[DWJ] Dragon history question

estairm at yahoo.com estairm at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 14 23:07:56 EDT 2010

From: Katarina Hjärpe <katarina.hjarpe at gmail.com>
To: Diana Wynne Jones discussion <dwj at suberic.net>
Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 5:16:00 PM
Subject: Re: [DWJ] Dragon history question

> 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.
You know, this comment made me wonder how much of "goodness" attributed to
fantastical creatures is really old colonialist assumptions - i.e a dragon
is considered good when it does what humans tell it and doesn't violently
object to having its treasure stolen. [...]

I was nodding my head in agreement when it struck me.  Wait, didn't the dragons 
steal all the treasure from humans in the first place?  Their claws do not seem 
made for smithy work.  So, if a "good" dragon reacts with moderation to 'its' 
treasure being stolen, maybe that is an ethical decision, or the reaction of an 
uneasy conscience, instead of an example of an un-uppity native...


More information about the Dwj mailing list