Has anyone else thought about how Brian used the word "claws" in the series? He left other things up to readers' own translation, but something about the use of claws was a bit skewed.
Most of the time, the creatures that had claws were vermin. "He pointed a claw. . .", "she dug her claws into. . ." It's like they were used as fingers in that case. However, in Mossflower Gonff picked up one of Tsarmina's claws off the ground. Cat's claws are retractable, so in that case it seems it would be the nail-like claw that are on real cats, not the finger-like extremities that were used other times.
Goodbeasts almost never used "claws". The word "paws" was used in place, and it seems like we readers kind of gloss over the fact that they pointed with a paw and used a paw to turn the page.
Personally I like using the word claw in replacement of fingers, since they are animals, and it doesn't matter what species is being talked about. But what do you guys think?
I don't like the term "claws"; it's weird and makes me think of spindly, sharp nails. Though I guess it's sort of correct. But I usually use "paws," 'cause it sounds far better.
It does seem that the vermin had claw-like hands while most of the goodbeasts had paw-like hands. I don't know, maybe it is just the books influence, but perhaps not.
I've also noticed in the books when the terms "paw" and "claw" were used. I figure all animals - goodbeasts and villains - have both. I wish I had an exact passage, but I'm sure that "claw" has been used with goodbeasts too, but usually in a harmless way (scratching a line on something, mole's digging claws, etc.) When "claw" is used with a creature considered a vermin, it's usually in the case where the beast is worked up to the point that the animal's claws would be extended out of its paws, as when one points its claws threateningly at another. The casual use of "paws" vs. "claws" appears to be yet another way of distinguishing the habits and tendencies of one species from another.
Quote from: Jukka the Sling on December 22, 2015, 10:47:38 PM
I don't like the term "claws"; it's weird and makes me think of spindly, sharp nails. Though I guess it's sort of correct. But I usually use "paws," 'cause it sounds far better.
But paws can't be used for fine motor skills like fingers can, which is why I like the use of "claws" in place of fingers. Can't use the whole hand to hold a needle; it takes the fingertips. If claws were their fingers, then problems like that would be avoided. (Just my opinion.)
Old, but whatever.
Paws are likely being used as a synonym for hand as to avoid saying hand because they're animals.
I would imagine they have fingers, on the paw, and claws would be on top of the "finger".
Animals do have 'fingers', paws aren't just stumps, you know. If an animal splays their paw, the 'fingers' separate. Cats and dogs typically do it when they stretch. And rats and other rodents have real fingers, but they're on the paw.
I think a lot of it is connotation, paws in general sound a lot nicer and less dangerous than claws which sounds kind of dangerous, hence, the vermin usually being referred to as having claws and the good creatures having paws, with the notable exception of moles, which are referred to often as having "digging claws" which makes sense.
So then, what do you guys think for "goodbeasts"? If they point a "finger", what would you call it, if claws is mostly a vermin term?
It might be mostly, but I wouldn't say exclusively. If the distinction had to be made, you could say "forepaw" or "foreclaw".
It seems that in many a book or elsewhere, a single finger of an animal is referred to as a paw, as well as that being the term for the overall hand. With that trend in mind I am thinking perhaps Brian didn't give it too much thought as he wrote it.
I'm not sure what else you could comfortably call a single digit! Some goodbeasts could still get away with 'claw'. Doesn't suit a mouse, though... I don't knooow. :o
FINGERS.
I actually think 'fingers' doesn't sound too out of place? Maybe?
Like I said before, I happen to like just claws for the digits. It sounds more animalistic.
Fingers works as long as they keep the hand in general as a paw.
Personal preference, I guess. Kind of like how some artists have imagined the creatures on all fours.
That annoys me horribly. :P
On the book covers themselves the characters are upright.
I recall some countries have had covers with characters on all fours. I don't get how they thought these creatures could wield weapons, wear clothes and all that as quadrupeds.
I know, right?
And it is kind of obvious when you actually read the book. :P
I believe it is mentioned that they could go down on all fours to run faster, but they were not permanently like that.
It may have been one of the badgers where they did that, but, yeah.
A badger and I remember Ruggan Bor doing that (or being forced to do that).
Being used to walking on two legs, I can't see many creatures being wholly comfortable going all fours. Not quite like the clumsiness of a human trying to run on fours... but maybe a little clumsy! I can see a badger or wildcat managing it for a bit - the latter for a good pouncing stance. Oh, and squirrels.
Sunflash was forced to walk on all fours to carry Swartt.
Good points, Meadow.
The ermines did that almost wholly, but anybeast who could speak seemed to walk upright (unless they were forced not to, or were trying to escape from/avoid something/go faster).
It must have something to do with their intellect.
Just like how certain birds could not speak and were merely food.
MOSSFLOWER SPOILER
Spoiler
Bella went on all fours to carry Abbess Germaine to get to Martin to heal him
Slagar was on all fours on the cover of my copy of
Mattimeo.
Spoiler
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Mattimeo_US.jpg/200px-Mattimeo_US.jpg)
I always felt that that particular cover is strange.
Slagar looks too animalistic, funny enough. When the occasional character runs on all fours, I always pictured it as an awkward scramble, as though walking on just their hindlegs was what was most natural and comfortable.
Quote from: alexandre on August 08, 2017, 06:10:04 AM
MOSSFLOWER SPOILERSpoiler
Bella went on all fours to carry Abbess Germaine to get to Martin to heal him
Actually, I just finished my re-read of Mossflower yesterday and
Mossflower
nowhere does it say Bella ran on all fours. All it says is that Abbess Germaine was strapped to Bella's back while she ran.
Re: "Slagar looks way too animalistic."
They all do. Slagar looks like he wants to (and, more importantly, like he CAN) eat everybeast on the cover.
Quote
Actually, I just finished my re-read of Mossflower yesterday and
Mossflower
nowhere does it say Bella ran on all fours. All it says is that Abbess Germaine was strapped to Bella's back while she ran.
ok sorry, I didn't check the book, I guess my mind had just assumed
Spoiler
she was on all fours carrying Germaine, and I haven't read it in awhile so my brain decided that was what was written.
My mind does that too. I'll reread something and it'll be completely different than what I thought I remembered.
Might you be thinking of Constance in the first book?
Might be Constance.
And that particular cover is unique. Most of the artists do seem to depict them being on two feet, though.