Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1066285The misappropriation of the wendigo took off in the age of the internet when research material was a google search away, so as far as excuses go this only makes modern writers look really stupid.

All cultures start out as hybrids and adaptions. The Algonquin wendigo stands on a set of collective experiences stemming back across the Bering landbridge, then Asia, and then Africa.

Having said that there nothing from stopping YOU from presenting the Algonquin myth in the form you thinks works best.

Write it up and release it.

Quote from: Pat;1066577Now all the people who just copied Marvel's Wendigo, they are being lazy, and/or ignorant. There's a strong tendency in geek media, including RPGs as well as comics, to become too self-referential. Too many weapon lists are on earlier weapons lists in other RPGs, instead of getting a book by Oakeshott, and too many monsters based on other monsters in monster manuals, instead of digging into the legendary sources. But that's just poor writing and research, not misappropriation.

I don't even think that is necessarily poor writing though. Genres become very self referential over time, and develop a lore of their own. I see no issue with this. Especially you are writing for people who want the Marvel Wendigo. Again, for me, I see both as important options to have on the table. I don't think I'd be happy if everyone was always just doing the self referential thing, but I also would get bored if it was all deep delves into the authentic legend. For me, whether the writing is good, is more about how effective it is on me as a reader. You could be true to the legend and create a terrible story. You could take something from pop culture and make an amazing story. I feel like late, especially on the internet, we've been conflating style with quality.

Quote from: estar;1066578All cultures start out as hybrids and adaptions. The Algonquin wendigo stands on a set of collective experiences stemming back across the Bering landbridge, then Asia, and then Africa.

Just so. Myths have been appropriated from other myths, re-told and re-told over the millenia. The Wendigo situation is nothing new or noteworthy in that regard.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1066579I don't even think that is necessarily poor writing though. Genres become very self referential over time, and develop a lore of their own. I see no issue with this. Especially you are writing for people who want the Marvel Wendigo. Again, for me, I see both as important options to have on the table. I don't think I'd be happy if everyone was always just doing the self referential thing, but I also would get bored if it was all deep delves into the authentic legend. For me, whether the writing is good, is more about how effective it is on me as a reader. You could be true to the legend and create a terrible story. You could take something from pop culture and make an amazing story. I feel like late, especially on the internet, we've been conflating style with quality.

It's fine if you're writing a new story about Marvel's Wendigo. But it's crap if you're writing a new fantasy novel, and basing it on Marvel's Wendigo instead of actually doing the trivial amount of research on your own.

While it's true modern things can take on the status of legends, that's rare. Vanishingly rare. Sturgeon's rule with a lot of extra 9s. The real legends have already passed through that filter, there's something in there that resonates, and has continued to do so for centuries. When you base a story on those legends, you're using good ingredients. When you base a story on the modern copies, it's equivalent to using catsup that's been sitting the gas station shelf for 3 years after its expiration date. Now it's true, it might not be spoiled, and a master chef could potentially turn that into a great dish. But what's the most likely occurrence? That's why all this intra-genre referential stuff tends to be crap, and why we should always go back to the source material when possible.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1066576whether cultures should be able to control their mythology like it is copyrighted, quite another. I think this notion comes from a good place but is deeply misguided.

Like I said previously we all stand on the set of experiences that began in Africa.

Why bitch about the Wendigo when the English (and some Scottish) killed a million Irish through their indifference or incompetence in the Great Famine. By the logic being offered by cultural control everybody who isn't Irish should stop using Leprechauns, Sidhe and the other elements of Irish mythology.

What is winds up being in the end is a small clique imposing their views on everybody else.

The better solution is what the Irish did with Saint Patrick Day. Everybody Irish for a day as part of a celebration of Irishness. If there isn't a version of the Wendigo that true to the original myths then somebody should write it up and get it out there.

Quote from: Pat;1066581It's fine if you're writing a new story about Marvel's Wendigo. But it's crap if you're writing a new fantasy novel, and basing it on Marvel's Wendigo instead of actually doing the trivial amount of research on your own.

Again, I would disagree. I am not talking specifically about the marvel wendigo, as I don't really read comics, but if something like that takes off and becomes its own thing in the culture, why is it worse to use that, rather than go to the original legend material. Again I am not saying people shouldn't go to the original material, just I don't see why it is automatically bad writing to begin with the current point in the evolution of the concept in the culture. You can always have people going back to the root. But what makes either good writing, is the writing, not whether they researched the original concept or elaborated on a more prevalent pop culture one.

QuoteWhile it's true modern things can take on the status of legends, that's rare. Vanishingly rare. Sturgeon's rule with a lot of extra 9s. The real legends have already passed through that filter, there's something in there that resonates, and has continued to do so for centuries. When you base a story on those legends, you're using good ingredients. When you base a story on the modern copies, it's equivalent to using catsup that's been sitting the gas station shelf for 3 years after its expiration date. Now it's true, it might not be spoiled, and a master chef could potentially turn that into a great dish. But what's the most likely occurrence? That's why all this intra-genre referential stuff tends to be crap, and why we should always go back to the source material when possible.

Again, I want both. I don't want to just be reading stuff based purely on old legends. I want writers to experiment with new concepts, play to audience expectation and help evolve legends. I just don't see how it is any less lazy to do one or the other. If you strictly rely on one approach, that is lazy because all the decision making has been done ahead of time. I'd rather see writers struggle a bit with that part of it. And again, I like legendary material. I probably read more legends and myths than I do modern material. But I can kick back and enjoy both. And can see value in both approaches.

Quote from: Pat;1066581It's fine if you're writing a new story about Marvel's Wendigo. But it's crap if you're writing a new fantasy novel, and basing it on Marvel's Wendigo instead of actually doing the trivial amount of research on your own.

While it's true modern things can take on the status of legends, that's rare. Vanishingly rare. Sturgeon's rule with a lot of extra 9s. The real legends have already passed through that filter, there's something in there that resonates, and has continued to do so for centuries. When you base a story on those legends, you're using good ingredients. When you base a story on the modern copies, it's equivalent to using catsup that's been sitting the gas station shelf for 3 years after its expiration date. Now it's true, it might not be spoiled, and a master chef could potentially turn that into a great dish. But what's the most likely occurrence? That's why all this intra-genre referential stuff tends to be crap, and why we should always go back to the source material when possible.

Understand that in the end in your opinion not an absolute. You are write about certain legends standing the test of time but also keep in mind at some moment, the Wendigo was just one person's tale told to a group of people in North America. It just happened to caught on and endure.

The process of creativity is ongoing and always a mishmash of originality and what been done before. The sentiment expressed in the first paragraph is detrimental to this process which vital to keeping culture alive. Judge a work for itself if it is a crap it is crap if it is good it is good. The use of a traditional Wendigo can be crap or it can be good. The same with an adapted Wendigo or a Wendigo in name only.

Quote from: estar;1066587Understand that in the end in your opinion not an absolute.

You're an idiot. I used terms like "might not", "most likely", and all kinds of qualifiers.  How did you get anything absolutist out of that?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1066558True. A critique I have specifically of D&D is that it engages in one true wayism in its depiction of monsters. Myth and folklore were highly diverse and often inconsistent, which I consider a feature. D&D strips away most of the interesting lore, if it doesn't just apply a familiar name to something wholly fabricated.

Quote from: Bruwulf;1066566That is not One True Wayism. It's the exact opposite of that. It's saying "Here's some random shit, use it as you will." Jesus, you're the one advocating for One True Wayism here.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1066574Point taken. I'm trying to avoid doing that. I can't articulate myself as well as I would like.

I appreciate that you are owning up to that, but I think you are trying to apologize and move on, whereas I think you should hang around and analyze/internalize this (you would only be doing yourself a favor by doing so). This here is I think why you are getting this pushback, and why you aren't finding much purchase here. You aren't articulating yourself well, and the argument the rest of us are experiencing is ranging from contradictory to simply not becoming a cohesive point.

First and foremost, yeah, you just accused D&D of being one-true-wayist upon something where it never has been, and you in fact were being so this whole time. That makes it look like you are just upset with D&D and instead of spelling out a specific accusation, just king of threw negative sounding words at the wall, hoping one would stick. Remember back to other threads where people who were just plain made at OSR/TSR D&D/modern D&D/storygames/non-storygames/oWOD/nWOD/what-have-you and just kind of barfed 'they're a bunch of railroading/mother-may-I/snowflake/edgelord/condescending/angsty/childish/rose-tinted glasses/out-of-touch/blarglglglglargh! I hate them! ' onto the forum. That ever work well for them?

QuoteThe Greek myths are still being told and retold and expanded on today. Fantasy gaming sticks out to me because it doesn't do that: it takes isolated memes, strips away any context or meaning, and...

And here's the second point. This is where you don't seem to be able to solidify your point. Myths (folklore/legends/faerie tales/etc.) are living cultural narratives still being modified today, and Fantasy gaming has done just that, and it's... wrong? Somehow? It takes isolated memes and strips away context (how were they isolated then?)... in some way that is more pronounced than any other media that solidifies the whole breadth of the myths and comes down with one single interpretation?

Quotedoesn't do much with them. For example: Minotaurs in D&D are bland and boring furries. There is so much more you could do with them.

Okay, so D&D Minotaurs are boring. Okay! That I can get behind. Yes, compared to an entire myth, certainly they are.  As others have said, by making them a race of monsters that exist in an (generic) fantasy milieu, one has to strip away specific names and places. Also, much of what is kept in the short descriptions will be what landscape they can be found in, what special abilities they have, a any specific behaviors which can be exploited by enterprising adventurers hoping to kill them and loot their treasure. Much less so who trapped them in a labyrinth (since the DM is going to provide an explanation (if any) of why they are in a dungeon, etc. Some of that is inherent. Some of it simply a page-space issue. Some of it I agree could be done better. It certainly wouldn't be bad if D&D Wendigos (/genies/rakshasa/etc.) could at least overlap with their mythic origins.

I don't know. If you can formulate this finer than boring, things games do that other things you give a pass to are also doing, or inaccurate accusations, perhaps we can help.

I have this critique of Monopoly in that it denigrates single-shoe-wearers that go to Free Parking zones demanding their Free Parking money they're entitled to - only to be arrested and sent directly to jail without due process.

Note! The police that show up in these Free Parking areas are all white. They're clearly blowing whistles in my face and threatening me accusingly with their problematic finger. It's statistically improbable and I believe that my race might be an issue. What is the deal, Monopoly?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3072[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Pat;1066591You're an idiot. I used terms like "might not", "most likely", and all kinds of qualifiers.  How did you get anything absolutist out of that?

I am disagreeing with the assertion in the initial paragraph that it is crap. Which was not a qualified statement. I understand with your stated reason why you think it is crap i.e. the author is too lazy to the research. I don't agree that is a conclusion that can concluded from a use of an alternative myth or a myth in name only situation.

Quote from: Pat;1066581It's fine if you're writing a new story about Marvel's Wendigo. But it's crap if you're writing a new fantasy novel, and basing it on Marvel's Wendigo instead of actually doing the trivial amount of research on your own..

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066580Just so. Myths have been appropriated from other myths, re-told and re-told over the millenia. The Wendigo situation is nothing new or noteworthy in that regard.

Somewhat true, there is originality as well but it all intermixed into a stew at any given moment. It highly likely that the genesis of the Wendigo was the inspired work of a single individual who wove together a bunch of shared experiences to produced a myth that later individuals added to and modified to produce the version that was recorded.

Another example closer at hand. The development of D&D was dependent on the general development of wargames in the late 60s and early 70s but it required the inspiration of Dave Arneson to be added before it could move on to Arneson working with Gary Gygax, the creation of D&D and the birth of tabletop roleplaying. Similarly it required the inspiration of David Wesely and the Braustein scenario before it could move on to Dave and his Blackmoor campaign. But none of this would have occurred without what was going with with wargames at the time.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1066576I see these as two very separate issues. The treatment of native cultures is one thing, whether cultures should be able to control their mythology like it is copyrighted, quite another. I think this notion comes from a good place but is deeply misguided. Cultures connect by sharing, not by drawing lines in the sand. If you want people to understand the Algonquin, telling people the Wendigo is off limits unless they abide by certain rules, isn't going to promote deeper understanding. However people finding the Wendigo cool and interesting, will probably lead folks to learn more about them. I get this argument. I understand it. But I think it does more harm than good. And I think it is counter to the spirit of creativity and openness that humans should be striving for.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1066579I don't even think that is necessarily poor writing though. Genres become very self referential over time, and develop a lore of their own. I see no issue with this. Especially you are writing for people who want the Marvel Wendigo. Again, for me, I see both as important options to have on the table. I don't think I'd be happy if everyone was always just doing the self referential thing, but I also would get bored if it was all deep delves into the authentic legend. For me, whether the writing is good, is more about how effective it is on me as a reader. You could be true to the legend and create a terrible story. You could take something from pop culture and make an amazing story. I feel like late, especially on the internet, we've been conflating style with quality.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1066585Again, I would disagree. I am not talking specifically about the marvel wendigo, as I don't really read comics, but if something like that takes off and becomes its own thing in the culture, why is it worse to use that, rather than go to the original legend material. Again I am not saying people shouldn't go to the original material, just I don't see why it is automatically bad writing to begin with the current point in the evolution of the concept in the culture. You can always have people going back to the root. But what makes either good writing, is the writing, not whether they researched the original concept or elaborated on a more prevalent pop culture one.



Again, I want both. I don't want to just be reading stuff based purely on old legends. I want writers to experiment with new concepts, play to audience expectation and help evolve legends. I just don't see how it is any less lazy to do one or the other. If you strictly rely on one approach, that is lazy because all the decision making has been done ahead of time. I'd rather see writers struggle a bit with that part of it. And again, I like legendary material. I probably read more legends and myths than I do modern material. But I can kick back and enjoy both. And can see value in both approaches.

If the intent is to promote understanding of Algonquin culture, then applying the name wendigo to an unrecognizable hodgepodge of memes accumulated over the last century by non-Algonquin writers sounds like a terrible way of doing that.

The wendigo of pop-culture is a generic monster. It doesn't promote any understanding of Algonquin culture. Telling non-Algonquin writers to stop using the name and make up their own original monster isn't some misguided attempt at political correctness that will cause more harm than good, but an appeal to simple honesty.

Think about it in terms of, I don't know, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Xenosaga or any other Japanese fiction that uses Christian symbolism. Although they use familiar terminology like angels, dead sea scrolls, gnosis, Lilith, Adam, and Mary Magdalene, the context is unrecognizable. The premise of Xenosaga is that you are playing Mary Magdalene reincarnated as a sexy android dressed in skimpy lingerie who generates weapons of mass destruction from hammerspace, and the premise of Evangelion is that giant surreal angels are trying to destroy the world and the protagonists have to kill them by piloting giant robots grown from the flesh of Adam and Lilith.

While these might be engaging stories on their own, they have pretty much nothing to do with Christianity and do nothing to promote understanding between Christians and non-Christians.

Turning the wendigo into a zombie weredeer that only shows up in one episode, or what have you... that is about as effective at promoting an understanding of Algonquin peoples as turning Mary Magdalene into a gun-toting robot stripper is effective at promoting an understanding of Christians.

Going back to the source material is the only way to understand the myth if popular culture has already stripped it of meaning. Making a photocopy of a photocopy ad nauseum only results in the complete loss of the original image.

Look at the cyclops, for example. D&D treats it as yet another generic monster to kill, whereas in the myths they were crazy awesome blacksmiths who forged Zeus' thunderbolt. Which of those concepts is more interesting on its own merits? The overwhelming majority of the time the original myth is superior to any later stripped-down iteration from fantasy gaming. The only time an iteration is better is when it adds to the original rather than subtracting from it. Which has its own downsides but we humans ain't perfect.

Read the Monsters of Greek Mythology series by Bernard Evslin sometime. He took the original myths and either remixed or expanded on them. In some cases he made up most of the story wholesale since the myths are often quite short, but those new works actually feel like mythology.

Or read the comic book adaptations of Greek myth by Zelda C. Wong. The arc about the Titanomachy is loaded with references to little known myths that will go over most readers' heads. Kratos is a character, and NOT the one from the God of War game. Probably the best part of her work is how she characterizes Hades and Zeus, which are essentially the exact opposite of how they are typically depicted in modern pop-culture.

Those are good examples of myth-making.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1066613Look at the cyclops, for example. D&D treats it as yet another generic monster to kill, whereas in the myths they were crazy awesome blacksmiths who forged Zeus' thunderbolt. Which of those concepts is more interesting on its own merits? The overwhelming majority of the time the original myth is superior to any later stripped-down iteration from fantasy gaming. The only time an iteration is better is when it adds to the original rather than subtracting from it. Which has its own downsides but we humans ain't perfect.

The D&D cyclops is based on Polyphemus. A cave-dwelling, man-eating monster that features prominently in one of the most famous adventure stories of all time, the world over, so I would argue that concept is plenty interesting. What we were given in the rulebook were rules to try to recreate a similar story if we wanted it. Nothing more, nothing less. His genealogy and backstory aren't needed, or generally wanted, because GMs are making those parts up for themselves.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1066613If the intent is to promote understanding of Algonquin culture, then applying the name wendigo to an unrecognizable hodgepodge of memes accumulated over the last century by non-Algonquin writers sounds like a terrible way of doing that.

The wendigo of pop-culture is a generic monster. It doesn't promote any understanding of Algonquin culture. Telling non-Algonquin writers to stop using the name and make up their own original monster isn't some misguided attempt at political correctness that will cause more harm than good, but an appeal to simple honesty.

Think about it in terms of, I don't know, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Xenosaga or any other Japanese fiction that uses Christian symbolism. Although they use familiar terminology like angels, dead sea scrolls, gnosis, Lilith, Adam, and Mary Magdalene, the context is unrecognizable. The premise of Xenosaga is that you are playing Mary Magdalene reincarnated as a sexy android dressed in skimpy lingerie who generates weapons of mass destruction from hammerspace, and the premise of Evangelion is that giant surreal angels are trying to destroy the world and the protagonists have to kill them by piloting giant robots grown from the flesh of Adam and Lilith.

While these might be engaging stories on their own, they have pretty much nothing to do with Christianity and do nothing to promote understanding between Christians and non-Christians.

Turning the wendigo into a zombie weredeer that only shows up in one episode, or what have you... that is about as effective at promoting an understanding of Algonquin peoples as turning Mary Magdalene into a gun-toting robot stripper is effective at promoting an understanding of Christians.

Going back to the source material is the only way to understand the myth if popular culture has already stripped it of meaning. Making a photocopy of a photocopy ad nauseum only results in the complete loss of the original image.

Look at the cyclops, for example. D&D treats it as yet another generic monster to kill, whereas in the myths they were crazy awesome blacksmiths who forged Zeus' thunderbolt. Which of those concepts is more interesting on its own merits? The overwhelming majority of the time the original myth is superior to any later stripped-down iteration from fantasy gaming. The only time an iteration is better is when it adds to the original rather than subtracting from it. Which has its own downsides but we humans ain't perfect.

Read the Monsters of Greek Mythology series by Bernard Evslin sometime. He took the original myths and either remixed or expanded on them. In some cases he made up most of the story wholesale since the myths are often quite short, but those new works actually feel like mythology.

Or read the comic book adaptations of Greek myth by Zelda C. Wong. The arc about the Titanomachy is loaded with references to little known myths that will go over most readers' heads. Kratos is a character, and NOT the one from the God of War game. Probably the best part of her work is how she characterizes Hades and Zeus, which are essentially the exact opposite of how they are typically depicted in modern pop-culture.

Those are good examples of myth-making.

I am just not buying this argument. You are taking what I am saying to the most extreme end of it. There is a spectrum of taking influence from something to create new things. D&D is just a game. But pretty much anytime I've encountered something in D&D that turned out to be from real world mythology, it was a starting point of interest for me (not matter how far the D&D stuff veered from the original source material). Someone taking something in myth, and having fun with it, is something I find infectious. Someone issuing commandments on how myth is to be handled, isn't. Again with the Wendigo, when you set up this giant list of rules about how we should be taking inspiration from Algonquin culture, it doesn't make me want to learn about Algonquin myth. It makes me not want to bother. You are not giving people room to have fun, make mistakes, and experiment.