Re: the OP
I have asked myself the same question concerning flying suacers. They too appear in art, literature, and folklore in cultures around the world…
Krispy Original – The original SDMB bad boy
I heard it was all caused by a guy named Jung.
The Flight of Dragons (Harper & Row, 1979) was written by the novelist Peter Dickinson and illustrated by Wayne Anderson. It was originally a short piece in one of the earliest issues of Omni and later expanded into a book. (Or the article may have been an abridgement of the book-in-progress.)
While Dickinson lays the entire book out with a perfectly straight face, I do not have the impression that he actually believed that physical dragons once lived on Earth. It was my impression that he wanted to rekindle some of the wonder associated with dragons.
(I could be wrong and he could be a nut, but hes has written a truly marvelous book.)
Tom~
I don’t think the common idea that Western dragons are stocky and have limbs, and that the Eastern dragons are big snakes is necessarily true. Early European dragons, not counting such earlier monsters as the hydra, seem to be snakes. In fact, it might be interesting to check on the etymologies of “wyrm” and “worm”. And many oriental dragons have claws but no wings (in fact, one way you recognize an imperial dragon is if it has 5 claws).
The suppositions that dragons flew because they were full of hydrogen, and all the other speudo-scientific attempts to explain the existence (???) of dragons are recent rationalizations, mostly (I think) used to encourage the rise of “fantasy” literature and of role-playing games, or just to have a good time. I have come across a number of books from the '70s and '80s that used the exact same concepts listed above, including teeth coated with flint to spark stomach hydrogen into fire. The same concepts are pretty much everywhere in recent literature.
Flying saucers do not appear in art, literature, and folklore in cultures around the world. People just say that they do, and then others repeat their words. Just look at the impact that the cretin Von Daniken has had on popular ignorance with his nonsense about ancient austronauts and visitors from space.
Abe
IDIOT, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling.
–Ambrose Bierce
Sure, that explaines red dragons. But what about black dragons?
As for wyrm, I can’t find it in the OED under that spelling. There is a definition of worm that means serpent but I can’t establish an etymological link. I’ve never seen wyrm outside of fantasy fiction or roleplaying games.
Johnny Angel, Jophiel, I don’t think the originators and propogators of dragon legends were aware/interested in the complications of the anatomy required for the constructions. If so, how would anyone have dreamed up a centaur? Griffin? There’s a bunch of mythical creatures that are mixes of components from other animals liberally mixed. (A centaur also has the described limb count problem. Four horse legs, plus human arms.)
Irish, I agree. I wasn’t mocking the people of old for making up such creations (although a centaur seems more reasonable since you’re not cramming all those limbs into one place. I guess there’s organ placement though. But I digress…) rather the modern people who try to make dragons a biological possibility and instead of working out the physiology of the beast so it could at least fly and move, spend their time on the fire breathing aspect of it. It’s like proving that leperchauns exist because you have an idea of how they’d make those tiny shoe buckles and ignoring the invisible aspect of them (the leperchauns, not the buckles).
Just on another mythological creature made flesh note, I have read before that drawing off the wing span to weight ratio of the Canadian goose (which has the lowest such ratio), a 6’ angel would need a wingspan of approx. 36’ at the minimum to take flight (ignoring the muscle hook-up problems I described for the dragon). Something to think about next time you look at some tiny limp winged putti “cherub”.
“I guess one person can make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”
Johnny Angel: Hoo-hah! You’ve never seen Ken Russell’s “Lair of the White Worm”?!
It’s pretty hilarious.
From the imdb page on “Lair.”
“A lavish, and kinky version of Bram Stoker’s seldom read story (which I imagine was quite different). The Worm of the title is actually a Wyrm, an old English term for snake or dragon. The followers of this beast are a combination of snakes and vampires. They spit venom and can paralyze or transform their victims with a bite.”
Not Celtic. Viking! The Vikings were not only bold pirates & raiders, but merchant-adventureres too. Grave goods of chinese origin, including at least one jade Buddha have been found in Viking burial mounds. The Vikings did have dragons, too.
And when the (temporarily) conquered parts of Ireland, they passed on their artistic style, especially dragons.(PS–much of what is today considered “Celtic” art is derived, in whole or in part, from the Vikings.)
With magic, you can turn a frog into a prince. With science, you can turn a frog into a Ph.D, and you still have the frog you started with.
You misunderstand me. I merely point it out as trivia, not as an attempt to debunk something.
Wyrm in An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary by Bosworth and Toller is defined as, “a reptile, serpent.”
Worms is defined as “corrupt matter.”
Clearly, these two are not etymologicallty related. Furthermore, the fact that wyrm can be used to refer to a snake does not establish, it seems to me, any connection between the snake-like dragons of the orient with the more lizard-like dragons of the occident. Wyrm really appears to be a general term for a reptilian creature, which can include snakes.
Wrong.
I could fairly easily provide information on flying saucer folklore from many different countries from around the world.
Do you need to see the proof?
Krispy Original – The original SDMB bad boy
Joph is correct. The Chinese dragon is a rain divinity (well there are other types, keep reading). There are nine characteristics of a Chinese Dragon; a head like a camel’s,horns like a deer’s, eyes like a hare’s, ears like a cow, a mane like a lion, the belly of a frog , scales of the carp, paws of a tiger, and claws like an eagle’s. Chinese dragons, as far as I know only breathe steam (or clouds). Most representations of them show them in either clouds, or waves.
They also represent the emperor. I’ve heard that in China, only the emperor could wear dragon emblems with 5 claws, which represented the emperor. Chinese temples often have sculptures of dragons on the roofs to protect them from fire as well.
There are also 9 different types of dragons: a horned dragon, a winged dragon, a celestial dragon (protects the mansions of the gods),a spiritual dragon which brings rain, a dragon that protects hidden treasures, a coiling dragon (lives under water), the yellow dragon, and the dragon king, which is four dragons, and has control over the waters of the four directions.
The one most westerners see in Chinese art is the horned dragon.
It’s worth the risk of burning, to have a second chance…
quote from Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor
- And when the (temporarily) conquered parts of Ireland, they passed on their artistic style, especially dragons.(PS–much of what is today considered “Celtic” art is derived, in whole or in part, from the Vikings.) -
I gotta disagree with you here. This site covers the origins and influences on Celtic Art http://www.celtic-art.net/index2.htm far batter than I can.
Krispy Original:
[quote]
I could fairly easily provide information on flying saucer folklore from many different countries from around the world.*
I for one have no doubt that you could, though I expect that your criteria for what counts as `flying saucer folklore’ will be unacceptably liberal and that in any case whatever conclusions you draw from this information will be dubious at best, possibly altogether spurious.
Regarding “wyrms”, I’ve heard a rather fascinating if far out rationalization of that myth.
Various species of salamanders, newts, etc. live throughout northern Europe. They begin life in a larval form, eventually changing to the adult form when they mature. Quite often, the larvae are active predators, very vicious for their size.
There are species of salamander that are “neotenous”; that is, as an evolutionary quirk they remain in the larval form all their lives. The best known example is the axolotl of Mexico.
The theory is that supposedly once in a while, something goes wrong with the hormones of a common species of salamander and it remains in the larval state, growing bigger and bigger untill you have a 10-12 foot long semi-aquatic snakelike creature that’s an aggressive predator. That would definitely seem like a monster to fourth-century peasants, and would need a pretty brave and well armed warrior to kill.
Yeah, if your opinion on the matter is already prejudiced, then I suppose that any supporting evidence that proves you to be wrong will in fact be unacceptable to you.
…hmmm…challenges my statement, but then flinches at the possibility of an examination of the facts…why did you even bother in the first place?
Krispy Original – The original SDMB bad boy
Krispy Original:
Whereas I’m sure you consider yourself non-prejudiced on the issue. In any case, I haven’t even taken a position on the matter except to say that whatever evidence you have would require scrutiny.
You don’t fault yourself for referring to facts which you did not present, but you fault me for not demanding that you present them? Cute, but it won’t win you anything. You are the one with a claim at stake, so it falls to you to pony up the data. You’ve got an open invitation to do so on this board, you don’t need me to engrave you one.
I have given you the benefit of assuming that in fact you do have some data which you believe will advance some claim, though you have stated neither your data nor your claim. I don’t think you’re bluffing. I think that whenever you’re ready to state and defend your position rather than merely referring to it obliquely, you’ll do so. Nobody’s restraining you.
Ignore Krispy, Johnny Angel. He’s been huffing & puffing for a long time, & still can’t come up with anything substantial. Like a piece of equipment that cannot be explained by technology commonly found “hereabouts”.
Instead, Krispy prefers to cite accounts from people who have married their cousins & only have 3 teeth in their heads. He refers to these folks as “experts”. :rolleyes:
<font size=4>Hey Krispy! I’ve got a gen-u-ine Anti-Mothman electric Bug-Zapper light for sale, only 132,000,000 British shillings; payable in newly minted crowns coins only, of course.
Sure! It LOOKS like an old Boy Scout Flashlight. That’s what THEY want you to think! THEM! THE CONSPIRACY! YEAH!
So order now! Supplies are going fast!</font>
With magic, you can turn a frog into a prince. With science, you can turn a frog into a Ph.D, and you still have the frog you started with.
Then you should read The Flight of Dragons. Dickenson postulates that the basic specialty of dragons was their mode of flight, and shows that all of the other attributes of dragonhood were natural consequences of that specialty.
Here’s what Dickenson said:
And he is nuts… I’ve read his mysteries and they are weird.
But the book is an incredible example of applying evolutionary biology (at least as far as I can tell, I’m no biologist)
…in a state so nonintuitive it can only be called weird…
I’d like to see the proof. If they do appear in folklore all over the world, what is the popular explanation? What are the unpopular explanations?