Giving old creatures new names?

I created a term for my witch like society. Honestly I can't remember where that name came from for me, but most of the names of the sub sects come from a mishmash of various languages that amount to the specialty of the sect. I decided not to call them witches because they aren't. They make potions, can control some elements, and there is the occasional prophesy, but witches are not something their culture knows about and I did not want the familiar term "witch" to color my readers view of them.

It tends to annoy me when the creature in question is clearly a copy of some typical one. Vampires are the ever-popular example. If it's buried when it dies, then gets out and drinks blood pretending to look pale and cute except not being able to see its undead mug in a mirror--it's not an xbryz, it's a vampire, a strigoi, a vurdalak, whatever. But not an xbryz.

On the other hand, witches/sorcerers/mages is a very broad category. Hereditary magic does not a witch make. They can be an xbryz.

I'm not in love with the opposite thing, either. When my vampires have green hair and eight legs and they eat only strawberries, but they are vampires because I said so.

I enjoy a subtle difference. Something that might not be huge, but has a certain influence. Together with a new name it makes our creature mysterious, potentially unpredictable.

missesdash said:

But now that I think about it, I remember reading a fantasy where the writer referred to all of the demons as simply "demons" and I actually felt a bit of disappointment because it seemed so generic.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, it seems different for secondary worlds. Typical contemporary names seem to make the secondary world too obviously artificial.

I liked how Justin Cronin called his vampires virals. They were clearly vampirish, but virals gave it a more clinical, removed term.

I think you'll be fine as long as the word you use doesn't sound strange. For instance, whenever I hear "caster," I still think:

Honestly, I feel like this is a key point that you must nail for a fantasy novel to really take off. If you're set in another world that has zero ties to Earth, there shouldn't be any reason that dragon like creatures or witch like beings should be named the same thing they are here. It gets trickier when you have a story line that is enveloped in Earth and you start coming up with options, however. For example, JKR made the right choice in keeping her fantasy creatures in line with real life mythology because it just made sense--her history meshed with our history.

It's really up to the writer, but in all their research, they should definitely come up with a spin on things if they want to stay original and if they want it to be realistic.

Changing names if the mythology is changed, makes a lot of sense to me. A vampire that can go out into the sun and sparkle, isn't a vampire.

On the other hand, (in line with the Twilight concept) it depends on your target audience. Something super mainstream might want to keep the super mainstream names of their mythological creatures.

Would Harry Potter be so easy to consume, if JKR had renamed all the mythical beings? I don't think so. Little kids, self described non-readers, and fantasy newbies wouldn't have gotten it.

Maria S said:

Changing names if the mythology is changed, makes a lot of sense to me. A vampire that can go out into the sun and sparkle, isn't a vampire.

On the other hand, (in line with the Twilight concept) it depends on your target audience. Something super mainstream might want to keep the super mainstream names of their mythological creatures.

Would Harry Potter be so easy to consume, if JKR had renamed all the mythical beings? I don't think so. Little kids, self described non-readers, and fantasy newbies wouldn't have gotten it.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I had no problem with Twilight using the term "vampire". They were close enough.

I want to point out that Rowling didn't really change any of the mythology she used. She may have added bits and pieces, but there was no creature so different it needed a name change.

I don't mind using new names if it serves a purpose, but if it feels unnatural in the world it's hard for me to keep reading.

OP: sounds like you are fine though.

scwaltz said:

Honestly, I feel like this is a key point that you must nail for a fantasy novel to really take off. If you're set in another world that has zero ties to Earth, there shouldn't be any reason that dragon like creatures or witch like beings should be named the same thing they are here.

Click to expand...

Yes, but there's also no reason why their world should have English (or any other Earth language). But you wouldn't write the whole thing in a made-up language, because you would be punishing the reader.

So the characters might well not call them witches or dragons, but those could be the nearest translations into the language you're writing in...

Liosse de Velishaf said:

Witches are a cultural by-product of mostly-Western Christianity.

Click to expand...

Umm no, we actually don't have anything to do with Christianity. We are a survival/revival of the old nature religion which existed previous to Christianity.

The origin of the word itself is unclear and there are several theories, dating variously to Old Norse, Middle German, Old English or Middle English. There is potentially a previous Proto Indo-European root that has been lost to memory.

In Wicca we generally call ourselves either Craft (short for Craft of the Wise) witches or Wiccan. Just to confuse things, not all witches are Wiccan nor do all Wiccans consider themselves witches, however most of us use the terms interchangeably.

Anyway, magi/magus/mage is another possible word, as you point out. Sorcerer, conjuror, enchanter, are also possibles, though technically each of those refers to a specific type of magic. Vitki is a Norse term (note the similarity to the word "witch"). Strega/stregaria refers to a specific group of witches from Italy. Bruja is the Spanish term. Mystic, wise woman/man or shaman are also viable.

I agree with others that calling someone a "caster" smacks of Dungeons and Dragons and would throw me out of immersion in about .3 seconds.

Perhaps it would help to know more about the specific type of magic your casters use, and as said, the origins of the group.

Also a pet peeve: Please o please don't call your folks "warlocks." The word means "oath breaker" and refers to someone who deliberately set out to infiltrate a coven and turn them over to the witch hunters.

missesdash said:

I've created a kind of a mythology mishmash from any culture that appeared in or very close to Gaul between the 5th and 9th centuries. Basically "witch" is too new for it to be something they'd use themselves. It also has Germanic roots and my 'witches' are descendants of the women who penned the Larzac tablet; their culture is very insular so I use a lot of Gaulish and 'western-tongue friendly' bastardizations of Gaulish words.

Plenty of other characters say witch, either as an insult or because they're unfamiliar. But among the acceptable names they have for themselves, witch isn't one of them.

Click to expand...

Scots Gaelic may be a little different but from there you have buidseach and draoidh and probably a few others if you get creative in your search.

missesdash said:

A big distinction, I think, is whether we're talking terms they use for themselves or terms outsiders use. Historically they're often not the same.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

I think calling a rabbit a smerp is annoying as heck. But if you're writing from the rabbit's point of view, they might call themselves "carrot eaters" or "the blessed furs" or even "the People" (which is what a huge number of group's names for themselves translates to).

In my Assassin's Flower series, my caste of assassins is called haranii, but there is something special that sets them apart from "normal" assassins.