Werewolves in Westeros?

[ChillyPolly]

A "warg" is essentially the westerosi version of a "werewolf" or "skinchanger". They are men who can change their skins and take on the form of a wolf. GRRM imagines this as a form of body-mind transfer, as distinct from a physical body changing shape. There may be a few ignorant folk in Westeros who are ignorant about how Westerosi werewolves really change their skin, and who may falsely believe that the body itself changes shape. After all, the process must be very mysterious to outsiders. Still ... a warg is a Westerosi werewolf.

[John Suburbs]

You're right except for the second sentence. We have never seen a skinchanger who could actually change his human form into the form of an animal, wolf or otherwise. Tales tell of King whoever in the Dawn Age who could change form, and Robb was supposed to take on the form of a wolf, but we know that's not true.

All the cases of skin changing that have been shown in the text have the skinchanger occupying the mind of a nearby animal (or person), but their human body remains unchanged and in a trance.

[ChillyPolly]

You're right except for the second sentence.

You're taking it too literally. When Bran is in Summer, he is wearing Summer's skin, so to speak. Hence, Varamyr Sixskins is so called because he can "wear the skins" of six animals (or warg or skinchange with six animals).

[John Suburbs]

You're taking it too literally. When Bran is in Summer, he is wearing Summer's skin, so to speak. Hence, Varamyr Sixskins is so called because he can "wear the skins" of six animals (or warg or skinchange with six animals).

Yes, but that is still different from the classic werewolf who physically transforms into a wolf/monster, and none of the skinchangers are ever called werewolves IIRC. It doesn't look like the two terms are interchangeable in asoiaf because as far as I can tell, planetos doesn't have any werewolf legends, aside from the odd king who could become an animal before battle.

[ChillyPolly]

Yes, but that is still different from the classic werewolf who physically transforms into a wolf/monster,

Sure. But I thought I already covered that idea.

[Mikkel]

I think people are kinda misunderstanding each other. Or maybe they just like to argue, heh.

Anyway:

Are there humans who can change their physical, human body into that of a human-wolf hybrid, aka "classic" werewolves? Probably not

Are there legends of such, probably based on wargs? Yes

[John Suburbs]

Sure. But I thought I already covered that idea.

Well, I was just pointing out that a warg is not a Westerosi version of a werewolf. The two are completely different.

[ChillyPolly]

Well, I was just pointing out that a warg is not a Westerosi version of a werewolf. The two are completely different.

If Westeros turns out to contain "real werewolves" (as you define them) then this distinction will matter. Otherwise, it can be assumed that the word "werewolves" refers to "wargs". Even in Mel's visions she sees Jon as a man who becomes a wolf, and then becomes a man again.

[Mikkel]

If Westeros turns out to contain "real werewolves" (as you define them) then this distinction will matter. Otherwise, it can be assumed that the word "werewolves" refers to "wargs". Even in Mel's visions she sees Jon as a man who becomes a wolf, and then becomes a man again.

I agree that the distinction is not likely to matter (since Westeros in all likelihood does not contain "real werewolves" * ), it's just an interesting little peek at how legends and stories can form, and how quickly the true facts of an event turn into something quite inaccurate. By extension it's also a hint on how little we can take the thousands-year-old events of the various tales Old Nan etc tell at face value - or even the relatively recent events such as the Targaryen conquests.

*I prefer the term "classic werewolves", ie the thing most readers associate with the term. "Real" werewolves suggests there's such a thing as a real-world werewolf, and well... I sincerely doubt that.

[John Suburbs]

If Westeros turns out to contain "real werewolves" (as you define them) then this distinction will matter. Otherwise, it can be assumed that the word "werewolves" refers to "wargs". Even in Mel's visions she sees Jon as a man who becomes a wolf, and then becomes a man again.

OK, this is getting silly. I could be wrong but I don't think there is a single use of the word "werewolf" in the entire series. And Mel's visions have all kinds of symbolic, subjective images, so that in no way can be interpreted to mean Jon has the ability to change his human body into a wolf.

I just think you are overreaching if you try to conflate the terms "warg" and "werewolf", but whatever works for you.

[ChillyPolly]

OK, this is getting silly. I could be wrong but I don't think there is a single use of the word "werewolf" in the entire series.

You may be right, for all I know. However, the word "skinchanger" definitely is used, and that is traditionally thought as a rough synonym for "werewolf", and is often so-used in translations. The word "warg" is also used, borrowed from Tolkien, who turn borrowed it from ancient myth and folklore. Tolkien used the terms "warg" and "werewolf" to refer to spirits who took the form of demonic wolves; and his writings also contain the idea that maiar (spirits) would "wear" a physical form as a human might wear a garment. However, there is no indication that these wolf bodies were themselves capable of changing shape (though I believe Sauron took both wolf shape and man shape at various times).

I just think you are overreaching if you try to conflate the terms "warg" and "werewolf", but whatever works for you.

Sorry, but the confusion exists, and has existed, long before I created it. I don't necessarily define the term "werewolf" in terms of classic "movie" werewolves. I am also familiar with the so-called "werewolves" of ancient folklore and mythology. The Latin word for "werewolf" was "versipellis" or literally "skinchanger". When these skinchangers shifted form, it was analogous to changing clothes. They would (for instance) become a wolf by putting on a magical wolf-skin. And very often, in becoming a wolf, they would leave behind an analogous "human skin", or a piece of clothing symbolically representing the idea of human skin, without which they could not resume human shape. IIRC, the Norse werewolves were also of the "skinchanger" type. There are stories of men who assume the forms of wolves, and then find themselves trapped in that form, when their human skin or magic garment is lost, destroyed or stolen.

GRRM's werewolves are the "skinchanger" type werewolf, with the only change (if it is really a change) being that it is explicit that the "skins" that werewolves change to and from is really an entire human body or wolf body. Nonetheless, wearing different forms is referred to as wearing "skins". And (like werewolves in certain old stories) they remain trapped in wolf form if the human "skin" is destroyed (Varamyr Sixskins).

[John Suburbs]

Sorry, but I still don't get what you're trying to say. Call me dumb.

In asoiaf, wargs and skinchangers are synonymous, not wargs and werewolves or skinchangers and werewolves. Martin's wargs/skinchangers project their minds into the bodies of animals while their human forms remain unchanged. Classic werewolves, even in the mythologies you mention, physically transform their human bodies into wolves. So in the myths, these terms may be interchangeable, but in Martin they are not.

So to say "GRRM's werewolves are the 'skinchanger' type, with the only change..." is inaccurate because there is no such thing as a GRRM werewolf, at least none that we have seen first-hand. To say that skinchanger or warg in asioaf is simply another way of saying werewolf gives the impression that Bran, Jon, Var, whoever have the ability to change their physical form, and I see no evidence of that yet.

Now, if your definition of a werewolf is anyone or anything that can adopt the characteristics of a wolf in any way, then sure you can call them whatever you want. But I think by doing that you conflate terms being used in asioaf that are, in fact, very distinct.

[ChillyPolly]

Sorry, but I still don't get what you're trying to say. Call me dumb.

Okay. Let me spell it out. You have no authority to play word police. Please back off.

You are objecting to my choice of words. You do not think I should be allowed to refer to GRRM's wargs as a "type of werewolf" because you claim that I should only be allowed to use words in a way that you approve of, and in accordance with your approved definitions. And I am telling you that I don't care whether you approve or not.

I tried to explain to you, politely, that in actual usage by folklorists and others, the term for "werewolf" is not nearly so narrowly defined. A werewolf is a man who can assume the form of a wolf. There is very little (in the vast majority of legends) that specifies HOW the werewolf does it.

Bran is a human who can assume the form of a wolf (leaving his human form behind), and return to human form (leaving his wolf form behind). It is fair to call him a werewolf.

In the Saga of the Volsungs a murderous she-wolf appears, and then comes this line: "But some men say that this same she-wolf was the mother of King Siggeir, who had turned herself into this likeness by troll's lore and witchcraft".

Most folklorists and mythologists would not hesitate to refer to this as a werewolf legend. But we have no way of knowing HOW she assumed this "likeness". Maybe it was by mind-body transfer. Your narrow definition of "werewolf" assumes knowledge of means and methods that are simply not available in the vast majority of legends that are called "werewolf" legends. The actual transformation is almost never observed.

[John Suburbs]

Okay. Let me spell it out. You have no authority to play word police. Please back off.

You are objecting to my choice of words. You do not think I should be allowed to refer to GRRM's wargs as a "type of werewolf" because you claim that I should only be allowed to use words in a way that you approve of, and in accordance with your approved definitions. And I am telling you that I don't care whether you approve or not.

I tried to explain to you, politely, that in actual usage by folklorists and others, the term for "werewolf" is not nearly so narrowly defined. A werewolf is a man who can assume the form of a wolf. There is very little (in the vast majority of legends) that specifies HOW the werewolf does it.

Bran is a human who can assume the form of a wolf (leaving his human form behind), and return to human form (leaving his wolf form behind). It is fair to call him a werewolf.

In the Saga of the Volsungs a murderous she-wolf appears, and then comes this line: "But some men say that this same she-wolf was the mother of King Siggeir, who had turned herself into this likeness by troll's lore and witchcraft".

Most folklorists and mythologists would not hesitate to refer to this as a werewolf legend. But we have no way of knowing HOW she assumed this "likeness". Maybe it was by mind-body transfer. Your narrow definition of "werewolf" assumes knowledge of means and methods that are simply not available in the vast majority of legends that are called "werewolf" legends. The actual transformation is almost never observed.

Hey, no worries. I am just trying to point out that even though other sources of literature may conflate the terms, I don't think you can do that here. A linguistic purist like Martin chooses his words very carefully, so there is a reason the term "werewolf" has never appeared in the books. It implies that the skinchangers in asioaf have abilities that they don't have.

[Snarky]

Mormonts are rumored to be able to turn into bears too.

I say Werewolves are as real as Snarks and Grumkins, that is they may or may not be and we'll never know one way or another.

This being said, your question "people still knew what a werewolf was so does that mean that they once existed or still do exist in the world?" is rather daft: here, in our own world, we know what a unicorn, a werewolf, a vampire, a zombie, or a dragon is even when they never existed at all, and I don't see why it would be different for a secondary world that has old women telling scary fantasy stories to children.

Whoaaa.....Snarks don't exist? I beg to differ.

[Led]

Hey, no worries. I am just trying to point out that even though other sources of literature may conflate the terms, I don't think you can do that here. A linguistic purist like Martin chooses his words very carefully, so there is a reason the term "werewolf" has never appeared in the books. It implies that the skinchangers in asioaf have abilities that they don't have.

It does not matter if he has not used the specific word, and you should be really careful when it comes to analyzing what an author means or not since there is no way for you to know that (especially based on such flimsy arguments).

It could simply mean that he does not want the wargs/skinchangers associated with the current Hollywood-enhanced idea of werewolves.

It is obvious, however, that wargs and the Norse tradition werewolves are very similar.

From wikipedia, important parts bolded:

Old Norse had the cognate varúlfur, but because of the high importance of werewulves in Norse mythology, there were alternative terms such as ulfhéðinn ("one in wolf-skin", referring still to the totemistic/cultic adoption of wolf-nature rather than the superstitious belief in actual shape-shifting).

The transformation may be temporary or permanent; the were-animal may be the man himself metamorphosed; may be his double whose activity leaves the real man to all appearance unchanged; may be his soul, which goes forth seeking whom it may devour, leaving its body in a state of trance

[The Reckoner]

Werewolf could also be slur against the Ibbenese.

[John Suburbs]

It does not matter if he has not used the specific word, and you should be really careful when it comes to analyzing what an author means or not since there is no way for you to know that (especially based on such flimsy arguments).

It could simply mean that he does not want the wargs/skinchangers associated with the current Hollywood-enhanced idea of werewolves.

It is obvious, however, that wargs and the Norse tradition werewolves are very similar.

From wikipedia, important parts bolded:

I think GRRM is as careful a wordsmith as literature has ever seen and the fact that he does not use the word werewolf is not a mere oversight but a very deliberate choice because he does not want to give the impression that wargs/skinchangers in asioaf can change their physical form. You can use the two terms interchangeably if you want, but I think you are then introducing ambiguity into the story that GR was very careful to avoid.

No way to prove it. It's just what I think.

[King of Vaes Tolorro]

Mormonts are rumored to be able to turn into bears too.

I say Werewolves are as real as Snarks and Grumkins, that is they may or may not be and we'll never know one way or another.

This being said, your question "people still knew what a werewolf was so does that mean that they once existed or still do exist in the world?" is rather daft: here, in our own world, we know what a unicorn, a werewolf, a vampire, a zombie, or a dragon is even when they never existed at all, and I don't see why it would be different for a secondary world that has old women telling scary fantasy stories to children.

Unicorn's exist, they are one horned deer. In fact Eastern Unicorns were literally one horned deer. And there are deer with one, vertical horn. Vampires and zombies were probably inspired from people who had been buried alive than unearthed later.

[Forever May]

A warg is someone who can slip into the mind of a wolf or a direwolf and act on their behalf. A werewolf is someone who transforms into a wolf at the full moon.

Martin can write a werewolf however the hell he wants it to be. Why does it have to be defined by your own personal perception of what the word means? Seriously. Anyway, I have heard some of the reviews or blurbs on the back of the books mention there are all sorts of things in Westeros. Like when they say a "witch" they mean Melisandre, but she is really a fire priestess. They also said "werewolf" and were clearly referring to Bran and perhaps Jon, maybe slightly Arya and Robb too. In any case, the tales you hear in Westeros of people turning into wolves are misunderstood tales of what a warg is. But I do think Martin based the idea of a warg on werewolves. He has named the weirwood tree after the "were" in "werewolves" too clearly, and this seems to be a direct reference to Martin just thinks the "were" means slipping your mind into the body of a tree, dog, oversized stableboy, whatever. The reason he is doing this, using a warg instead of a typical werewolf or using a red priestess instead of a witch, it makes it a lot more realistic. There's not much to it, a werewolf as commonly known would be lame...