[DWJ] Dragon history question
minnow at belfry.org.uk
Wed Jul 14 05:28:06 EDT 2010
Roger Burton West wrote:
> Is it worth distinguishing between "good" dragons and fluffy ones? A
> good dragon is still essentially a _dragon_ - it's big and scary and
> does things for its own reasons, and if you offend it you are likely to
> end up as Barbecued Adventurer, but it works according to rules and
> won't eat you if you are polite. A fluffy dragon is a dragon-shaped
> magical pony, basically harmless, and thus has lost pretty much all its
> draconic nature apart from the physical trappings.
I think I would count the Fluffy or Phlosque Dragon (with Long Eyelashes
And A Mission To Save The Ecosystem) as essentially an enchanted person
rather than a dragon proper, in that I don't regard these creatures as
dragons at all.
For example they generally don't eat, much, because if they did it would
have to be other people's livestock and that would be Naughty. Anne
McCaffrey's do, and have to have special flocks reared and kept for
them, but generally the whole sordid subject is glossed over. I
sometimes suspect they are all vegetarians and go and graze, and that
their writers have no idea how much time they would need to spend
grazing for the fuel they would need to fly.
They are as draconic as a horse in fantasy is equine, and for that see
DWJ "Tough Guide"! They are as similar to the traditional Western
dragon as one of the current crop of sexy-is-all-it-is-really-about
vampires is to the original bloodsucking child-murderers of the old
stories. See also the helpful werewolves now written; not vulpine, and
certainly nothing like the creature of myth which because of its
enchantment couldn't help killing and eating human babies.
More information about the Dwj