13-07-09 Yowzers!

[CaliforniaDave]

There are some places--at least on the internet--that say that demons are incapable of creating their own product, so they first have to act as succubi, in order to obtain seed, and then incubi, to cause demon impregnation.

I don't know what the original source of this is, but the rule with writing fiction seems to be to mix and match anything you hear, plus anything that sounds interesting. ;) Which . . . well, whatever makes for the best story, as far as I'm concerned.

Look no further than Stephen King's Dark Tower series - that's exactly what happens.

[Don Alexander]

I wonder if Chloe's problem might be underdeveloped wings or so...

So far, by the way, I lust after none of the characters here.

[RoninAngel]

cool characters. I knew she was some kind of demon.

I wonder what her "failure" is? I wonder if it's that she has too many freckles!

Also, I wonder if Nina would eat someone if they had chocolate blood?

[Don Alexander]

I think you mean Nina.

Not to mention that the freckles speculation is further up already...

[Ominous]

If Lusting after Underage comic characters is a crime, then lock me up and throw away the key. I have the hots for both Nina and Chloe. And if I am locked up, may those two be locked away with me. Blair can come along too since he'd be a riot to have around.

[Tsunami]

So sute that Chloe keeps her real horns hidden under a set of fake ones
Wonder why that is given that the school is full of "unusual" pupils anyway.
Just looking at that last frame, I am wondering who the tail at the bottom of the image belongs to..
(oh, and this is my first post on the EC forum )

[Daremo]

There are some places--at least on the internet--that say that demons are incapable of creating their own product, so they first have to act as succubi, in order to obtain seed, and then incubi, to cause demon impregnation.

Incorrect, but an interesting twist on the mythology nonetheless.

I don't know how you can call an aspect of mythology wrong, but this is an old, old idea, having been in print as far back as 1486, if not earlier. Rather than incorrect, you could say this is an aspect that you hadn't heard before.

[Nobody]

I have a feeling that the 'failure as a succubus' part is how under developed her body is. All the illustrations of them I have ever seen has them massive knockers.

[Ashahalasin]

I'd go to jail for it. ;)

[David Johnston]

cool characters. I knew she was some kind of demon.

I wonder what her "failure" is? I wonder if it's that she has too many freckles!

She's a wholesome girl next door "type". While wholesome attractiveness is still attractive, (and a fantasy for some men), it's still not the succubus stock in trade.

[Akilika]

There are some places--at least on the internet--that say that demons are incapable of creating their own product, so they first have to act as succubi, in order to obtain seed, and then incubi, to cause demon impregnation.

Incorrect, but an interesting twist on the mythology nonetheless.

I don't know how you can call an aspect of mythology wrong, but this is an old, old idea, having been in print as far back as 1486, if not earlier. Rather than incorrect, you could say this is an aspect that you hadn't heard before.

I was trying to figure out how to express this. (Without knowing its history. Good work on that!) Especially since I did . . . you know . . . write the big disclaimer at the bottom. Thank you.

[jack of tears]

I don't know how you can call an aspect of mythology wrong, but this is an old, old idea, having been in print as far back as 1486, if not earlier. Rather than incorrect, you could say this is an aspect that you hadn't heard before.

It was never my intention to insult anyone's belief, but as that I've done extensive study of mythology for much of my life and never came upon this turn of the Succubus myth it seemed more likely a child of the internet fan-fiction network; as the original author admitted it might be. If you have a source for this version of the myth - that does not include wikipedia - I would like to see it.

And, I didn't actually say "wrong", I said "incorrect" ... as it is entirely possible for a myth to be incorrectly quoted.

[Akilika]

It was never my intention to insult anyone's belief, but as that I've done extensive study of mythology for much of my life and never came upon this turn of the Succubus myth it seemed more likely a child of the internet fan-fiction network; as the original author admitted it might be. If you have a source for this version of the myth - that does not include wikipedia - I would like to see it.

And, I didn't actually say "wrong", I said "incorrect" ... as it is entirely possible for a myth to be incorrectly quoted.

Incorrect from WHAT, though? (And how is "wrong" different from "incorrect"? I'm having trouble even reading a semantic difference, and I love semantics.)

Mythology is constantly being reshaped--one only really has to look at media depictions of vampires, for instance, to see this. These things--whether taking faithfully from an ancient source, exaggerated, or made up entirely--become part of the cultural knowledge and build new myth systems of their own. It works very much in the same way as oral tradition--with repetition, things become even more fantastic or unreal.

Where's the cut-off between "real" myth and "internet fan-fiction"? Ten years? A hundred? A thousand? Who'd even be qualified to make the decision? For things that actually exist, it's easy to point out the difference between reality and rumor, but for things entirely mythological, who's to say that one man's retelling is any less valid than the other?

And given the specific context of what you can use in fiction--given that there is such a rich body of information to draw from, thousands of ideas from hundreds of times and areas . . . why would you limit yourself to the ones someone else finds legitimate?


On another note, how does studying mythology for most of your life ensure that a myth you haven't heard of is, in fact, not real? It's a big world out there.

[jack of tears]

On another note, how does studying mythology for most of your life ensure that a myth you haven't heard of is, in fact, not real? It's a big world out there.

Which is why I asked for a source. You cannot simply make something up and say, "it is myth somewhere". Just as one cannot call something a myth merely because it has appeared in some fan fiction. Mythology is based upon cultural understanding, belief, and perspective - it originates from mass perception and adherence to a belief or ideal.

And I as to the difference between wrong and incorrect in the given circumstance; I am not going to get into a course of semantics and the use of word choice with you - there are whole classes you can take on that if you are interested.

[Kamino Neko]

Jack, you are simply wrong.

The theory about incubi and succubi is old enough to be mentioned in the Malleus Maleficarum. I have no access to the documents the Malleus is (supposedly) drawing on so I can't say if it really was Augustine who came up with the theory. The fact remains that the concept's genesis comes no later than 1486.

The entry in the Malleus also denies your claim that incubi exclusively assault nuns - referencing the very common belief that witches, or women who would become witches, were seduced by devils.

Now, I'm sure that nuns were more likely than the average woman to claim an incubus attack as an explanation for an unexplained pregnancy, since giving into their vile female wantonness* would have more of a negative effect on Sister Chastity than on Jane Farmerswife, but that's not the same as believing that incubi only came to nuns.

* In the middle ages, women were considered to be more lustful than men, seducers who lead men astray. See interpretations of the fall of Adam and Eve, for instance.