A poignant comic, and a nuanced opinion with which I would heartily agree. More than a few, it seems, do fill in the gaps of their knowledge with just about anything, uncomfortable with the least bit of uncertainty. However, as per the commentary, yes, it is tricky to criticize this -- even indirectly -- as I'm sure many will argue that video games and science fiction were catalysts for their knowledge. And, in the grand scheme, who are we to judge the veracity of said knowledge or the effectiveness of the method?
For all that concern, though, this one did bring a knowing smile... *grin*
What it said is true ... when I first aweken the first thing I whanted was to find my form ... but I was going in video games ... but now I prefer waiting for my from to be reveal then going in video games.
In other words that 100% true.... better that way ^^
But isn't even picking "dragon" filling in the gaps? Leads to the question: how much body-self-image and species-self-image is "constructed", and a matter of choice? NB: construction doesn't make a thing unreal. Any accusation of unoriginality could be turned back with thunderous force upon the person whose construct is "an ordinary human".
Technically, you are correct in that "picking" "dragon" is filling in the gaps, but I know at least two people who if asked to decribe their form in as few words as possible would start with, "dragon, but not really..." as the term "dragon" fills in the gaps for OTHER people and gives the person who is the dragon to build upon the conceptual model that a standard western dragon provides. If they instead stared with a description, "large wings, four legs, scales, tail teeth claws..." the other person would eventually go, "Oh! You mean a dragon." Defining oneself as a dragon creates more gaps than it fills. There are over 250 differently described dragons to date (see Nargus' Dragon Classification (http://www.dragonsempire.com/modules.php?name=Dragon_Classify)). Not all of them have wings. Not all of them have scales. Not all of them are large. Not all of them are a single color. Not all of them have a "breath weapon." Not even all of them are reptiles or reptiloid.
I agree it is didactic. Reading 'Goofus And Gallant' as a boy, I always wanted some outlaw Chaotic Good-aligned kid to come along and stuff them both into lockers (which /would/ benefit society, or at least save us from cloyingly sweet cartoon characters).
That said... I just loooove the Pac-Man eyes on Dragon Don't. *g*
The Chaotic Good aligned kid sort of appears in Tailsteak's political comics as Tertium Quid, or TQ for short, who represents the unnoticed third option in any dualistic controversy. Rather than being in the gray area between black and white, he's outside it completely.
But I've only just reacently stumbled upon your Illustrative Informational.
This paticular piece, I knew from day 1, sometime back in late 00' To this day I still follow it - I know the base 'dragon' fits, but when people ask me for details, 7 years later I still don't know. People seem to be so lept up on details, I just don't know why.
ok, i gotta totally disagree with this based on grounds of archetypes alone. This kind of elitism has been around since 10 years ago, and its about time it stopped. Sadly, there are some people who didnt help with this by being total jerks, including to me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
frameacloud posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
therithere
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 12:30 pm (UTC)For all that concern, though, this one did bring a knowing smile... *grin*
Your right
Date: 2005-11-28 12:43 pm (UTC)In other words that 100% true.... better that way ^^
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 02:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 06:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 09:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 01:21 am (UTC)If they instead stared with a description, "large wings, four legs, scales, tail teeth claws..." the other person would eventually go, "Oh! You mean a dragon."
Defining oneself as a dragon creates more gaps than it fills. There are over 250 differently described dragons to date (see Nargus' Dragon Classification (http://www.dragonsempire.com/modules.php?name=Dragon_Classify)). Not all of them have wings. Not all of them have scales. Not all of them are large. Not all of them are a single color. Not all of them have a "breath weapon." Not even all of them are reptiles or reptiloid.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-05 09:37 pm (UTC)That said... I just loooove the Pac-Man eyes on Dragon Don't. *g*
no subject
Date: 2005-12-06 02:44 am (UTC)I realize this is 2 years late...
Date: 2007-05-24 02:07 pm (UTC)This paticular piece, I knew from day 1, sometime back in late 00' To this day I still follow it - I know the base 'dragon' fits, but when people ask me for details, 7 years later I still don't know. People seem to be so lept up on details, I just don't know why.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-23 02:38 pm (UTC)