology around the werewolf curse is that the curse “infects” through a bite, so that’s pretty cut and dry. The mythology around other shapeshifters is different. Kitsune and huli jing are fox spirits/demons. Rakshasa are sorcerers, and so are skin walkers. Berserkers used ritual magic to transform into bears/wolves.

All in all, the only mythology around the infecting bite is werewolves, and only werewolves have the distinction of the Old English word were.

What do you think? Is a wererat acceptable? Werechuahua? Weregolden? Werelab? Wereguineapig? At what point does your WTF trigger get pulled?

Wereblood I seem to remember a were salmon been mentioned during a mass transformation in a battle scene. So that was wtf moment.

Hard to tell. From an etymologic standpoint, using the "wer(e)-" prefix doesn't shock me, since it means "man" anyway, and I can envision it easily as a general term for "a creature that shifts from man to animal, and conversely".
I draw the line at what seems ridiculous to me—a totally subjective scale, that. I wouldn't be able to take seriously a story about a weremosquito, for instance. What do you know, someday we may even see a wereman pop up.

I know exactly what you mean.

Were-reptiles eww never works for me. Even when I read about dragons I tend to roll my eyes at dragon - does not stop me from reading the story however lol

Honestly though I think growing up I used to love folklore stories so were-cats, werewolf, were-dog, were-fox even were-rats plus stuff like skin walkers and nagual are still common for me. The author can just say they exist and I am cool with it.

Were-rabbit or were-orca you need to explain.

Yzabel wrote: "Hard to tell. From an etymologic standpoint, using the "wer(e)-" prefix doesn't shock me, since it means "man" anyway, and I can envision it easily as a general term for "a creature that shifts fro..."

Fully understand the idea of shapeshifter and were becoming synonymous. It's the nature of language. And I agree with the whole idea of were meaning man, or in more modern English, human.

I'm with Yzabel in that the size of the creature they shift into plays into my enjoyment of the book. I buy it more when it's humans turning into larger animals, a large dog, one of the "big" cats, wolves or bears. That's a little more believable to me than someone turning into a rodent or bug or something very small.

But then again I have kept reading the Psy-Changling series and there's rats & reptiles in there. They're more side characters though.

Mary: Harry Dresden's Love Slave wrote: "I'm with Yzabel in that the size of the creature they shift into plays into my enjoyment of the book. I buy it more when it's humans turning into larger animals, a large dog, one of the "big" cats,..."

For me, I have rules regarding what I consider a were. They must take time to shift, their body reshaping itself not just morphing from one for to another without effort. I also like the idea of conservation of mass, so a large human will turn in to a gigantic wolf.

Creatures such as the kitsune, I see more like the fae, using such powerful illusion that they fool reality into believing they're a fox. Or something like that, but they're not a were.

Or in the case of Mercy Thompson, she's the child of Coyote, a nature spirit--almost a god--of America's aboriginal people, so her turning into a 35 lb coyote works for me.

I suppose it's more a matter of whether I feel the rules of a given world feel like they work for me.

It's all subjective, but I love hearing what you guys think.

J.K. wrote: "I’ve recently started reading a new UF author by name of Cecy Robson. I’m not having much luck with her. While her technical skill seems to be outstanding, I keep running into WTF moments with char..."

Agree with you in regards to weres! In regards to how I view shape shifting, it depends on the author. In many of the novels of Charles de Lint they are descendants of the Native American "Animal People" similar to Mercy Thompson's being the daughter of the Coyote trickster and for me it works.

Laurell K Hamilton sure makes many were creatures, including wererats, work, in her Anita Blake series. I think it depends on the author and how she treats them. If they are a joke or an absurdity in the book, then yeah, of course, it is going to get old.

J.K. wrote: "I realize that were has become a catchall term for shapeshifter in most UF and PF fiction, but should it be? The mythology around the werewolf curse is that the curse “infects” through a bite, so that’s pretty cut and dry. The mythology around other shapeshifters is different. "

I tend to separate 'were' from 'shapeshifter' ... to me they are different species, if you want to call them that. Both the Japanese kitsune and the Native American (and other) shapeshifters are very different from the weres. I can stretch my belief system to having weres that are other than wolves, in fact one of my favorite stand-alone urban fantasy is which mentions a number of other species of weres but I still keep weres and shapeshifters separate in my mind.

To me a were-whatever makes me think of something that started out as a human but something happened to them and now they become something that is half human and half animal. A shapeshifter makes me think of a magical creature that can be either completely human or completely animal in appearance.

Of course, not all books come close to following those definitions, but as long as an author can present a mythology that seems to make reasonable sense I can suspend my disbelief. Some authors strain my ability to do that though and Laurell Hamilton is unfortunately one of them.

I love it when authors use more obscure mythology as a basis for their characters or plots but I'm really not a fan or just having a gazillion kinds of creatures that don't add anything special to the story or make any kind of sense. I just don't think there needs to be a were version of every animal in a single series.

A character doesn't become interesting just because they happen to be a were-zebra, but if you need someone to negotiate with some hostile nagas then maybe a were-mongoose would be handy. There just needs to be a purpose to it that makes sense at least somewhat.

There's an obscure one I like by Peter David that's about a wolf bitten by a werewolf. Howling Mad is the title. Here's the cover . It's a standalone.

Yzabel wrote: "Hard to tell. From an etymologic standpoint, using the "wer(e)-" prefix doesn't shock me, since it means "man" anyway, and I can envision it easily as a general term for "a creature that shifts fro..."

To be sure, that's the male form, not the human form. A woman who turned into a wolf would be a wifwolf if we went by Anglosaxon.

For the generic, it would be -- well, it would be "manwolf." Anglosaxon was Old English, after all.

J.K. wrote: "All in all, the only mythology around the infecting bite is werewolves"

BTW, that's not mythology. That's the silver screen. Hollywood invented the werewolf that didn't actually become a wolf, their vulnerability to silver, and the transmission by bite.

Gayla wrote: "Laurell K Hamilton sure makes many were creatures, including wererats, work, in her Anita Blake series. I think it depends on the author and how she treats them. If they are a joke or an absurdit..."

I can accept that and even agree with it. I've enjoyed books 1-9 of Anita Blake several times. I just have a hard time with the series when they become 90% sex, because that's not what I started reading about Anita for.

Mary wrote: "J.K. wrote: "All in all, the only mythology around the infecting bite is werewolves"

BTW, that's not mythology. That's the silver screen. Hollywood invented the werewolf that didn't actually bec..."

Okay, I realize that. I guess I should have worded that differently. It also brings up a different point, I suppose in the end each novel and series has its own mythology that is setup. Readers will either love or hate it and it's impossible to write for everyone.

I started this thread mostly because I was curious about where some readers/writers draw the line.

Elizabeth wrote: "To me a were-whatever makes me think of something that started out as a human but something happened to them and now they become something that is half human and half animal. A shapeshifter makes m..."

I can see that, but I post this query in response. If a man is bitten by a werewolf, and becomes one himself then he has a child who inherits the ability to shapeshift into a wolf, is said child a werewolf or a shapeshifter?

J.K. wrote: "I started this thread mostly because I was curious about where some readers/writers draw the line."

When we can no longer suspend disbelief. Whatever point that is.

Though it gets interesting. If you did a vampire story that featured shambling corpses that lurch from the graves en masse and go after the living, you would be doing an accurate piece of folklore. Much more accurate than calling them zombies. The horror of zombies in the original folklore was not the peril they presented to those still alive -- it was the ever present danger that you could not escape slavery even by dying.

J.K. wrote: "I can see that, but I post this query in response. If a man is bitten by a werewolf, and becomes one himself then he has a child who inherits the ability to shapeshift into a wolf, is said child a werewolf or a shapeshifter?"

I suppose that it could depend on an individual author's mythology since you could make a case for it being either way. If it was just up to me though I'd stick with what the shapeshifted creature looked like regardless of how it originated. If it was a half human/half animal thing then I'd call it a were-something. If it looked wholly like an animal I'd call it a shapeshifter.

I guess maybe I personally think of the word shapeshifter as a more generic term, and werewolf as specific kind of shapeshifter.

This discussion is proving to be a lot of fun. I've avoided forums for so long because I get so tired of Trolls and flaming. It's so refreshing to have to just have a discussion where everyone's opinion is completely valid.

To me, I tend to lean to most people simply calling a human that transforms into an animal as a werewhatever. This is because I feel that television and movies have more influence on our society these days than folklore.

Thanks to Anne Rice, vampires have to be dark, brooding, and sexy. And thanks to George Romero, Zombies are mindless--or near mindless--creatures of pure avarice that devour the flesh of the living.

OMG, I totally draw the line at Wereguineapig lol :). I have a hard time with the likes of wererat, werebuffalo and such. I absolutely love the Kate Daniels series but there are a lot of different weres and it is just hard for me to get on board with some of them. I just try not to think too much about it lol.

Now in the Iron Druid series the main character can shift into I think an otter, or something along those lines, a bird and an Irish wolfhound, but I don't really have an issue with it because he is doing it through magic and not from being a "were".

So I guess I go with that a were is a human that has been infected and now turns into an animal not by choice anymore. Where as a shapeshifter or skin walker chooses to change into an animal through magic and for me I guess I am willing to accept stranger transformations with magic than with being a were.

I guess it comes down to how well the author can sell it.

Susan wrote: "OMG, I totally draw the line at Wereguineapig lol :). I have a hard time with the likes of wererat, werebuffalo and such. I absolutely love the Kate Daniels series but there are a lot of differen..."

Yeah, I love the Kate Daniels series as well. I do have some issues with some of the things that Ilona and Gordon do in their story telling, but overall they sell it through incredible character interaction.

Iron Druid is another great series, though it was a little harder to get into because Kevin Hearne is a big fan of telling instead of showing, but again, he sold it through great character interaction and that's what's most important to me.

As it stands, Cecy Robson isn't selling things to me. Her were's are over the top. Her characters are over the top. The relationships are contrived.

I need a new book!

I'm writing a tale that takes place in the Amazon, regarding a werejaguar member of an indigenous tribe. I think if it makes sense, it's fine? Certain things strike me as ridiculous but I can bite the bait if there's plot related reasons. I don't want to read about were guinea pigs, but I feel like wererats have some give. Werebunnies sound like a fetish, but I had a friend beg me to make German werecrows that burst into a flock of crows, instead of a single bird.

So for me, it depends. Give me a plot reason for why there's a ridiculous were that's better than, "Because it's cute."

Jalilah wrote: "J.K. wrote: "I’ve recently started reading a new UF author by name of Cecy Robson. I’m not having much luck with her. While her technical skill seems to be outstanding, I keep running into WTF mome..."

That's the very first thing that popped into my head when I read the post. I love the crow girls and Ray the fox. But those were supernatural beings to begin with.

I think a writer of humor could have a lot of fun with the were trope. Werecows, werebunny rabbits, wereweasels...

In Sunshine by Robin McKinley, the narrator comments that the big bad predators are the ones that get all the publicity but they in fact range all over the animal kingdom.

Mary wrote: "In Sunshine by Robin McKinley, the narrator comments that the big bad predators are the ones that get all the publicity but they in fact range all over the animal kingdom."

I *love* that book! Nice call.

Michelle wrote: "Jalilah wrote: "J.K. wrote: "I’ve recently started reading a new UF author by name of Cecy Robson. I’m not having much luck with her. While her technical skill seems to be outstanding, I keep runni..."

You're right Michelle! The Crow Girls and Ray are not really Weres, rather supernatural beings. However have you read De Lint's new Wildling series yet? There are regular humans who start turning into various animals: a Otters, Mountain Lions, Snakes, wolves, but also mice! The books are:
Under My Skin and Over My Head

Aldo the leading character in The Painted Boy turns into a Dragon.

Been meaning to get to this post, but now that I finally have, I am glad I waited. You all have such wonderful points!
As with many of the posters here, I draw lines between “were”and “shapeshifter.” Were I consider to be, as many do, those who change their form from one to the other through means of physically changing the parts of their bodies in an often painful method through a form of transmogrification, changing their form in what can be called a ‘grotesque’ manner, not purely magical but physical in nature. Shapeshifters I see more as the human shifting to animal through some form of magic, normally by simply transforming from one state to the other without the intermittent mixed form. These are normally written as some sort of fae or fae derivative in nature. The non-magical forms, or were, may be indigenous, as pointed out by N. D., or the offspring of gods or monsters.
The conservation of mass question and how it is handled by different authors can be fascinating in and of itself. Ilona and Gordon handle it by allowing the creature to conserve the mass of its human form, even with creatures like wererats. Other authors convert through a displacement of mass into other objects, such as Jane Yellowrock and her Beast. Some other authors utilize a displacement of mass into a magical “other” realm where the mass awaits conversion back into the human form, allowing humans to reshape themselves into smaller creatures.
I have read stories of ‘werebunnies’ where the change is extremely agonizing and seemed to consist of packing the excess size into the body of the bunny on a molecular level if I understood it correctly, and another where shapeshifter dragons (I love me some dragons, btw) seem to pull their mass from the very air (?)
I always find it interesting to see if the author handles the ‘creature inside’ as a separate entity, as with Jane and Beast, or as a pseudo separate entity which does or does not have its own identity and thought processes within the mind of the human. Do they have conversations within their heads?
Of course, there is always the question of how these creatures came about, genetically, if they are not magical in nature? There is at least one book out there that I have read fairly recently (sigh. My brain is like a sieve, I can’t remember the title of the book or the author) where cats, wolves, etc. were bred as “toys” and hunters for the fae. Different cats (or wolves) are bred together creating creatures which have the best features of each of the species. The were creatures eventually escape from the fae and settle in the ‘real’ world. That concept was one of the more interesting I have come across.
Were mosquitos? Were fish? You gotta be kidding me . . . now that, to me, is a real stretch! LOL

ran a Harry potter role play and one day one of my gamers brought up a good question... "how much would it suck to be the wizard who became a trout as an animagus?"

ROFL!!!! True true!

Jalilah wrote: You're right Michelle! The Crow Girls and Ray are not really Weres, rather supernatural beings. However have you read De Lint's new Wildling series yet?

I ADORE deLint. I started reading him back in the 1990's (yes, I am an old broad) and never gave up. Emma Bull is also someone you should check out, and Terry Windling's "The Wood Wife". They are all close friends (to one another, not to me, though I wish!) and their writing is wonderful. The Crow Girls are built from Native American mythology and are some of my favorite deLint characters. Here is his bibliography, once you start, it is impossible to stop!

http://www.sfsite.com/charlesdelint/b...

N.D. wrote: "ran a Harry potter role play and one day one of my gamers brought up a good question... "how much would it suck to be the wizard who became a trout as an animagus?""

Lol. Or how about a gnat?

Years ago I read an anthology and one of the shorts in it as all kinds or weird shape shifters. One character shifted into coral. Yes coral.

Mary: Harry Dresden's Love Slave wrote: "Years ago I read an anthology and one of the shorts in it as all kinds or weird shape shifters. One character shifted into coral. Yes coral."

I think there are things like that in the animorphs books that were popular when i was a kid.

Last week I read The Beastly Bride: Tales of the Animal People edited by Ellen Datlow .

The characters in this anthology change into horses (Phouka aren't traditionally rabbits, no matter what "Harvey" says.) One young girl is daughter of an Abominable Snowman and a human mom, whose mom dies and she goes down to suburbia seeking out companionship. It's a pretty wonderful collection.

Julia wrote: "Last week I read The Beastly Bride: Tales of the Animal People edited by Ellen Datlow .

The character..."

So glad you found Ellen! She is one of my biblio-heroines from way back! It is great, isn't it? If you can get your hands on Ellen is mostly an editor, of course, but she has stories in several anthologies with her compatriots, Charles de Lint, Terri Windling and others. Oh! And don't miss tales of the Native American Trickster God. Wonderful stuff.

While you are at it, I recommend anything by Terri Windling and Charles de Lint. Amazing stuff. The first I ever read by Terri was

Here's to Fantasy and Fairy Tales!

Yesterday I finish reading , which is PNR, but I hope still count for this discussion.

Laurenston is known for her liberties when writing shifter, so to see there are some mix of breeds in her series Pride that make you go *huh*. So far, beside wolf shifter, lion shifter (and tiger shifter) and were-bear, there are were-hyena, were-jackal, were-wolfdog, were-honey badger, and lately, were-panda!! For hybrids, not surprised to see a mix of tiger and lion, lion and polar bear and also tiger with grizzly. Imagine when a hybrids mate with a were, I don't know what kind of species their children will become.

IF you haven't Ren, you have to read Kate Daniels series. The doctor is a were-honey badger, there are all the creatures you have mentioned, (well, except I haven't read a were-panda!) and the stories are marvelous.

In most UF/PN I have read about weres, the child can be either of the parent's types (a cat marrying a bear can have a bear shifter OR a cat shifter, but not a mix)... I will have to check these out - they sound really good!

You should! That sounds like, if you worked it right, it could be funny as all get-out. Too many UF books don't have enough fun in them. . .

I would read it!

I always have a problem with shape-shifters that turn into an animal much bigger or smaller than a human, even if there's a get-out clause in the narrative (mass going into other dimensions, etc) - it's just one of those things that irks me a little bit. Also stories where the actual transformation is instantaneous and / or painless. I think if your entire skeletal and muscular structures were re-organising themselves in that way, it would probably sting somewhat. I always think of it in terms of the classic transformation scene in An American Werewolf In London, where it looks absolutely excruciating.

As regards random were-animals, has there ever been a werewombat in fiction? It's fun just to say it. Try saying it ten times really fast after a few beers. I just tried it and it's quite tricky.

Nick wrote: "I always have a problem with shape-shifters that turn into an animal much bigger or smaller than a human, even if there's a get-out clause in the narrative (mass going into other dimensions, etc) -..."

I don't know. If I were designing a spell to change myself, I would find a way to block the pain receptors and speed the transformation so I wouldn't be vulnerable. Hey, if I am that good, why not be that good? If I am cursing someone else, I may not be as nice.

As for mass, I think that again, once you have the magic or technology that lets you change shapes, you may as well have a way to deal with the extra mass (or to borrow mass). As long as the author gives it some thought, I'm happy.

Ah, but if you were *that* good, surely there would be better uses of your magic than turning into a ferret or something? (Or a wombat.) ;)

I tend to prefer the version of lycanthropy where it's an affliction rather than a lifestyle choice, or where there's a price to pay from using the shapeshifting ability, be it pain, vulnerability while changing, loss of humanity / intellect while in animal form, etc.

@ Nick maybe you want to sneak into some place unnoticed, say through the vents? Maybe you want to be small, fast and have and enhanced sense of smell? Maybe your spirit animal is a wombat and you need to get in touch with your inner wombat or you won't get any wise old animal insights?

There is always a reason. :)

I agree that there should be a price. That price could be something else though. You might incur an imbalance that leaves you in debt to the source of your magic, or you may need to give up something else to pursue the change, or you may find you suddenly want to run in a small wheel and eat vegetables. There are many possible prices. Some may take some time to show up or be subtle, but there is a price.

If I was sneaking into a building and had access to magic, I'd probably go for invisibility / walking through walls rather than the ferret transformation option. I'm sure those air vents are horribly dusty and I have allergies.

I've already been in touch with my inner wombat. His name is Gary. Nice chap, but he doesn't shower often enough.

Nick wrote: "If I was sneaking into a building and had access to magic, I'd probably go for invisibility / walking through walls rather than the ferret transformation option. I'm sure those air vents are horrib..."

Hee hee now Gary sounds sweet. Maybe you want to let him out to snuggle with an attractive wombat society rescue worker, and you get stuck as a wombat? This will make it hard to fight crime and save the world.

Well in the crime-fighting stakes I don't think Wombatman would stack up too well in comparison with either Batman or Wolverine...

Now I'm imagining the trailer for a Wombatman film.

"IN A WORLD... WHERE EVIL LURKS AT EVERY TURN... HUMANITY'S LAST CHANCE FOR SURVIVAL... LIES IN THE PAWS OF THE WORLD'S MOST DANGEROUS MARSUPIAL."

Nick wrote: "I always have a problem with shape-shifters that turn into an animal much bigger or smaller than a human, even if there's a get-out clause in the narrative (mass going into other dimensions, etc) -..."

Funny! Maybe in an Australian UF? That would be funny... I just tried to say it several times fast and wound up snorting tea when I broke out laughing.

Does a wombat have a pouch like a kangaroo? It would be an easy place to carry his nunchucks!

Yes they do, that's what makes them Marsupials. Though I think Were-platypi would be even more funny to see.

I decided to look up "werewombat" and found this:

http://heidicvlach.com/2012/12/31/wha...

Which also has a good commentary on "What “fantasy” means: Fiction genres and how we search through them"

So, how cool is that?

And, Fantasy??? Watching "Pink: The Truth About Love Live From Melbourne" - ah, to be young enough and beautiful enough to be in Pink's backup singers and dancers!

Feral wrote: "Nick wrote: "I always have a problem with shape-shifters that turn into an animal much bigger or smaller than a human, even if there's a get-out clause in the narrative (mass going into other dimen..."

This just gave me an insane idea about atomic compression. Think Ant-Man. You can shapeshift into a rat, but doing so would just make you a rat that weighs as much as a fully grown human. You'd also be hyper-dense, so there might be advantages to that.

Like, "Okay, I'm falling from a plane. Time to turn into a hyper-dense gecko!"

Obviously you wouldn't be able to bird out since the lightness of a bird's skeletal structure is part of their flight ability.