|
Post by zaferion on Jul 18, 2018 17:54:05 GMT
Not to be dramatic or anything, but I would fucking die for Loup
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Jul 18, 2018 18:09:58 GMT
Not to be dramatic or anything, but I would fucking die for Loup He'd let you.
|
|
|
Post by liminal on Jul 18, 2018 18:19:33 GMT
OK, now I'm officially scared. Loup as in Loup-Garou, The French Werewolf legend? No, loup just means "wolf" in French. Except if you think in terms of mythological figures, if you read the word as a name with a capital L, like Renart or Coyote, then Loup is the bad wolf from the old tales. The one who waits in the woods to eat little girls. The Big Bad Wolf. More relevant than ever:
|
|
myzelf
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by myzelf on Jul 18, 2018 19:13:08 GMT
So.... He has become French...
|
|
|
Post by Zox Tomana on Jul 19, 2018 0:02:58 GMT
Knowing it’s pronounced Lew is very helpful. First reading, it sounded like a pun about him being totally fruit-loops. I didn't realize that. Threw me for a loup.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 19, 2018 0:31:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by csj on Jul 19, 2018 1:32:42 GMT
hello my name is wolf
yes this is accurate
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Jul 19, 2018 2:06:42 GMT
So.... He has become French... He already was French, or at least half of him is. Ysengrin is based on a character of the same name from French folklore. Loup, though, is a character who came into existence in Britain and has never been anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by grinningcat on Jul 19, 2018 2:12:41 GMT
His name is Loup, but the real question is: "Is he made o-o-o-of Lo-o-o-o-ove, lo-o-o-o-ove"
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jul 19, 2018 2:50:29 GMT
The word "loup" has several interesting historical traits in French.
First, the vowel is not as expected: given the Latin etymon "lupus", with a short "u", one would expect the French word to have the vowel "eu" (like German "ö") rather than "ou" (like English "oo"). Indeed, in Old French, the most common form is "leu", and it seems that the modern form is the result of dialectal influence.
Futhermore, one would expect the middle consonant -p- from Latin to turn into first into -b- (cf: Spanish "lobo") then -v-, and eventually devoicing to -f- with the loss of the final vowel. The resulting form "louf" is attested in some Old French texts. But it seems that in most case, due to confusion between -v- and -w- like sound, the form louv/leuv simplified early to just lou/leu; on the flipside, the feminine form preserved that consonant, due to the final vowel of Latin "lupa" being preserved as -e, thus lupa > modern French louve.
As the result, the final -p is here not a "linking letter" as in some French words, where a final mute consonant can often resurface in pronunciation in the right environment - this is, in this word, purely an etymological ornament, which seems to have been added in the 16th century.
And yeah, it's amusing that this new character names itself after the animal, as this is essentially a reversal of what happened to Renard - the old French word for fox was "goupil" (Vulgar Latin vulpiculus, from classical vulpes, with v-w-gw confusion word initially, cf vespa > guêpe (wasp)), and Renart was really just the name of the famous character, which was a name of Germanic origin, Reginhart in old Frankish (cf German Reinhard, Reineke), apparently meaning "brave decision".
|
|
|
Post by lemmingatk on Jul 19, 2018 5:48:51 GMT
(Carlos)
Wow, he really threw Annie for a Loup.
This is turning into a real Loup fiasco.
(/Carlos)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 11:30:27 GMT
So.... He has become French... He already was French, or at least half of him is. Ysengrin is based on a character of the same name from French folklore. The Ysengrimus was first published in Ghent (12th century). The name Ysengrin is obviously Germanic in origin, ON ísarn (older variant of járn) "iron" + gríma "mask, helm, face-guard". legion is correct about Reinhart being another German name that means "strong in counsel", but I'll add that it suggests "pure-heart" from a surface reading, which contrasts satisfactorily with the wolf's name...
"Frankish folklore" would include those settlers on the lower Rhine whose descendants became the modern-day Dutch, not yet considering themselves nationally distinct from their Germanic neighbours (which is why the English call them "Dutch", a reflex of their self-description Duits before what I'll abbreviate as national consciousness was created by, among other causes, the wealth of the Flemish textile industry, and later the free-market rights (otherwise unheard of in the 16-17th century) granted to its residents by the city of Amsterdam, as well as the spread of non-Lutheran branches of Protestantism, with Catholic Spanish rule being perceived as doubly foreign. Even on this board there are people more qualified than I to talk about Dutch history, anyhow...
What did we expect a crazy combined aberration of two mostly contradictory powers to look like, the Sistine Chapel ceiling? Of course it looks goofy. Evil is not wise, it's dumb. It's not glorious, it's silly. It's not majestic, it's... degraded. If it was beautiful, we wouldn't be alarmed and upset by it. Alarming and upsetting is only the equivocation of beauty and goodness, I believe, and I'd run a counter-argument along these lines: (1) If beauty arises as a set of properties pointing at the same transcendence as "goodness" and "truth" interchangeably, these properties can be researched from isolating what causes their perceptible effects. Thereby, it becomes possible to imitate enough of the principles of beauty that their effects can be tied to objects crafted for any purpose (in writing this would be "rhetoric", for example). At least in some cases, this imitation can be carried out almost entirely by machines, thus also separated from any good character that you could deem necessary for such imitation. Less obstructively, you don't need to be Gauß to click Add Gaussian Blur; (2) this principle can be applied by anyone to claim that any of their most automatic and abstract responses ("ooh symmetry!") are expressions of virtue, without care for their cause and origin; and in practice it will lead to the sanctification and subsequent sale of immediate widespread appeal, at the expense of any particular thrill and what requires specialized knowledge to enjoy; (3) and finally, anecdotal evidence to the contrary of your claim: some beautiful people can easily prevail in life while outright rejecting clear thought and responsible care (though by no means are they all callous, beauty is also not an obstacle to other virtues, and I think beauty can reinforce an already-extant will to be virtuous; but precisely your equivocation allows them to coast on a single virtue). I think I understand, too, why it might be tempting to deny. But perhaps I should just publish a picture of myself before continuing (if we continue), for you to assert individually (?) whether I'm beautiful enough to argue with you about what is morally good, seeing as your stance requires that (what unites all mysticism is that something replaces reason as the measure of excellence). Indeed, from what I'm seeing, wouldn't that be the most honest and persuasive argument I could make here, even when it could hardly reveal what I was arguing for.
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Jul 19, 2018 12:13:36 GMT
bonjour je m'appelle Wolf
|
|
|
Post by sleepcircle on Jul 19, 2018 13:21:30 GMT
korba, i think he meant that it was conceptually ugly, not that "nothing pretty on the surface can be ugly underneath"
|
|
|
Post by ctso74 on Jul 19, 2018 13:41:45 GMT
Man those bloodshot eyes at the top of the page...yeesh. Maybe, his name should have been Dr. Rockso the Wolf. He does achepowder. The forest would quickly become very unfamily friendly. The achewater would flow like... well... water, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Mitth'raw'nuruodo on Jul 19, 2018 13:50:02 GMT
He has all but cast himself as the Big Bad Wolf, as the first recorded instance of Little Red Riding Hood is from French peasants. This new character seems to have inherited the worst of both worlds, or at least is actively attempting to cast himself in the mold of the evil-trickster as opposed to the pure trickster of the old Coyote or the insane but honor bound Ysengrin.
|
|
|
Post by hp on Jul 19, 2018 14:15:10 GMT
Wonder what he looks like in the ether
|
|
|
Post by madjack on Jul 19, 2018 14:23:35 GMT
Wonder what he looks like in the ether Exactly as you see him now, Annie is looking at him in the ether. Panel 4 of the previous page was her shifting her view, and her clothes are greyed out every time she does that.
|
|
|
Post by ohthatone on Jul 19, 2018 15:52:20 GMT
He has all but cast himself as the Big Bad Wolf, as the first recorded instance of Little Red Riding Hood is from French peasants. Does that mean that Coyote is Grandma and Jimmy Jims is going to have to be the hunter?
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Jul 19, 2018 16:01:10 GMT
What did we expect a crazy combined aberration of two mostly contradictory powers to look like, the Sistine Chapel ceiling? Of course it looks goofy. Evil is not wise, it's dumb. It's not glorious, it's silly. It's not majestic, it's... degraded. If it was beautiful, we wouldn't be alarmed and upset by it. Alarming and upsetting is only the equivocation of beauty and goodness, I believe, and I'd run a counter-argument along these lines: (1) If beauty arises as a set of properties pointing at the same transcendence as "goodness" and "truth" interchangeably, these properties can be researched from isolating what causes their perceptible effects. Thereby, it becomes possible to imitate enough of the principles of beauty that their effects can be tied to objects crafted for any purpose (in writing this would be "rhetoric", for example). At least in some cases, this imitation can be carried out almost entirely by machines, thus also separated from any good character that you could deem necessary for such imitation. Less obstructively, you don't need to be Gauß to click Add Gaussian Blur; (2) this principle can be applied by anyone to claim that any of their most automatic and abstract responses ("ooh symmetry!") are expressions of virtue, without care for their cause and origin; and in practice it will lead to the sanctification and subsequent sale of immediate widespread appeal, at the expense of any particular thrill and what requires specialized knowledge to enjoy; (3) and finally, anecdotal evidence to the contrary of your claim: some beautiful people can easily prevail in life while outright rejecting clear thought and responsible care (though by no means are they all callous, beauty is also not an obstacle to other virtues, and I think beauty can reinforce an already-extant will to be virtuous; but precisely your equivocation allows them to coast on a single virtue). I think I understand, too, why it might be tempting to deny. But perhaps I should just publish a picture of myself before continuing (if we continue), for you to assert individually (?) whether I'm beautiful enough to argue with you about what is morally good, seeing as your stance requires that (what unites all mysticism is that something replaces reason as the measure of excellence). Indeed, from what I'm seeing, wouldn't that be the most honest and persuasive argument I could make here, even when it could hardly reveal what I was arguing for. Yeah, you assumed WAY too much.
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Jul 19, 2018 16:44:08 GMT
He has all but cast himself as the Big Bad Wolf, as the first recorded instance of Little Red Riding Hood is from French peasants. Does that mean that Coyote is Grandma and Jimmy Jims is going to have to be the hunter? Depends. An earlier version of Red Riding Hood had Red get herself out of trouble without a huntsman. Also....other things, including unknowing cannibalism, for no discernible reason.
|
|
|
Post by keef on Jul 19, 2018 18:43:01 GMT
Alarming and upsetting is only the equivocation of beauty and goodness, I believe, and I'd run a counter-argument along these lines: It's not that I don't get your point (more or less (after some meditation and the opening and closing of books (serious books))), but it's a comic you know, so overall, what you see is what you get. On the other hand, you are of course right, Mr Siddell made it clear there are no simple big bad wolfs in this comic:
Annie being my favourite example; beautiful, polite and well-behaved Annie... stealing, cheating and cruel Annie.
|
|
|
Post by fia on Jul 19, 2018 18:52:40 GMT
So, I was doing some reading on theophagy (eating a God to commune with it and/or obtain its power), and I thought this selection about the ritual eating of stuff associated with Dionysus from The Golden Bough by James Frazer was kind of cool. It sort of explains why a god might go about eating itself, or one of its former forms. Maybe it will shed light into why Loup was formed by Ysengrin eating Coyote, and why the result is a bit anthropomorphic. It is pretty long, so I'm putting it under a cutaway. "...Dionysus was supposed to inspire their choice of the particular bull, which probably represented the deity himself; for at his festivals he was believed to appear in bull form. [...] The Bacchanals of Thrace wore horns in imitation of their god. According to the myth, it was in the shape of a bull that he was torn to pieces by the Titans; and the Cretans, when they acted the sufferings and death of Dionysus, tore a live bull to pieces with their teeth. Indeed, the rending and devouring of live bulls and calves appear to have been a regular feature of the Dionysiac rites. When we consider the practice of portraying the god as a bull or with some of the features of the animal, the belief that he appeared in bull form to his worshippers at the sacred rites, and the legend that in bull form he had been torn in pieces, we cannot doubt that in rending and devouring a live bull at his festival the worshippers of Dionysus believed themselves to be killing the god, eating his flesh, and drinking his blood.
Another animal whose form Dionysus assumed was the goat. One of his names was "Kid."[...] To save him from the wrath of Hera, his father Zeus changed the youthful Dionysus into a kid; and when the gods fled to Egypt to escape the fury of Typhon, Dionysus was turned into a goat. Hence when his worshippers rent in pieces a live goat and devoured it raw, they must have believed that they were eating the body and blood of the god. [...]
The custom of killing a god in animal form, which we shall examine more in detail further on, belongs to a very early stage of human culture, and is apt in later times to be misunderstood. The advance of thought tends to strip the old animal and plant gods of their bestial and vegetable husk, and to leave their human attributes (which are always the kernel of the conception) as the final and sole residuum. In other words, animal and plant gods tend to become purely anthropomorphic. When they have become wholly or nearly so, the animals and plants which were at first the deities themselves, still retain a vague and ill-understood connexion with the anthropomorphic gods who have developed out of them. The origin of the relationship between the deity and the animal or plant having been forgotten, various stories are invented to explain it. These explanations may follow one of two lines according as they are based on the habitual or on the exceptional treatment of the sacred animal or plant. The sacred animal was habitually spared, and only exceptionally slain; and accordingly the myth might be devised to explain either why it was spared or why it was killed. Devised for the former purpose, the myth would tell of some service rendered to the deity by the animal; devised for the latter purpose, the myth would tell of some injury inflicted by the animal on the god. The reason given for sacrificing goats to Dionysus exemplifies a myth of the latter sort. They were sacrificed to him, it was said, because they injured the vine. Now the goat, as we have seen, was originally an embodiment of the god himself. But when the god had divested himself of his animal character and had become essentially anthropomorphic, the killing of the goat in his worship came to be regarded no longer as a slaying of the deity himself, but as a sacrifice offered to him; and since some reason had to be assigned why the goat in particular should be sacrificed, it was alleged that this was a punishment inflicted on the goat for injuring the vine, the object of the god's especial care. Thus we have the strange spectacle of a god sacrificed to himself on the ground that he is his own enemy. And as the deity is supposed to partake of the victim offered to him, it follows that, when the victim is the god's old self, the god eats of his own flesh. Hence the goat-god Dionysus is represented as eating raw goat's blood; and the bull-god Dionysus is called "eater of bulls." On the analogy of these instances we may conjecture that wherever a deity is described as the eater of a particular animal, the animal in question was originally nothing but the deity himself. ..."
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Jul 19, 2018 19:36:12 GMT
"This is my blood you drink, this is my body you eat." -- Jesus, Jesus Christ Superstar
|
|
|
Post by hp on Jul 19, 2018 20:07:54 GMT
Wonder what he looks like in the ether Exactly as you see him now, Annie is looking at him in the ether. Panel 4 of the previous page was her shifting her view, and her clothes are greyed out every time she does that. Guess you're right, I missed that. But it's odd, because Loup's "ether version" looks a lot like a regular "earthly"(?) body in the last panel of the last page (while in the ether Ysengrim used to be more regal/godly and Coyote to be all over the place)
|
|
pasko
Full Member
Objection!
Posts: 224
|
Post by pasko on Jul 19, 2018 21:03:17 GMT
The Big Bad Wolf.
|
|
|
Post by keef on Jul 19, 2018 21:41:13 GMT
So, I was doing some reading on theophagy (eating a God to commune with it and/or obtain its power) "This is my blood you drink, this is my body you eat." -- Jesus, Jesus Christ Superstar "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 1:9
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 20, 2018 0:14:00 GMT
Depends. An earlier version of Red Riding Hood had Red get herself out of trouble without a huntsman. On a darker note, the earliest surviving version (Perrault's) had Little Red Riding Hood eaten by the wolf, and the story ends there. The same thing probably won't happen to Annie, but she should still be on her guard (though it may be too late now).
|
|
|
Post by calpal on Jul 20, 2018 3:53:15 GMT
So how about that cast list on the main page, eh?
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Jul 20, 2018 4:06:55 GMT
Depends. An earlier version of Red Riding Hood had Red get herself out of trouble without a huntsman. On a darker note, the earliest surviving version (Perrault's) had Little Red Riding Hood eaten by the wolf, and the story ends there. The same thing probably won't happen to Annie, but she should still be on her guard (though it may be too late now). Perrault's version is actually the earliest printed version. There are oral versions that predate it, including the one I mentioned. Interestingly, in the versions that came before Perrault's, the monster after the girl isn't always a wolf; sometimes it was a vampire, or an ogre, or a werewolf, possibly because of the werewolf trials that were going on at the time. Also, Red's cape wasn't red until the printed version came out.
|
|