I'm going to ignore that for now. You didn't answer the question. You just explained why you didn't answer it before.
I was using "the way God intended" in it's colloquial sense to mean "the way we already know experimentally that such a thing can be accomplished". I'll admit that there are a couple of other colloquial meanings to the phrase that could be confusing, such as "the way that long standing tradition or aesthetic tells us the thing should be accomplished". Granted, I meant either of these, since I admitted to being okay with artifices both technological and magical for the breathing of fire. I was in no way aware that you were going to be fundamentally unfamiliar with such a common idiom in the English language. I apologize for not paying attention if you mentioned the fact that you aren't very familiar with the English language elsewhere, I know that people occasionally post that information, but I don't do a good job of keeping track of it.
I'd get into the explanation of how that works, but I fear that it would only reveal how much of a geek I truly am... but to sum it up, everything I write pretty much has an explanation of some sort, pretty much due to my comic-book/science-fiction influences... nothing is ever "just magic"...
"You didn't answer the question."
Actually, I did... a couple of times now... I'm ignoring your insults (even be they unintentional) towards my grasp of the English language from a misunderstanding of what you dub to be "common English idioms," but I'm being significantly forced to wonder about your own grasp as well...
"You just explained why you didn't answer it before."
I explained both... did you only read one sentence?
"I was using "the way God intended" in it's colloquial sense to mean "the way we already know experimentally that such a thing can be accomplished""
Yes, I was figuring (or more so, hoping) that "the way God intended" was not intended to be completely literal, hence why I basically gave my reasoning in a sense of it not being taken literal, but even in your present interpretation of what you say to have meant, my answer still stands… we're talking about a mythical creature accomplishing a mythical activity… the statement of "the way we already know experimentally that such a thing can be accomplished" can not even remotely apply beyond what I am already enforcing…
"Granted, I meant either of these, since I admitted to being okay with artifices both technological and magical for the breathing of fire."
I already said that my dragons don't have intellect equal or greater than that of humans... technological use would be more impossible than magic, especially in a setting such as my story, where only one native species has yet mastered metallurgy (and it’s not the dragons)…
posted
See...I got that your dragons are dumb. I'm not asking whether or not your dragons are smart enough to figure things out for themselves.
I'm asking why your story demands stupid dragons. The closest you've come to an answer is saying "because I like my dragons stupid." Given the level of hostility you've shown towards the suggestion that they would be more interesting if they were smart, I believe you. But that doesn't answer the question I'm asking you.
Consider it as a multiple part question. Why do you want these things to be "fire-breathing dragons"? How does that serve your story? Also, how does it serve your story for them to be of sub-human intelligence?
Oh, and I don't quite know what you're claiming now about idiomatic usages. Are you saying that you understood the idiom but simply didn't want to answer the question and took the idiom literally as a way of avoiding the subject? Or are you saying that you didn't understand the idiom but you consider yourself sufficiently competent in English usage that any idiom you don't understand couldn't possibly be in regular usage?
But I don't expect that you have the answers to those questions anymore than I do. I'd rather hear why your story needs to have brutish, fire-breathing dragons.
I know this isn't my topic, but I personally don't like so-called "smart" dragons in stories. I suppose it depends on how deep the fantasy is and whether there are other fantastical creatures involved, but if the story is set on Earth in the middle ages, then I think they should just be animals. Dinosaurs or other form of giant lizard left over from another time.
I especially think this would be the appropriate route if the story is rooted more in Sci-fi as opposed to Fantasy. As RavenStarr has said this is more Sci-fi based, I can see why the dragons should be treated more as animals than a race of beings.
posted
But you're okay with trying to figure out a biological mechanism for them to breath fire?
It doesn't really matter. The thing is that I don't think that advice is helpful without some understanding of the context and purpose of the thing to which the advice is being applied. I just think that it would be helpful to everyone if there were a clear understanding of the purpose of having unintelligent "dragons" which breath fire as part of this story.
quote: Dragons are the fantasy world equivalent of faster-than-light travel. (Impossible at best. But we are willing to ignore that unless you try to explain it.)
Perhaps I should have said, 'impropable and laughable at best'. Still, firebreathing dragons THAT YOU TRY TO EXPLAIN are the sort of addition to a sci-fi, that turns it from 'hard' to 'soft' as fast as (insert appropriate 'hard to soft' analogy).
IMHO you can't have intelligent dragons because they will disbelieve themselves and vanish in a blinding flash of logic.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited April 12, 2005).]
posted
I'm with hoptoad, sort of. I'm "dragoned-out," and sometimes wish they'd disappear from many stories. How about giant duckbill platypuses? The real ones combine a loveable kookiness with a certain air of danger -- males have a spur on their ankles that can deliver a painful, venomous jab. Giant ones might be terrifying. They can't fly though -- but then again, we are talking fantasy stories.
[This message has been edited by Lanius (edited April 12, 2005).]
Really, I think that it is horses that tend to be the equivalent of FTL travel in fantasy. Or maybe it's the lusty tavernwenches. I don't know.
IMNSHO you can't have intelligent humans because I'll disbelieve in them and they'll disappear in a flash of logic.
Dragons are okay with me, as long as they serve some purpose in the story. OSC used the dragon in Middle Woman as a wish-granter who was cruel but not evil. A Djinn simply wouldn't have worked well in that story. The dragon Smaug in The Hobbit exists as an embodiment of senseless destruction and greed as well as being the main villian in a more conventional sense. The dragons in the Earthsea trilogy are avatars of magic, serving to show that magic is part of that world rather than an invention of men as well as being characters who move the story along.
The problem I see with dragons that are your typical dragons but aren't bright enough to be characters is that they have a hard time serving any function in the story important enough to justify having them in the story. Particularly if it's supposed to be an SF story.
Even if you make your dragons "varelse", I think that they can still serve your story if they are clearly intelligent (how intelligent? Probably smart enough to keep the details of their secret weapon a secret). But if they are dumb...well, what are they doing in your story? Dumb dragons usually only exist to give fantasy knights errant something to kill, and you claim you aren't writing a fantasy.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
