Werewolves in Westeros?

[Forever May]

I'll say again,

And again, I don't doubt it. I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the debate of someone who insists on defining a fictional creature by, how should I say, some sort of scientific categorization. Next you're going to be arguing that Dany's dragons are not really dragons because they only have two legs instead of four!

[Forever May]

Same as your authority as Word Police then. Or anyone's, bar GRRM. Doesn't mean we can't discuss and try to convince others.

Hey, the talking parrot is not alone.

[Lord Ross]

Isn't it just a quiet joke, something interesting for the reader?

Rob can take control of his wolf through warging, claiming that he and his men are werewolves is likely a story told Chinese Whisper style by soldiers and town folk over cups of wine.

It shows just how feared he was by the small folk and Westermen. You wouldn't make up a story about someone being a fearsome mythical beast unless they were someone worth fearing.

[Mikkel]

The concept exists, even if the creature itself does not. Creatures who can physically transform into wolves, and transmit their afflication by a bite, are referred to in GRRM's text. The word used for them is "warg". There is no separate word for them. The Westerosi do not use a different word for the type of werewolf you think exists, and the type of werewolf you think does not exist. There is one word for them both, and the word used is "warg".

Right, exactly, but we know from the text that that's not what a Warg does, even if folktales say so. That's my entire argument. So, as wargs don't do it, and they're not called werewolves, they only exist as in-story stories. A fantasy within the fantasy, if you will.

If you look right back at the very first page of this thread, from half a year ago, that's what I've been trying to say all along.

edit:

Hey, the talking parrot is not alone.

And? Never said he was.

[Ulthosian Stark]

Isn't it just a quiet joke, something interesting for the reader?

Rob can take control of his wolf through warging, claiming that he and his men are werewolves is likely a story told Chinese Whisper style by soldiers and town folk over cups of wine.

It shows just how feared he was by the small folk and Westermen. You wouldn't make up a story about someone being a fearsome mythical beast unless they were someone worth fearing.

Exactly what my point was

Right, exactly, but we know from the text that that's not what a Warg does, even if folktales say so. That's my entire argument. So, as wargs don't do it, and they're not called werewolves, they only exist as in-story stories. A fantasy within the fantasy, if you will.

If you look right back at the very first page of this thread, from half a year ago, that's what I've been trying to say all along.

edit:

And? Never said he was.

Yes, we as readers know, but I feel the point is its supposed to be an example of a rumor/story/tavern gossip type situation, about wargs.

Put yourself in the shoes of a Dornishman, or better yet stop having sex for a moment Summer Islander. A story that has traveled the distance from the Wall to your sleepy little sexy island has most likely changed an awful lot from its original form.

Hell even werewolf sounds like wear-wolf, like one who wears a wolf skin, like a warg would be described as. The notion that they can simply use their mind to enter that of a separate wolf would be a LOT for someone who has never heard such a concept to digest, so it digressing into "men who change into wolves! Werewolves!" Is understandable from my point of view

[Mikkel]

Exactly what my point was

Yes, we as readers know, but I feel the point is its supposed to be an example of a rumor/story/tavern gossip type situation, about wargs.

Put yourself in the shoes of a Dornishman, or better yet stop having sex for a moment Summer Islander. A story that has traveled the distance from the Wall to your sleepy little sexy island has most likely changed an awful lot from its original form.

Hell even werewolf sounds like wear-wolf, like one who wears a wolf skin, like a warg would be described as. The notion that they can simply use their mind to enter that of a separate wolf would be a LOT for someone who has never heard such a concept to digest, so it digressing into "men who change into wolves! Werewolves!" Is understandable from my point of view

Isn't that exactly what I said, and have been saying from day one? Unless you were just agreeing, but it didn't sound like it.

[mee aar dun wee wee]

#########################lost the quote things?

A good example of what I was talking about is the whole "you eat spiders in your sleep" thing. It was started in order to study how a rumor spreads and changes, and guess what, the number of spiders you ate in a year went up as time went on, and the story passed from person to person... from ulthosian. Stark #############

I just googled this. It blew my mind. I feel cheated. I was positive I was getting my 8 spiders a year and thought I might even be ahead of the average cos I sleep a lot.

[White Ravens]

I get what people are saying about the broken telephone effect. But in this case it isn't a story that got distorted through repeated tellings. It is more like willful propaganda and deflection. Robb Stark and his men are described as men turning into wolves by a high ranking member of the Frey family, the very people who committed the atrocity known as the Red Wedding.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

The title sounds like a book Gilderoy Lockhart would have written. Heh...

[Taenqyrhae]

Yes there is. Its called a vagina. Gods but talking to you is like smashing my head against a brick wall. "There's no formal word for it." Damn!

I am not the one who is insisting that an incorrect usage of the word is correct. Not only is vagina not at all a word for the entirety of female genitalia, it's not even commonly used in the improper sense enough for it to be considered a secondary definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vagina?s=t

noun, plural vaginas, vaginae

[vuh-jahy-nee] (Show IPA)

1.

Anatomy, Zoology.

1. the passage leading from the uterus to the vulva in certain female mammals.
   Compare oviduct.
2. a sheathlike part or organ.

2.

Botany. the sheath formed by the basal part of certain leaves where they embrace the stem.

Follow the link, I'm not leaving out any alternative definitions. There is no "3. Anatomy, Slang The female genitalia as a whole", so just accept that you have been misusing the word vagina all along, it's OK. As you said, a lot of people do say vagina when they mean parts that are not vaginas, so it's not like it's a uniquely stupid misuse of a word. It's like when someone says "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes" - it's wrong, it's not an accepted alternate spelling or usage, but not terribly uncommon.

Why would you even need to do the equivalent of saying "esophagus" when you meant "mouth"? As someone pointed out higher up in the thread, there is a formal, correct term for the portion of the female anatomy that can be seen or kicked - the vulva. If you're going to use Latin medical terms instead of slang, use "vulva". It's another word with a Latin root, like most formal anatomical names, so GRRM would not use it in ASoIaF, though. If you want something a little more inclusive, you can say "genitalia". If you don't mind informal terms but are trying to avoid words considered obscene in modern usage, you have "privates" and "cooter". If you want to use a word that was not considered obscene in medieval times use "cunt" or "cunte". Or you could just say "pussy". But every time someone says "vagina" and they don't mean "vagina", it's going to be seen as a sign of lack of education and/or understanding of female genitalia. Saying "vagina" when talking about parts other than the vagina is something associated more with teenaged boys and children, and though I have known plenty of adults who still say the wrong word, it's still wrong.

[John Suburbs]

Honestly, Polly, I don't know why you are so upset. Nobody every said you could not go around calling them werewolves to your heart's content. If you scroll back, I made that point several times -- knock yourself out.

But I have as much right to express my opinion on this public forum as you do, and my opinion is that if you call them werewolves you are providing yourself and others with an inaccurate description of what the characters do, crossing a line that has been clearly drawn by the author.

If I was at a fancy restaurant and I paid $10 for a piece of apply pie, I'd be a little miffed if they came out with a pear pie, and then I'd be even more miffed if they said "apples, pears, what's the difference? they are just words. This pie was made from fruits that grow on trees."

[ChillyPolly]

But I have as much right to express my opinion on this public forum as you do, and my opinion is that if you call them werewolves you are providing yourself and others with an inaccurate description of what the characters do, crossing a line that has been clearly drawn by the author.

False premise. No such line has been drawn by the author. GRRM does not use the word "werewolf" at all in ASOIAF, even when discussing the classic werewolf concept (people who physically transform and transmit this affliction by a bite). It goes without saying, therefore, that he has expressed no opinion on what it's definition ought to be if one were to use it. GRRM never uses the word "garou" either. But it does not follow that GRRM agrees with some arbitrary bully of a modern Frenchman who insists that "garou" MUST mean "generic were creature" and not "werewolf", merely because he saw a movie about Wallace and Grommit and the "Lapin-Garou".

Perhaps he prefers that "werewolf" not be used at all. But that has nothing to do with your claim that if he DID use it, he would endorse the definitions and semantic distinctions you seek to dictate. Since he refers to classic werewolves as "wargs", he seems to recognize no such distinction.

You are confusing his choice not to use a word with a position taken about the meaning of the word, and further stretching this to draw conclusions about the meaning of "warg" which are not supported by the text.

I understand your position. John Suburbs defines the word in a certain way. Therefore it necessarily follow that GRRM agrees with John Suburbs, or at least ought to. I just don't buy that argument. You have no more right to dictate semantics to GRRM than you have to dictate semantics to anyone else on this forum.

[Taenqyrhae]

I think that skinchangers are just another kind of werewolf or warg, whichever word you use for it. In earth cultures, there were multiple variants of the werewolf myth, that were all called werewolves. Whether they turn all the way into a wolf or into a wolflike humanoid monster, whether they can do it at will, or it only happens on full moons, or whether it happens while you are asleep and you wake up in the bed you went to sleep in, it's all werewolves. It can be contagious, a blood curse, or something you choose to be through a Satanic ritual. Medieval people believed all kinds of werewolf myths.

Westerosi have a word for people who turn into wolves and back, warg. I believe that before the First Men learned skinchanging they would have had myths about people who turn into animals and back, because we have myths like that on Earth even though they don't exist. Imagine you are a bronze age man who believes in people who can turn into wolves and back, and while you sleep you have a vision of being a wolf. You'll think it's a dream, most likely, unless there is a report of a wolf behaving strangely around you, in which case you'll probably assume that you turned into a wolf, then came back to bed and passed out. You're going to be convinced you are a warg, or a werewolf if you are speaking in Earth English.

[John Suburbs]

False premise. No such line has been drawn by the author. GRRM does not use the word "werewolf" at all in ASOIAF, even when discussing the classic werewolf concept (people who physically transform and transmit this affliction by a bite). It goes without saying, therefore, that he has expressed no opinion on what it's definition ought to be if one were to use it. GRRM never uses the word "garou" either. But it does not follow that GRRM agrees with some arbitrary bully of a modern Frenchman who insists that "garou" MUST mean "generic were creature" and not "werewolf", merely because he saw a movie about Wallace and Grommit and the "Lapin-Garou".

Perhaps he prefers that "werewolf" not be used at all. But that has nothing to do with your claim that if he DID use it, he would endorse the definitions and semantic distinctions you seek to dictate. Since he refers to classic werewolves as "wargs", he seems to recognize no such distinction.

You are confusing his choice not to use a word with a position taken about the meaning of the word, and further stretching this to draw conclusions about the meaning of "warg" which are not supported by the text.

I understand your position. John Suburbs defines the word in a certain way. Therefore it necessarily follow that GRRM agrees with John Suburbs, or at least ought to. I just don't buy that argument. You have no more right to dictate semantics to GRRM than you have to dictate semantics to anyone else on this forum.

Again, Polly, you throw around words like "dictate" like you don't really know or care what they really mean. Nobody is dictating anything except for you: no one is allowed to disagree with Chilly Polly on any matter whatsoever.

As I said before, I don't think --I don't think -- GRRM avoided the term werewolf just by accident. I think it was a deliberate omission on his part so as to avoid confusion on the part of his readers. Words like "garou" are French in origin, and I am reading the series in its original English. It would be interesting if the French version uses the word garou, but I'll bet it doesn't.

Now, if you want to argue that because the story is told through character POVs and the word "werewolf" simply doesn't exist in the common tongue, that is certainly possible. But to then say that if someone who actually transformed into a wolf were to suddenly appear and that the Westerosi would just call them a warg because they failed to make the distinction and just reached for the closest word they had, that is all just speculation -- and it would still be inaccurate regardless. But no such person is known to exist in the story, so who knows what they would call him/it.

I think that skinchangers are just another kind of werewolf or warg, whichever word you use for it. In earth cultures, there were multiple variants of the werewolf myth, that were all called werewolves. Whether they turn all the way into a wolf or into a wolflike humanoid monster, whether they can do it at will, or it only happens on full moons, or whether it happens while you are asleep and you wake up in the bed you went to sleep in, it's all werewolves. It can be contagious, a blood curse, or something you choose to be through a Satanic ritual. Medieval people believed all kinds of werewolf myths.

Westerosi have a word for people who turn into wolves and back, warg. I believe that before the First Men learned skinchanging they would have had myths about people who turn into animals and back, because we have myths like that on Earth even though they don't exist. Imagine you are a bronze age man who believes in people who can turn into wolves and back, and while you sleep you have a vision of being a wolf. You'll think it's a dream, most likely, unless there is a report of a wolf behaving strangely around you, in which case you'll probably assume that you turned into a wolf, then came back to bed and passed out. You're going to be convinced you are a warg, or a werewolf if you are speaking in Earth English.

The difference between a werewolf and a warg is that the former physically transforms into a wolf or wolf-like creature while the latter occupies the mind of a wolf or other creature. In a werewolf, the beast takes over the person, while the warg is a person who takes over the beast. So to say that "warg" is the Westerosi word for someone who can change into a wolf and back is inaccurate. Warg or skinchanger are the Westerosi words for someone who can slip into the mind of another while their body remains the same, although in a trance-like state. GRRM uses both terms interchangeably but clearly avoids the term "werewolf."

Just about every werewolf myth in existence refers to people who physically transformed into a wolf -- sometimes by a spell or as punishment from the gods, sometimes just by wearing a wolf pelt. I am sure there is some obscure tale of someone who could take over the mind of a wolf and someone, somewhere called them a werewolf, but the predominant theme in nearly all werewolf tales is that the human body changes. That is not the case in ASIOAF.

Again, to avoid confusion, this is just my opinion. You can take it or leave it.

[Taenqyrhae]

The difference between a werewolf and a warg is that the former physically transforms into a wolf or wolf-like creature while the latter occupies the mind of a wolf or other creature. In a werewolf, the beast takes over the person, while the warg is a person who takes over the beast. So to say that "warg" is the Westerosi word for someone who can change into a wolf and back is inaccurate.

This is not textually supported. The one time we hear Westerosi people talking about people who transform into wolves and back, they call them "wargs". Not "werewolves", a word that isn't in the text.

[Mikkel]

This is not textually supported. The one time we hear Westerosi people talking about people who transform into wolves and back, they call them "wargs". Not "werewolves", a word that isn't in the text.

True enough, but it's important to note that Wargs don't actually do that - deliberate misdirection for political reasons just makes people who know better spread stories that they do.

[Ulthosian Stark]

Just saying, its funny that a user named Fat Pink Mast is arguing the semantics of vaginas

[John Suburbs]

This is not textually supported. The one time we hear Westerosi people talking about people who transform into wolves and back, they call them "wargs". Not "werewolves", a word that isn't in the text.

When was that? The only physical transformations I recall are tales from the Dawn Age, which are notoriously unreliable. If you are talking about the Farwynds, Asha describes them as skinchangers who take the form of sea animals, so again, no wolves involved therefore no werewolves. And "take the form of" could very well be warging into seals and sea lions just the way normal skinchangers do. No evidence of an actual transformation.

And as I said, the smallfolk probably would describe an actual werewolf as a warg because that is the only word they know, but that doesn't mean they are the same type of creature and should be described as such.

[ChillyPolly]

When was that? The only physical transformations I recall are tales from the Dawn Age, which are notoriously unreliable.

"Wargs birth other wargs with a bite, it is well known" ... in direct reference to a number of people physically transforming from man into wolf before the very eyes of observers. It's from Davos' chapter in ADWD, in Manderly's court.

The fact that the story is not true is not relevant. The meaning of a term is determined by how it is used. In this context, "warg" clearly means exactly the same thing as "werewolf".

And as I said, the smallfolk probably would describe an actual werewolf as a warg because that is the only word they know, but that doesn't mean they are the same type of creature and should be described as such.

How a word is commonly used is EXACTLY what determines its meaning. Who decides the meaning of French words? Frenchmen, that's who. Or (less directly) French lexicographers who study the words as used by Frenchmen, and try to figure out what Frenchmen mean by them, and compose French dictionaries based on their conclusions about what Frenchmen mean when Frenchmen use the words in question. If we don't acknowledge common usage, then French is nothing but a warped, debased and "incorrect" version of Latin.

Whether the word describes different types of creature is neither here nor there. A great many terms are broad enough to describe different types of creature: Fish, Mammal, Rodent, Whale, Cat, Bird, Bat, Parrot, Goat, Owl, Serpent.

Whether "wargs" that physically transform actually exist is irrelevant. Most moderns don't believe in real witches or witchcraft. They probably suspect that stories of witches are actually derived from frauds, phonies, schizophrenics, and scapegoats. Does that mean that "witch" should be defined to mean "fraud, phony, schizophrenic, or scapegoat"? No! The word "witch" is defined by what those who use the term mean by it. Same with "warg".

[ChillyPolly]

Just saying, its funny that a user named Fat Pink Mast is arguing the semantics of vaginas

His name is THICK Pink Mast. There's an important semantic distinction there somewhere, I'm sure.