# Would Weres Count as Furries?



## ellaerna (Aug 31, 2017)

Weres being like werewolves, werebears, etc etc.

And like, I get that if weres actually existed they could be part of the furry fandom if they wanted to be. In fact, they'd probably love it since they have a built-in fur suit and no one would judge them at cons. In fact, modern times does a lot to improve the quality of life for a lot of previously ostracized mythical creatures. 

But I digress.

What I want to know is, could you have a were'sona? Would a werewolf or werebear or even werecow count as a 'sona or would it just be like a cool character that isn't banned from FA but not super encouraged either? Does it matter that a werewolf is not just a sometimes anthropomorphized animal but more of a fictional representation of our fears of late Victorian patriarchy? [source]

These are the questions that keep me up at night...


----------



## GreenZone (Aug 31, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> fictional representation of our fears of late Victorian patriarchy?



sorry but where the hell did that comment come from? what does Patriarchy have to do with anything

Edit: i looked at the wiki article and the source no it doesn't have anything to do with "Patriarchy" it looks like one of those feminist re writes as the source doesn't lead anywhere and anything else in the article that mentions Ware wolves are an Allegory for Men raping and abusing women has [citation needed] 

ware(animal) have been around since the 1300s-1400s


----------



## ellaerna (Aug 31, 2017)

GreenZone said:


> sorry but where the hell did that comment come from? what does Patriarchy have to do with anything


I did leave a source to explain, but basically I'm on a huge googling kick right now and whilst looking through the wikipedia article on werewolves, it mentioned that in Bram Stoker's _Dracula_ and _Dracula's Guest_ the werewolf was supposed to be symbolic of the anxieties of the age which happened to be the late Victorian patriarchy. Or maybe the stories as wholes were meant to do that. The wording in the article is ambiguous. 

Anyway, I thought it amusing, so I included it.


----------



## GreenZone (Aug 31, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> I did leave a source to explain, but basically I'm on a huge googling kick right now and whilst looking through the wikipedia article on werewolves, it mentioned that in Bram Stoker's _Dracula_ and _Dracula's Guest_ the werewolf was supposed to be symbolic of the anxieties of the age which happened to be the late Victorian patriarchy. Or maybe the stories as wholes were meant to do that. The wording in the article is ambiguous.
> 
> Anyway, I thought it amusing, so I included it.



yeah i edited the response Wikipedia is quickly losing credibility Wiki politics and the "feminist invasion" is a whole other thing Wiki let them rewrite articles to make up what ever crap they wanted 

any way to answer your main question it depends some furries would except it others are like "NO! IT NEEDS TO BE LIKE THIS!" and then you have others who think you're a furry for just liking any cartoon animal


----------



## ellaerna (Aug 31, 2017)

GreenZone said:


> yeah i edited the response Wikipedia is quickly losing credibility Wiki politics and the "feminist invasion" is a whole other thing Wiki let them rewrite articles to make up what ever crap they wanted


citations needed ;P



GreenZone said:


> any way to answer your main question it depends some furries would except it others are like "NO! IT NEEDS TO BE LIKE THIS!" and then you have others who think you're a furry for just liking any cartoon animal


I suppose that's always the way of things. Where do you fall on that list?


----------



## GreenZone (Aug 31, 2017)

personally i would look at it as a lazy self insert OC


----------



## GreenZone (Aug 31, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> citations needed ;P


as for that the articles have been conveniently buried 

basically around 2014 at the peak of social justice Wikipedia had a month long event where they invited feminist to alter articles to better reflect "current year" a prime example of this is the entry for Anita Sarkeesian it contains no criticisms nor will they accept any and to this day the article is still locked


----------



## ellaerna (Aug 31, 2017)

GreenZone said:


> personally i would look at it as a lazy self insert OC


Why is a were any more of a self-insert than a full anthro? And why would you consider it lazy? 
Ideally you'd be putting as much work into the creation of the were-self, and the backstory, and everything as you would creating say a wolf sona. They'd just also sometimes be a regular person from time to time.


----------



## GreenZone (Aug 31, 2017)

to me self inserting and wish fulfilment is just really cringy


----------



## ellaerna (Aug 31, 2017)

GreenZone said:


> to me self inserting and wish fulfilment is just really cringy


That...doesn't answer my question. Like, yeah, self-inserts are typically really shitty. 
But what makes a were-character more of a self-insert than a fur-character? Fursona's are literally idealized, animal versions of the people who create them. 
Or are you just blanket stating that any character, were or fur, is a self insert and you don't like them?


----------



## GreenZone (Aug 31, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Fursona's are literally idealized, animal versions of the people who create them.



i don't have a fursona so i can't really comment on that however naturally characters are going to be an extension of ones self however in my case if i was to make a fursona rather than make him some like soldier thing i'd probably go for like a chil uni student or something partially reflecting my uni days where life was a bit simpler and there was a sense of "do and be anything" rather than me as i am now because as exciting as my career may seem the novelty has worn off so that's not a direct self insert

my idea of cringe is when you're like.... actually i need to be sensitive here but my idea of cringy is when you making a charactor that's maybe better looking thinner has money gets the girl/boy etc etc has a sad backstory you know real mary sue type stuff and to be honest a lot of Fursonas are like that


----------



## ellaerna (Aug 31, 2017)

GreenZone said:


> i don't have a fursona so i can't really comment on that however naturally characters are going to be an extension of ones self however in my case if i was to make a fursona rather than make him some like soldier thing i'd probably go for like a chil uni student or something partially reflecting my uni days where life was a bit simpler and there was a sense of "do and be anything" rather than me as i am now because as exciting as my career may seem the novelty has worn off so that's not a direct self insert
> 
> my idea of cringe is when you're like.... actually i need to be sensitive here but my idea of cringy is when you making a charactor that's maybe better looking thinner has money gets the girl/boy etc etc has a sad backstory you know real mary sue type stuff and to be honest a lot of Fursonas are like that


That's all fine. Characters, sonas or otherwise, should be well rounded. I'm not going to hate a character for being more attractive (which is a weird concept considering the species change) than the creator so long as there are also drawbacks that I guess "make up for" the positive change. And really I don't think making a character who is net better than you that bad either to an extent. Most widely beloved characters are more interesting, better off, and have a better success rate in their endeavors than their creators. Escapism is part of what makes fiction so appealing. 

But I still don't feel like you're answering my question. You're giving me a lot of good information about why you don't like self inserts, but you're sidestepping or ignoring the original question about weres _as_ self inserts. Are you saying that weres are more self-inserty than furs, and if so why do you feel that way? Or are you saying that both are the same level of self-inserty and cringy?


----------



## Diretooth (Aug 31, 2017)

Tackling this from multiple points of view: I could see actual werecreatures joining the fandom either for the novelty or because furries are more likely to be accepting of them than mainstream society. Werecreatures as fursonas isn't necessarily lazy. they can be badly done, but they can also be very well done. In my opinion, fursonas aren't strictly about just having a fuzzy avatar and dressing up in costumes, they can be an exploration of yourself, if that exploration takes the route of a werecreature as opposed to just straight up anthro animal, then it's no less valid.
I also like werecreatures more overall, there's something about the aspect of duality that appeals to me more from a storytelling side, the balancing act between what is 'civilized' and what is wild.


----------



## ellaerna (Aug 31, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> Tackling this from multiple points of view: I could see actual werecreatures joining the fandom either for the novelty or because furries are more likely to be accepting of them than mainstream society. Werecreatures as fursonas isn't necessarily lazy. they can be badly done, but they can also be very well done. In my opinion, fursonas aren't strictly about just having a fuzzy avatar and dressing up in costumes, they can be an exploration of yourself, if that exploration takes the route of a werecreature as opposed to just straight up anthro animal, then it's no less valid.
> I also like werecreatures more overall, there's something about the aspect of duality that appeals to me more from a storytelling side, the balancing act between what is 'civilized' and what is wild.


I think it gets even more interesting when you think about the various types and mythos behind werecreatures. You have the standard werewolf who is basically cursed with a dual nature, but also stories of people who use magic to willingly change into something else. Depending on how you want to run with it, it could be very tragic or very powerful, or both.


----------



## Diretooth (Aug 31, 2017)

There's the scottish Wulver who would leave fish on the windowsills of poor people, a Russian Werewolf who was cursed into the form of a wolf while still retaining sentience, but would be unable to stay with their family for long, the Hounds of God, Ulfhednar... All sorts of interesting lore everywhere.


----------



## Yvvki (Aug 31, 2017)

From what I have read I think a lot of people who have furies see them more of a fantasy alien race then the actual animal, since their intelligence is humanized. 
I think this is why a were beast would fall a little out of place since it is the actual transformation from a human intelligence to an animals, depending on the kind of werewolf ect. 

That's just my opinion on it as to why you may get mixed views.


----------



## Loffi (Aug 31, 2017)

part-time furries


----------



## Eleven-lyc (Sep 1, 2017)

A very good question, I think… One that I often find myself asking.
With a werewolf fursona, am I really a furry, or am I seen as more of an outcast? I'd like to think I qualify as a furry; I seem to like roughly the same sorts of things as typical furs, exhibit similar behavior, as well as generally “get” furry fandom. But at the same time, I have occasionally felt like an outsider, someone going by a similar but nonetheless different set of rules, very nearly but not quite part of the whole. If there was a “Furry Test” I can imagine myself just missing on making the grade.
I should probably point out that Eleven is a permanent werewolf, with no human form, so that helps a fair bit.
By the way, if you're interested in werewolf lore, I can wholeheartedly recommend Sabine Baring-Gould's work, The Book of Werewolves, 1885 or thereabouts, and also Montague Summers' work, The Werewolf, 1933, although unfortunately there's a lot of untranslated quotations in the latter. I think I have a (very) short essay on werewolf lore lying around in my FA submissions, largely based off of Baring-Gould's work. Suffice to say, werewolves have changed enormously since about the 1930s.


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 1, 2017)

Eleven-lyc said:


> A very good question, I think… One that I often find myself asking.
> With a werewolf fursona, am I really a furry, or am I seen as more of an outcast? I'd like to think I qualify as a furry; I seem to like roughly the same sorts of things as typical furs, exhibit similar behavior, as well as generally “get” furry fandom. But at the same time, I have occasionally felt like an outsider, someone going by a similar but nonetheless different set of rules, very nearly but not quite part of the whole. If there was a “Furry Test” I can imagine myself just missing on making the grade.
> I should probably point out that Eleven is a permanent werewolf, with no human form, so that helps a fair bit.
> By the way, if you're interested in werewolf lore, I can wholeheartedly recommend Sabine Baring-Gould's work, The Book of Werewolves, 1885 or thereabouts, and also Montague Summers' work, The Werewolf, 1933, although unfortunately there's a lot of untranslated quotations in the latter. I think I have a (very) short essay on werewolf lore lying around in my FA submissions, largely based off of Baring-Gould's work. Suffice to say, werewolves have changed enormously since about the 1930s.


Thanks for the response. I'll definitely have to look into those. I'm working on a werewolf girl based off an rpg character of mine and could use some better lore to work off of. 

I get what you're saying about being on the cusp of what is typically "furry". On the one hand, the fandom can encompass many things that aren't necessarily traditional or real. Dragon sonas or made up species aren't looked twice at. On the other hand, a were is unique in that it is, at it's core, a human who happens to become an animal during certain situations. So where does it fall?

In my own opinion, I don't feel that the human component should be much of an issue. The backbone of the fandom is humans pretending to be some for of animal. To me then, were's are just an extension of that idea. It is a human literally transforming into the animal as opposed to a creator merely acting as one. And to be fair, transformation is a rather large fetish in the fandom, so that aspect shouldn't be all that frowned upon.


----------



## kuro.glitterz (Sep 1, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> That...doesn't answer my question. Like, yeah, self-inserts are typically really shitty.
> But what makes a were-character more of a self-insert than a fur-character? Fursona's are literally idealized, animal versions of the people who create them.
> Or are you just blanket stating that any character, were or fur, is a self insert and you don't like them?


 
I'm still new here and getting used to the lingo. What is a self insert? And anthro (is it a more human version)? Just curious. Also from my (limited) experience, I feel like most furries seem pretty creative and open, so I'd think weres would be fine. Personally I think the more creative fursonas are really interesting.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Sep 1, 2017)

kuro.glitterz said:


> I'm still new here and getting used to the lingo. What is a self insert? And anthro (is it a more human version)? Just curious. Also from my (limited) experience, I feel like most furries seem pretty creative and open, so I'd think weres would be fine. Personally I think the more creative fursonas are really interesting.



Self-insert:  using the character as a direct substitution for yourself.  Similar to how writers or artists use themselves as characters in the works they create. (I do this myself, actually.  My 'sona is me as I picture myself in a cool hybrid body)

Anthro:  Another term for furry.  'Furry' can be applied to any non-human character that's been given human characteristics, be they animal or not.  Anthro is short for 'anthropomorphic'....which means exactly the same thing.  So a lot of times you'll see 'anthro' get subbed for 'furry', and vice-versa.

Given that strict definition, sure, weres count as furry.


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 2, 2017)

kuro.glitterz said:


> I'm still new here and getting used to the lingo. What is a self insert? And anthro (is it a more human version)? Just curious. Also from my (limited) experience, I feel like most furries seem pretty creative and open, so I'd think weres would be fine. Personally I think the more creative fursonas are really interesting.


Looks like this was already answered, but here's my definitions.

Self Insert- exactly what it says on the tin. Self-inserts are characters who are self-insertions of their creators. If I made a self-insert, I'd be inserting my own self into whatever story I was making. Usually these characters are not just reflections of the self, but idealized versions- being harder, better, faster, stronger, prettier, and/or more talented than the person they're meant to represent. They tend to fall into some pretty bad tropes and can be really lazy if not handled with care. Technically, though, since fursonas are supposed to be animal versions of their makers, they too would fall into this category.

Anthro is short for anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is simply adding human traits (intelligence, speech, bipedal movement, etc) to any non-human creature or object. For example, all the servants in Beauty and the Beast were anthropomorphized household items. Since furries are basically humanized animals, they can also be called anthropomorphic, but that's a mouthful so we just say Anthro. Typically when we say "anthro" we do mean the more human looking characters like the girl in my profile pic. Characters with more animalistic features- walking on all fours, no extra hair, doesn't speak any human language- are typically referred to as "feral".


----------



## Eleven-lyc (Sep 2, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Thanks for the response. I'll definitely have to look into those. I'm working on a werewolf girl based off an rpg character of mine and could use some better lore to work off of.


A new werewolf character concept! Sounds like fun! The books I mentioned though, they may not be of much help in that regard — they detail original werewolf lore and legend, which is very different from how werewolves are seen today. The lycanthropes of today are shaped very much by the stories that have been written about them, in film and books, which I've been steadily collecting. Not to say original werewolf lore isn't interesting, though. I'll happily volunteer if you wanted to bounce around any ideas/thoughts/e.t.c. on the new character you're working on ^^.





kuro.glitterz said:


> I'm still new here and getting used to the lingo. What is a self insert? And anthro (is it a more human version)? Just curious.


GoldenWolf had a really great sketch where she showed her interpretation of the difference between werewolf, anthro wolf, and furry wolf, but she must have taken it down or something as I can no longer find it… It was a great drawing though, I shoulda faved it. I remember the “furry” was drawn with a carton of soda pop, which was a nice touch ^o^. But regardless, I think most use “furry” and “anthro” interchangeably. I find myself more inclined to use “anthro” over “furry” for digitigrade forms, and always “furry” for plantigrade forms.
Oh yeah, and as Ellaerna said, there's “ferals” too, a term usually ascribed to quadruped forms.
…Gosh, so many terms… I think someone even posted a Furry Glossary around here recently XP


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 2, 2017)

Eleven-lyc said:


> A new werewolf character concept! Sounds like fun! The books I mentioned though, they may not be of much help in that regard — they detail original werewolf lore and legend, which is very different from how werewolves are seen today. The lycanthropes of today are shaped very much by the stories that have been written about them, in film and books, which I've been steadily collecting. Not to say original werewolf lore isn't interesting, though. I'll happily volunteer if you wanted to bounce around any ideas/thoughts/e.t.c. on the new character you're working on ^^.


She's based on a character I made for a Lovecraft Horror rpg, in which she was raised by a a wolf cult that were obsessed with the pursuit of knowledge. I'm cool with any lore


----------



## BloodyBonez87 (Sep 12, 2017)

Weres could be considered furries, but they also exist in non-furry fiction, kind of like kitsunes. they are creatures from folklore that happen to spark interest in furries. I also consider certain disney characters and pokemon to be of a similar sort of pseudo-furry creature. What do you think?


----------



## BloodyBonez87 (Sep 12, 2017)

Eleven-lyc said:


> A new werewolf character concept! Sounds like fun! The books I mentioned though, they may not be of much help in that regard — they detail original werewolf lore and legend, which is very different from how werewolves are seen today. The lycanthropes of today are shaped very much by the stories that have been written about them, in film and books, which I've been steadily collecting. Not to say original werewolf lore isn't interesting, though. I'll happily volunteer if you wanted to bounce around any ideas/thoughts/e.t.c. on the new character you're working on ^^.GoldenWolf had a really great sketch where she showed her interpretation of the difference between werewolf, anthro wolf, and furry wolf, but she must have taken it down or something as I can no longer find it… It was a great drawing though, I shoulda faved it. I remember the “furry” was drawn with a carton of soda pop, which was a nice touch ^o^. But regardless, I think most use “furry” and “anthro” interchangeably. I find myself more inclined to use “anthro” over “furry” for digitigrade forms, and always “furry” for plantigrade forms.
> Oh yeah, and as Ellaerna said, there's “ferals” too, a term usually ascribed to quadruped forms.
> …Gosh, so many terms… I think someone even posted a Furry Glossary around here recently XP


I agree, the soda pop was an excellent example of the difference. furry art tends to be more cute and made out to be relatable rather than savage and scary. basically, if you say "awww..." when looking at a werewolf, it's furry. if you are scared s***less, it's not.


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 12, 2017)

BloodyBonez87 said:


> I agree, the soda pop was an excellent example of the difference. furry art tends to be more cute and made out to be relatable rather than savage and scary. basically, if you say "awww..." when looking at a werewolf, it's furry. if you are scared s***less, it's not.


Eh? While the furry trend is towards cute, I'd hate to say that scary sonas aren't really furries. 
Sometimes, who you are is just a terrifying beast so horrendous that it's the stuff of nightmares.


----------



## Eleven-lyc (Sep 13, 2017)

BloodyBonez87 said:


> I agree, the soda pop was an excellent example of the difference. furry art tends to be more cute and made out to be relatable rather than savage and scary.


Ah, you remember it! Do you know if the artwork is still around anywhere? I wanna fave it :3





BloodyBonez87 said:


> basically, if you say "awww..." when looking at a werewolf, it's furry. if you are scared s***less, it's not.


*Notes down under the heading "How to explain the difference between a werewolf and a furry"*
Raises an interesting thought, though, on scary/savage/e.t.c. characters… Would I consider Eleven a furry? Probably not, and mostly for that reason, although there are other sides of me that I feel are "furry". I guess not everyone would agree with that definition, though, which might in turn link in to why GoldenWolf's drawing might've been seen as controversial.


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 13, 2017)

#scaryfursmatter 
:V


----------



## BloodyBonez87 (Sep 15, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Eh? While the furry trend is towards cute, I'd hate to say that scary sonas aren't really furries.
> Sometimes, who you are is just a terrifying beast so horrendous that it's the stuff of nightmares.


Truuuue... I remember once saw a guy whose sona was some kind of acidic eel-alien-beast and he made a lot of gory vore "art" I had forgotten I had seen his stuff... kind of sad that in this fandom stuff like that isn't shocking or memorable in the least.


----------



## BloodyBonez87 (Sep 15, 2017)

Eleven-lyc said:


> Ah, you remember it! Do you know if the artwork is still around anywhere? I wanna fave it :3*Notes down under the heading "How to explain the difference between a werewolf and a furry"*
> Raises an interesting thought, though, on scary/savage/e.t.c. characters… Would I consider Eleven a furry? Probably not, and mostly for that reason, although there are other sides of me that I feel are "furry". I guess not everyone would agree with that definition, though, which might in turn link in to why GoldenWolf's drawing might've been seen as controversial.


actually no, I was just going off the description given. I'd love to see that pic too.


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 15, 2017)

BloodyBonez87 said:


> Truuuue... I remember once saw a guy whose sona was some kind of acidic eel-alien-beast and he made a lot of gory vore "art" I had forgotten I had seen his stuff... kind of sad that in this fandom stuff like that isn't shocking or memorable in the least.


I'm not big on vore gore, but I do love a good creepy character. 
Vore is pretty darn common, but with all the sexy stuff, I feel like a truly horror based character would stand out pretty well.


----------



## dogryme6 (Sep 27, 2017)

Jeez, what the heck happened here, especially in that first part? What with the argument over wikipedia articles no longer being accurate or non-biased, that's just messed up mate. Wikipedia's supposed to be what I said it was supposed to be, and if these movements are blazing through and shuffling everything around to fit their views, it won't be long before wikipedia itself is defaced beyond recognition.
As for the whole were-anything, thing? Well, I'd certainly approve of more wolves, different species though I'd have to take on a case by case basis.
... But this depends on what your definition of a werewolf is. If it's those hoomins that turn into mindless violent wolf-like beasts every full moon, that's a pure werewolf that may not be welcomed with open arms by furries, since they'd probably fear for their own safety instead. If it's a hoomin that just so happens to turn into an anthropomorphic character every night or something, that's probably a furry. If it's an anthro animal that's one animal / character at day and another at night, that's when the definition starts to get really mixed up, because that's no longer a werewolf by the meaning of the name, sharing only the mechanics in it's own little way.

tl;dr, a shame about wikipedia, and werewolves can be whatever you think they are, as long as they aren't hostile in the fandom.


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 27, 2017)

You're a little late to the party, friend. 



dogryme6 said:


> As for the whole were-anything, thing? Well, I'd certainly approve of more wolves, different species though I'd have to take on a case by case basis.


You talk as though you're the authority on this. Haha. Though I did ask for opinions so, eh. Why would you only approve of wolves and not necessarily other creatures?



dogryme6 said:


> . If it's those hoomins that turn into mindless violent wolf-like beasts every full moon, that's a pure werewolf that may not be welcomed with open arms by furries, since they'd probably fear for their own safety instead


I was asking about the community view, not anthro as individual people. Furries can't really be scared for their lives since they're fictional. A werewolf I create couldn't attack your dragon unless I write that, which would be pretty dickish of me, but ultimately would have no affect on your boy.


dogryme6 said:


> or something, that's probably a furry. If it's an anthro animal that's one animal / character at day and another at night, that's when the definition starts to get really mixed up, because that's no longer a werewolf by the meaning of the name, sharing only the mechanics in it's own little way.


That is true. The were in werewolf comes from the word for man in some language, I forget which. So if we lose the man, we lose the were.


----------



## dogryme6 (Sep 27, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> You're a little late to the party, friend.
> 
> 
> You talk as though you're the authority on this. Haha. Though I did ask for opinions so, eh. Why would you only approve of wolves and not necessarily other creatures?
> ...



Maybe I took it all in the wrong way then...


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 27, 2017)

dogryme6 said:


> Maybe I took it all in the wrong way then...


Maybe, but that's okay. You made a good point about nonhuman weres not being weres. 

And I'm still curious as to why wolves are ok, but bears or mice or whatever would have to go under review.


----------



## dogryme6 (Sep 27, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Maybe, but that's okay. You made a good point about nonhuman weres not being weres.
> 
> And I'm still curious as to why wolves are ok, but bears or mice or whatever would have to go under review.


Well, there's a lot of species that I'd end up being neutral on (not caring about), some I would support for liking them (Rodents, I think they're cute), some I would not for disliking them (things like snakes, if they eat living things alive). Just my opinion though... It's not like I have control over what anyone does...


----------



## versive-wolf (Sep 27, 2017)

Wereworths are still anthro, they stand up right on two legs and make use of grabby hands.

I don't see the argument.


----------



## Mabus (Sep 27, 2017)

My only input is “woof” =P


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 27, 2017)

versive-wolf said:


> Wereworths are still anthro, they stand up right on two legs and make use of grabby hands.
> 
> I don't see the argument.


I know it's just a typo and I'm not making fun of you for it, but "wereworth" sounds like a werewolf support group. And I love that mental image.


----------



## Eleven-lyc (Sep 28, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> That is true. The were in werewolf comes from the word for man in some language, I forget which. So if we lose the man, we lose the were.


“Old English”, aye, “wer” meaning “man”. At least, it's the most popular theory; the truth is we just don't know where the “were” comes from (so yes, even the Great Professor Snape technically gets it wrong : P). It could be a corruption of the word used for “werewolf” in a different language; “varg” appears in the word for some languages, from “vargr”, meaning “fiend”, and similar utterances for other languages. Another popular theory, one that appears often in sayings from the middle ages, is that it is called a “ware-wolf” because one must “be ware” of them.





Mabus said:


> My only input is “woof” =P


Werewoof =3





versive-wolf said:


> Wereworths are still anthro, they stand up right on two legs and make use of grabby hands.





ellaerna said:


> I know it's just a typo and I'm not making fun of you for it, but "wereworth" sounds like a werewolf support group. And I love that mental image.


Nono — Wereworths is a British convenience store chain that went bankrupt during the financial crisis, very similar to another chain but specializing in products for weres. Extra-size clothing, anti-flea shampoo, claw-resistant upholstery, that sort of thing.
*… runs off and hides from Versive*


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Oct 3, 2017)




----------

