Giving old creatures new names?

Nah. I mean, it's not "clever" so I wouldn't be too nudge nudge wink wink about it. But...it's like, if vampires or zombies turned out to be real, we probably wouldn't CALL them vampires or zombies (or they wouldn't call themselves that) except in a "haha" way. It would just feel fake. It's like when somebody uses what sounds like it could be a line of TV dialogue in real life. It strikes a wrong note somehow and so a different name makes it feel more realistic, somehow?

Whether or not you should point it out (like, idk, "Casters? Don't you mean witches? Oh, we call ourselves casters, we don't like witches") depends on what world you're setting in it. A contemporary real world, from a person who's new or not used to the world? Then it would make sense to point it out. Someone whose grown up in it or lives in a world where it's normal? Then not.

I would use a fairly simple (or, unfortunately, Western) name because people are understandably funny about things that aren't easy to pronounce.

Actually I would VERY MUCH PREFER authors calling their supernatural critters by different names besides vampire/witch/faerie/etc, ESPECIALLY if this supernatural critter is DIFFERENT from what we as a culture stereotypically expect this critter to be. For example, S. Meyer could have totally gotten away with calling her vampires something else since they were so different from the traditional vampire. Whereas had Anne Rice called her vampires by a different non-vampire related name, it would have been WTF?-ish. A YA series I really like that did this was Vampire Academy, where the different subtypes of vampires are called Strigoi, Moroi and Dhampir, which goes along with traditional Romanian names and I think it served the story well in relating to the reader that 'These vampires are different.'

ETA - In my story I have people who could technically be called 'witches' but in their culture the concept of 'witch' wouldn't even exist so they are just called 'magic users,' 'magicians' or 'magically gifted.'

I think it depends on the story.

Personally, I find it odd to have a group of people running from zombies, and calling them zombies, even though there's absolutely no mention in the story that the idea of a zombie as a pop culture reference ever existed in the story's universe before the zombies starting walking. No Night of the Living Dead references or Zombielnad jokes - nothing. In that case, it makes much more sense to call them Walkers or something similar.

Modern terms, even those derived from ancient words, only exist because of a specific chain of events that lead to those terms being in the accepted vernacular, so there's no reason that changing that chain of events wouldn't result in a different set of terms being used.

If you're drawing on mythology, I think it makes total sense that you would call them something else. Don't call them witches just because everyone else calls them that...especially if they call themselves something else.

To answer the last question: there are no rules in fiction. ^_^

Cyia said:

I think it depends on the story.

Personally, I find it odd to have a group of people running from zombies, and calling them zombies, even though there's absolutely no mention in the story that the idea of a zombie as a pop culture reference ever existed in the story's universe before the zombies starting walking. No Night of the Living Dead references or Zombieland jokes - nothing. In that case, it makes much more sense to call them Walkers or something similar.

Modern terms, even those derived from ancient words, only exist because of a specific chain of events that lead to those terms being in the accepted vernacular, so there's no reason that changing that chain of events wouldn't result in a different set of terms being used.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and likewise in the scenario where history and pop culture do exist, it would be equally silly for the characters NOT to call a zombie-like thing a zombie, etc.

One of the reasons the "walker" tag works is because it's (vaguely) realistic - it's the sort of thing the characters might come up with themselves. Calling them "necrambulators" or something would draw attention to itself as an obvious insertion by the author, and would - for me, at least - chip away at immersion every time I saw it.

Witches are a cultural by-product of mostly-Western Christianity. So if your witches are not from that historical background, then it makes total sense they wouldn't call themselves that.

Persian, West Asain culture has the term magi/magus/mage. Sorcerers are Western, but not Christian.

It really depends on how they differ from witches and what mythology you are drawing from. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

missesdash said:

Also, I always go to goodreads and see people saying things like "'Casters' (witches, basically)" and feel there's an implied eyeroll or "this is dumb." Maybe I'm reading into it too much.

Click to expand...

Just a guess, but "caster" is a class term used in gaming (tabletop and online) for, well, one who casts spells - since gaming is quite popular I would assume some/a lot of people have encountered this term and find it jarring or weird to call a witch that.

I think the practice is OK in theory, but my "it depends" is regarding the word/name choice - if it sounds silly I probably won't be able to stop cringing when I see it.

I think there's a fine line between unique and cheesy. Caster is fine, but when you get into the realm of 'aquarenians' for mermaids or 'fyrestrians' for dragons (made up but I've got some real examples in mind - you know what I'm talking about) I start rolling my eyes.

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...

Without specific examples of the words you plan to use, it's hard to say how it will come across, but you have a very good argument for them calling themselves something else.

I don't have a problem with renaming creatures. In a well-built world, giving supernatural creatures (or anything) a particular name feels natural and adds to the story, in my opinion.

If this occurs in ancient history, why not do a little research and find a name that would have been used during that time? Or use the "Gaul" word for "walkers", etc, or anglicize a German word for "undead". Of course, you will have to, at some point, explain what those words mean, but those options might provide you with some usable variations.

You can use Google Translation - it can yield some interesting examples. Of course, you can just make something up, but it might be more meaningful if there was an actual linguistic "root" to the word you finally choose.

isn't this calling a rabbit a smeerp? That is a T.V. Tropes link.
I mean if it sucks like a vampire, and burns in daylight like a vampire, then it's a vampire.

I feel like if the creature in the story is an already established mythical creature, then that is what it is.

If you're writing about a vampire with all the vampire-y traits included, then it's a vampire. On the other hand, if you change them up a bit, so they really aren't vampires anymore, then yeah, give them a different name at that point.

JustinlDew said:

isn't this calling a rabbit a smeerp? That is a T.V. Tropes link.
I mean if it sucks like a vampire, and burns in daylight like a vampire, then it's a vampire.

Click to expand...

But how is it a vampire if there are no vampire stories in the world in which it's set? That would be like expecting someone in the Revolutionary war to recognize a Sherman tank, simply because it's a tank... but they've never seen a tank; it's not from their war.

People use the words they're familiar with, and sometimes the translations don't always match up exactly. You can't expect everyone in every culture to use the same word for the same thing.

There were several groups of people branded witches in the middle and dark ages, even though they weren't practicing witchcraft of any kind - and it's not likely they'd call themselves witches.

(Also, literary and cultural vampires don't burn in sunlight; that's an invention of Hollywood for use on screen. So technically a creature that drinks blood and incinerates in sunlight isn't a vampire and shouldn't be called one. )

There's also the fact that witchcraft is an actual religion and the fact that the word "witches" has all sorts of history and connotation that characters may or may not want to associate themselves with. By calling themselves something else, I think it's a statement about who they feel they are.

I agree with what Cyia said:

People use the words they're familiar with, and sometimes the translations don't always match up exactly. You can't expect everyone in every culture to use the same word for the same thing.

Click to expand...

Let's look at a non-mythical creature example. In some areas of the U.S., you order a pop. In some areas, you get made fun of for saying pop and are told that you should say soda. Still other people call everything coke. Some say cola. Some say soda pop. Which is correct? And doesn't it add some flavor (bad pun intended) to the book to have characters use one term vs. another?

Calling a zombie a walker or a vampire a blood-drinker or witch a caster is an important distinction. Sure, you don't want to make up fun terms for everything just to make them seem Special and Important and Unique in lieu of real world building and originality, which I think can come across as gimmicky (or maybe I've read too many dystopians and tried to write a really bad one), but I don't think that's the case here.

ETA: Even if it is a trope, look at some of the examples. Would Hogwarts be such a magical place if humans were humans and not Muggles? Would The Dark Tower world be so deep if Roland magically called a hot dog a hot dog instead of a popkin even though he'd never been in "the real world?"

(Also, I agree on the translated word thing. There's only so much I trust the internet. I'd hate to find something I loved only to find out it's not quite right, like on that TV show when the person finds out that her Chinese character tattoo means "soup." Though I may have misread the intent of that comment.)

Cyia said:

Personally, I find it odd to have a group of people running from zombies, and calling them zombies, even though there's absolutely no mention in the story that the idea of a zombie as a pop culture reference ever existed in the story's universe before the zombies starting walking. No Night of the Living Dead references or Zombielnad jokes - nothing. In that case, it makes much more sense to call them Walkers or something similar.

Click to expand...

See, I feel the opposite. That was one thing that annoyed me in the first episode of The Walking Dead. They spend like 10 minutes explaining "well these dead people came back to life, and they try to eat you, and if they bite you then you turn into them." JUST SAY ZOMBIE ATTACK already. Urgh. And then they run into the guys who call them "lamebrains" and they're all "oh, walkers is a better name." Is this TV show set in an alternate reality where nobody has ever heard of zombies before? Because you get the impression from the opener that it was supposed to be contemporary life, and then le shit, the zombie outbreak happens. So to me, it doesn't make sense that there are no references like that (they don't want to date the show by making Night of the Living Dead references, sure, but at least acknowledge that zombies are a legend that has persisted throughout culture and time for ages).

Whereas if it were set in an entirely different world (i.e. Song of Ice and Fire, with White Walkers), the different name makes sense. OR if the creature is very different from the traditional legends (like the comment about the Twilight vamps, it would've made sense to call them something else).

Buuut that's just me. This seems like it's probably a matter of personal preference...

egoodlett said:

See, I feel the opposite. That was one thing that annoyed me in the first episode of The Walking Dead. They spend like 10 minutes explaining "well these dead people came back to life, and they try to eat you, and if they bite you then you turn into them." JUST SAY ZOMBIE ATTACK already. Urgh. And then they run into the guys who call them "lamebrains" and they're all "oh, walkers is a better name." Is this TV show set in an alternate reality where nobody has ever heard of zombies before? Because you get the impression from the opener that it was supposed to be contemporary life, and then le shit, the zombie outbreak happens. So to me, it doesn't make sense that there are no references like that (they don't want to date the show by making Night of the Living Dead references, sure, but at least acknowledge that zombies are a legend that has persisted throughout culture and time for ages).

Whereas if it were set in an entirely different world (i.e. Song of Ice and Fire, with White Walkers), the different name makes sense. OR if the creature is very different from the traditional legends (like the comment about the Twilight vamps, it would've made sense to call them something else).

Buuut that's just me. This seems like it's probably a matter of personal preference...

Click to expand...

See, I still think "zombie" would sound funny in this world. It's just such a part of fiction, not reality. Like when those people ate others in Florida, a couple of the more lowbrow news sources called them "zombie attacks" but I felt like overall, there was a sense of "dude, this just got serious." Like you can say "zombie" all you want, but it feels wrong when it's reality, real people dying etc. It's not just some pop culture joke. (I know that missesdash is writing fiction, but as one of the joys of writing, it's supposed to seem l like reality )

The_Ink_Goddess said:

See, I still think "zombie" would sound funny in this world. It's just such a part of fiction, not reality. Like when those people ate others in Florida, a couple of the more lowbrow news sources called them "zombie attacks" but I felt like overall, there was a sense of "dude, this just got serious." Like you can say "zombie" all you want, but it feels wrong when it's reality, real people dying etc. It's not just some pop culture joke. (I know that missesdash is writing fiction, but as one of the joys of writing, it's supposed to seem l like reality )

Click to expand...

I kinda see it both ways. On the one hand, I also just wanted them to say "zombies" dammit! But there is that disconnect between what's associated with campy fiction and something that could actually kill you.

Yeah, it's not so much that they decide to call them walkers on a daily basis that bothers me, it's that nobody ever says zombie. Ever. Like, I wish they had just acknowledged it, had someone be like "uh... yeah, it's zombies. Don't laugh. I mean fucking actual zombies." and then if they called them walkers from then on, ok fine, but at least it doesn't make you wonder if they're living in some alernate vortex world where nothing zombie has ever been thought of before >.>

That said, to get back on topic! If other people are calling them "witches" or using the term witch, even if they themselves don't use it (for reasons that make sense, since witch is a modern religious terms nowadays, and a Western word, etc), then yeah, I think it makes total sense for them to have a different word they call themselves.

It depends on the situation or thing. There are enough variations on terms for magic users (casters, witches, wizards, sorcerers, etc.) that all imply slightly different things. So if your witches are really witches-but-not-quite-witches, then using a different name is not bad. There's also the case of nicknames - i.e. police are also cops, coppers, badges, rozzers, bobbies, pigs, etc. Or it could be a case where witches prefer to call themselves "casters" because "witch" is too lowly.