
Why Are So Many Monsters Hybrids? - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/53/monsters/why-are-so-many-monsters-hybrids
======
gumby
My gf's brother pointed out to me that this seemed to be a major driver of
Kosher rules/Kashrut (and maybe Halal too? I don't know much about religions).

Apparently those Bronze Age guys were really into taxonomic orthodoxy, so
animals that violated their world view (e.g. live in the water but don't swim;
cloven hoof but don't chew cud) had to be shunned.

Though is it that different today? Everybody seems to have a section of
knowledge where they plug their ears and say "na na I'm not listening..."

~~~
indigochill
Regarding Kosher at least, I think it had more to do with health than
taxonomy.

The birds that were forbidden tended to be scavengers (such as vultures).
These could carry diseases. Likewise, the main livestock they were forbidden
from eating were pigs, which could present a health hazard at that time. They
were also forbidden from eating most insects except locusts, probably for
similar reasons.

I would disagree with the taxonomic interpretation mainly because there are a
couple examples where I don't think it makes sense. For instance, pigs were
"beasts of the field". They weren't in any way challenging to the Jewish
taxonomy. Catfish also weren't challenging. They were fish (that is,
basically, they lived in water). But they don't have scales, so they're not
kosher (they're also bottom-feeders, so again could carry diseases if prepared
incorrectly).

The health interpretation also extends to preparation rules. Animals must be
slaughtered and bled out. This was likely to reduce risk of blood-borne
diseases. Animals found dead also cannot be eaten, reducing risk of eating
diseased meat.

Of course, these interpretations aren't mutually exclusive. I just don't see
much support for the taxonomic interpretation aside from the fact that of
course the regulations classify animals as fit to eat based on certain
characteristics.

I'm also only familiar with Kosher rules, so can't comment about how the
taxonomic interpretation might apply to other dietary rules.

~~~
VLM
A strange story I read was in the earliest polytheistic era its an
evolutionary economic advantage for an entire region or culture to enforce a
level of economic protectionism on villages. Stops one village from gaining
total economic ascendancy over the region. Its an inoculation against civil
war, we could kill them and take their pigs, but we can't eat pigs, and since
we're not in economic competition we're not much richer than they are so
there's no guarantee they won't end up killing us and taking our cows, which
they can't eat... Sort of pre-history zoning rules. Naturally things look
weird later on if one tribe takes over the whole region, much like it would be
weird to have a city zoned entirely for nothing but an endless sea of
McDonalds restaurants.

------
humanrebar
> Anthropologist David Wengrow argues that hybrid monsters proliferated during
> the Bronze Age, because new trade routes and cultural mixing elicited
> psychological anxiety. Creating monsters is a way of channeling our cultural
> and political fears into tangible forms, into objects of loathing and dread.

Or most stories were written and/or propagated by entertainers (including
parents or babysitters who want the kids to shut up and sit in one place) and
it's cool to hear about Bellerophon defeating a superbeast. Note that many
monsters are just big and super powered, like the Erymanthian Boar. But in
this case, it's fun to see if the hero can take on a beast with the
intelligence of a man and the bloodlust and strength of a bull. These beasts
are also strange, which makes for a fun and surprising story.

Compare to the Super-Skrull, a Fantastic Four bad guy whose powers are
(basically) the powers of the Fantastic Four combined:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-
Skrull](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Skrull)

I mean, we _can_ peel the onion back another layer and talk about whether it's
entertaining _because_ of some widespread psychological issue, but I think
Occam's Razor would indicate "because it's fun" as a valid answer.

~~~
Sangermaine
>I mean, we can peel the onion back another layer and talk about whether it's
entertaining because of some widespread psychological issue, but I think
Occam's Razor would indicate "because it's fun" as a valid answer.

No, it really isn't, and this is a gross misunderstanding of the function of
these stories. They weren't created explicitly as entertainment in the way
comic books are. Jack and Stan were not claiming to be relating true tales of
the gods or the past.

These stories weren't created "for fun" anymore than the tales of the Greek
pantheon of gods or tales of saints and miracles from medieval Christian
Europe. They were actual beliefs of actual people, they weren't faking it.
Yours is a very modern perspective removed from the cultures that created
these tales.

~~~
humanrebar
Well, _someone_ made up the story of the pegasus. They didn't see a pegasus
and just make up a poem about it.

Even if we restrict the elaboration and propagation of these stories to true
believers, these memes are subject to selection effects. Entertainment value
is surely a competitive advantage for a long-lived folk tale.

~~~
JakeTheAndroid
These stories were passed down word of mouth, so you'd have to expect that by
the time Pegasus had wings it'd passed through a number of people. Further,
you have to understand these people had a basic understanding of the world
around them. It's not inconceivable that they saw these types of things
without the opportunity to investigate further. So whatever they think they
saw is what becomes fact. Pegasus could come from some dude that was looking
at a horse coming over the horizon and thought for sure that thing had wings.
Told some buddies about this crazy horse over some wine, and before you know
it the Pegasus is a real thing you ask for when you're 16.

------
slackingoff2017
I think the author is reading too much into this. Even in ancient times it was
known that hybrids were frequently larger than the parents. Take Ligers for
example (lion tiger hybrid).

People were probably more familiar with animal husbandry than today, so it
makes sense to exaggerate that natural tendency to make somewhat believable
monsters.

I don't think it had anything to do with xenophopia or "category violation" .
The Earth has all kinds of weird shit like flying squirrels and humans

~~~
fnord123
I think it's just easier/better storytelling to use shorthand descriptions
based on things people may already have seen. Griffins, Chimeras, and Sphinxes
are easier to picture in the mind's eye than Azathoth, Yog-Sothoth, and Shub-
Niggurath.

------
nitwit005
Isn't some of this just the difficulty of describing something unique?

If you asked me to describe what the aliens from the Alien/Aliens movies
looked like, I'd completely fail. If you asked me to describe the alien from
Predator, on the other hand, it'd be fairly easy. The Predator is a guy in a
costume so I could just describe the differences.

~~~
jhbadger
Perhaps the recent Alien movies use CGI or something, but the original Alien
from Alien (in the adult form) was the Nigerian actor Bolaji Badejo in a suit.

------
samirillian
Interesting that the author references Vishnu, since Krishna (an avatar of
Vishnu) refers to "the mixing of the castes" as evil in the Bhagavad Gita. And
yes, this evil is some mixture of existential and sociological, i.e.,
religious.

