tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post7002388014082234526..comments2024-02-10T18:19:36.406-08:00Comments on Newspaper Rock: Founding Fathers love TwilightRobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01478763837213733775noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post-58516409480600534922008-10-10T17:58:00.000-07:002008-10-10T17:58:00.000-07:00Isn't a creature that looks and acts like a beast ...Isn't a creature that looks and acts like a beast "bestial" by definition? "Bestial" means "like a beast." It doesn't necessarily mean "monstrous."<BR/><BR/>The Founding Fathers didn't compare Indians to monsters. They "merely" compared them to wolves. I'm not sure it matters whether they considered wolves noble or not. They made the comparison regardless of the wolf's qualities.<BR/><BR/>It's like using lions and tigers and Indians as <A HREF="http://www.bluecorncomics.com/mascots.htm" REL="nofollow">mascots</A>. Or as images in an alphabet book. You can justify the linkage by claiming these "creatures" are brave and noble. But you're still equating human beings with animals.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01478763837213733775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post-80227392264735545662008-10-10T15:54:00.000-07:002008-10-10T15:54:00.000-07:00Actually, they are humans who can morph into wolve...Actually, they are humans who can morph into wolves at will. As wolves, they lose none of their human character (are not human Hulks), are not bestial. The wolves are not monsters, and there is no presence of a "Wolfman": the wolf-selves are merely wolves, but very large, described in positive non-monstrous terms.<BR/><BR/>They are not described as sub-human, but rather superhuman on a par with the vampires.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Except when one character is very upset and chooses to lose himself in wolfiness at times, but this is when he hides out in the woods rather than raging like a savage beast.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.com