Why I Write Werewolves the Way That I Do (Patreon)

In light of recent misunderstandings, I want to clarify my position on depictions of werewolves in the media, why I feel the way I do, and what issues may arise.

Before we begin, I need to preface, this is not an attack on anyone’s personal tastes. This is an explanation of my own thoughts, feelings and interpretations. If you disagree with me, that’s great. I’d love to hear your perspectives.

We should also take a moment to define terms.
“Murderwolf”: The classic Hollywood take on the curse of Lycanthropy. Generally depicted as a loss of self, and driven to kill, in some interpretations even compelled to kill someone the victim of the curse loves. This is often derived from the origins of the curse from a satanic origin, and generally feeds off and perpetuates the myth that wolves are in some way an evil creature or serve satan. (This is real, look it up, it’s why they went extinct in Britain and they nearly went extinct in North America.)

“Part-time Furry”: This is a term I use for werewolves that generally retain most if not all control over themselves while changed. This type of werewolf may or may not even be able to control their transformations at will, which makes it more of a furry superpower than a curse.

Why Murderwolves Don’t Work in Most Narratives

When you think of werewolves, the first thing that you probably think of is Horror flicks. Monster movie slashers. This is because the classic Murderwolf interpretation can only work in this sort of narrative.

When you use a murderwolf, there can only be two resolutions. The wolf kills until the cursed individual moves on to the next town in a sullen manner, hoping that they can contain it and not hurt anyone, or, they get killed and the cycle of death ends.

This works for narratives that want it to conclude in this manner, but it sets up the werewolf as more of a boogyman to be overcome and the person who is cursed is often completely removed and seldom explored, making their death as the end that the audience wants. You would think that if a person knows they are going to kill every full moon, they would end it by their own hand, but in these films and stories, they don’t, which makes the cursed individual just as complicit.

This sort of narrow interpretation leaves a writer blocked narratively. It makes it hard to write a compelling story from the perspective of the person who is cursed, and it almost always leads to ambiguous endings, or the death of the character.

Why Part-time Furries Make a Narrative Boring

On the other end of the spectrum, the Part-time furry takes away all the stakes from the story. If you know that Jim is a werewolf, and when he turns he is exactly the same, just fluffy. Then all the tension is gone from the conflict. The werewolf is just… there.

This sort of werewolf only really works in narratives that revolve around something other than the werewolf itself, or in romance settings where they want to have some furry action going on. As a werewolf narrative, it falls flat.

It fixes much of the issues with the Murderwolf, you can make the werewolf character compelling and give them a full arc, but when the full moon comes out and they start to change, the majority of the cast should not be concerned at all, and just pause for a moment until they can rejoin the conversation.

It makes for generally boring narratives that make the lycanthropy a bit more than a critical part of the story or as a challenge to overcome.

Finding a Good Middle Ground

You may be asking yourself, what can we do to fix this? I am not claiming that I have solved the issue, but I think finding a decent mix of these tropes is the best solution. A loss of control is critical, but keeping (to borrow a term from DnD) your alignment is crucial. Wolves are not evil, but they can be dangerous, just like any animal. Werewolves should be presented in the same capacity.

Giving them some recognition of people and things in their lives, while keeping their behavior and thoughts in a more feral light keeps the stakes high narratively, and still gives you the option to build the character. They don’t have to be “put down” at the end of the story, but they still pose some risk to people. There is still a level of anxiety and trepidation they might feel, and that others around them might feel. This is a great launching point for character arcs or growth, or even for the main conflict of the story itself.

As I said, this is only my personal take, and not meant to rebuke anyone or judge anyone for their feelings or tastes. I just wanted to explain my view point and the “whys” behind them.

Thanks for coming to my TedTalk.

~Kari