Jotuns versus trolls

In Norse and Scandinavian mythology we have jotuns and trolls (including their various cognates in the Scandinavian languages). They never coexisted in mythology, with jotuns being Norse and trolls being Scandinavian. This is because of Christianity, which caused the Scandinavians to forget their Norse myths and develop new myths to replace them. The replacement of jotuns with trolls is one such instance of this.

To put it bluntly, trolls are just a later incarnation of the jotuns. They aren't distinct species. Of course, this hasn't stopped modern writers from trying to force them to coexist in the same stories. I too am guilty of this.

Having jotuns and trolls in the same story sounds redundant, doesn't it? When you get right down to it, the only difference is that jotuns are always gigantic whereas trolls may range in size from giants to dwarves (in the dictionary and folkloric sense, not modern fantasy gaming's definition taken from Tolkien). In fact, trolls seem to be closer to more generic conceptions of fairies and nature spirits as compared to other cultural mythologies of Europe (e.g. the "wood nymph with a hollow back" is considered a type of troll). So you could easily argue that jotuns are a subset of trolls, specifically the biggest.

Of course, since we aren't making any pretensions of being accurate (insofar as that ever made sense for myths that weren't consistent in the first place) then maybe we could devise different criteria for distinction? Trudvang Chronicles, for example, maintains the distinction that jotuns are elemental beings whereas trolls are not. However, trolls are commonly considered giants in fantasy gaming. Could this be reconciled?

I think that, mirroring the evolution of Norse mythology into Scandinavian mythology as a result of Christianity, the trolls could be explained as degenerate jotuns that have lost their elemental power and sometimes shrunk in size. One side effect of this is that trolls are photosensitive, often turning to stone under sunlight.

Although it isn't mentioned nowadays, jotuns were originally thought to turn to stone under sunlight. This explains both why they aren't around anymore and why a lot of rock formations resemble faces (in reality, the human brain is simply wired to see faces where none exist). Since trolls are an evolution of the jotuns in folklore, they inherited this weakness.

However, not all trolls myths describe them as photosensitive. Depending on the country of origin, the trolls in stories may be entirely photosensitive, not photosensitive, or photosensitive only sometimes. In fact, aside from the names being cognates there are seemingly no traits that all trolls in all Scandinavian tales share in common.

Of course that's really annoying to us modern folks with our anal-retentive obsessive-compulsive taxonomies, so lets just pretend that for the purposes of our modern stories and games that all trolls have common properties selected from a single list. That list is:

• Tufted tails
• Horns (and/or tusks and/or other bony growths)
• Huge noses (and/or ears and/or other cartilaginous growths)
• Photosensitive (variable severity ranging from being nocturnal to dying)
• Turn to stone upon death (and/or entering any comatose state)
• Like other giants, may have extra limbs and/or heads

Trivia: The "wood nymph with a hollow back" has a number of different names in the Scandinavian languages. 

• elverpige (elver "an elves" + pige "a girl", "a she-elf")
• ellepige (elle "an alders" + pige "a girl", "a dryad")
• huldra ("the fairy")
• skogsrå (skog "a forest's" + rå "a fairy", "a dryad")

Reorganizing and reinventing goblins

Goblinoids are a standard monster in fantasy gaming. They also have legions of less effective imitators and an unfortunate history of being pigeonholed. I cannot change that, but in this post I can wax about my personal ideas and discoveries for making goblins less boring and stale.

History of the Manticore in Art

"The Manticore" ©2001 Leo Winstead

While the above image is what fantasy gamers typically think of when they hear the name, the appearance of the manticore has varied wildly in art over the past centuries. The only thing that remains consistent about the various depictions of the manticore, at least in pre-modern art, is that it has the body of a lion or tiger and the face of a human being. Modern art has further confused matters by dispensing with the human face, but I will ignore those depictions for simplicity.

That's not a wendigo! It's the wild hunt!

As I recounted in my last post on the wendigo, modern popular culture has twisted the wendigo from a carnivorous demon of cold with highly variable physical features to what can only be described as a "zombie were-deer." This is not the first time that the wendigo myth has been mutilated by settlers, and it is possible to trace the changes over the years in the media.

Ghouls, Vampires and Zombies

Although originally fairly distinct in their original mythologies, these three creatures have been blurred in modern popular culture. The modern idea of the zombie as an infectious flesh-eater is actually due to conflation with ghouls and vampires.

The ghoul was originally a type of demon or genie that consumed corpses and could disguise themselves as human. Some stories depict disguised ghouls marrying humans and having children with them, before inevitably being discovered when their spouse investigates their unusual behavior.

The vampire was originally a reanimated corpse or ghost that predated on humans, stealing breath, consuming flesh, etc. They spread sickness and disease, including vampirism.

The zombie was originally a corpse reanimated by an evil sorcerer to use as slave labor. This was culturally relevant because these tales circulated during the height of the Colombian slave trade.

There is overlap between ghouls and vampires in some instances, such as if the vampire is actually a corpse possessed by a demon. Folklore is often vague, so it is difficult to tell when this is the case unless explicitly stated.

Tribes of the centaurs, part 3: the other centaurs

Although commonly depicted with equine halves, centaurs have since been expanded to cover a variety of animal halves. Some of these have precedent in mythology, while others are wholly modern inventions. These include the bull-centaur, fish-centaur, winged centaur and leonine-centaur, the subjects of this post. More below the break...

Tribes of the centaurs, part 2: the horse-centaurs

As I explained in part 1 of this series, Greek myth posited that the centaurs are divided into a number of tribes. The ixionidae are descended from Ixion: his son(s) the Centaur or centaurs sired the hippocentaurs (horse-centaurs) on the Magnesian mares. However, there were a few tribes of hippocentaurs without a common origin. More below the break...