HOME | DD

Description
I was planning a picture like this a long time ago, ever since I was so fed up with people being apparently unable to distinguish between the werewolf of fiction and the one of folklore, even so far as claiming that the typical traits of the fictional werewolf actually appear in true legends.
To be fair the full moon does occur and so does the silver and increased strength but rarely in that combination. The majority of werewolves could be killed just like any other living being, most were no stronger than ordinary wolves just often bigger, the full moon was a seriously minor detail that occurred only in some legends and as for phases of the moon in general, it could just as well be any other phase. In fact the oldest I know that actually names a moon phase as being part of the transformation is from England and stated that the werewolf transformed at New Moon. The bite doesn't exist in actual legend, all evidence points to it first appearing in true fiction (which unlike folklore and legend usually has no obvious or hidden claim to be true, which distinguishes it from these two) and having no folkloric predecessor, except it maybe being borrowed from the folkloric vampire.
Also the big wolf-man shape was practically non-existent. Usually what you see in old paintings and statues and the like and what is labeled a werewolf is actually a dog-head and was no shapeshifter at all, but rather a human dog hybrid (yes dog, some had clearly visible spots and dropped ears) and when you call that a werewolf you can call an angel a werebird or a centaur a werehorse and apparently no one does that unless confronted with that conundrum.
The usual folkloric werewolf is either a wolf or a very wolf-like canid. Sometimes they had human characteristics like eyes, hands or toes, sometimes even speech. But in either case those shapes had no resemblance to the man-wolf. But the most common shape was simply a big wolf.
And like I said the bite doesn't exist in legend, there is no credible source claiming this, the cyclic transformation could be tied to all sorts of factors and the most common means of transformation was via pelt/shirt or ointment. Also drinking magic water or having "lycanthropus flowers" (no idea whether these were legendary flowers or actually existing ones) were a means to an end. And that is another distinction between fiction and folklore. In folklore transformation is usually voluntary, in fiction forced.
Now some probably noticed the influence of Prescott and Lullabi here and while Prescott inspired it, I admit to directly copying Lullabi's style, because I think that fits, because most fictional werewolves especially in movies are just copies from another, you can easily switch them and there would be no difference.

It is one thing to want to address the werewolf from all angles, but claiming legends to exist when they are not is promoting untruth. Even if you think that myths and legends are also just fiction… that doesn't matter. If you claim a work of fiction to be something it is not you lie and in historical documents, whether fiction or not, thereby you make false claims about history.

Description
I was planning a picture like this a long time ago, ever since I was so fed up with people being apparently unable to distinguish between the werewolf of fiction and the one of folklore, even so far as claiming that the typical traits of the fictional werewolf actually appear in true legends.
To be fair the full moon does occur and so does the silver and increased strength but rarely in that combination. The majority of werewolves could be killed just like any other living being, most were no stronger than ordinary wolves just often bigger, the full moon was a seriously minor detail that occurred only in some legends and as for phases of the moon in general, it could just as well be any other phase. In fact the oldest I know that actually names a moon phase as being part of the transformation is from England and stated that the werewolf transformed at New Moon. The bite doesn't exist in actual legend, all evidence points to it first appearing in true fiction (which unlike folklore and legend usually has no obvious or hidden claim to be true, which distinguishes it from these two) and having no folkloric predecessor, except it maybe being borrowed from the folkloric vampire.
Also the big wolf-man shape was practically non-existent. Usually what you see in old paintings and statues and the like and what is labeled a werewolf is actually a dog-head and was no shapeshifter at all, but rather a human dog hybrid (yes dog, some had clearly visible spots and dropped ears) and when you call that a werewolf you can call an angel a werebird or a centaur a werehorse and apparently no one does that unless confronted with that conundrum.
The usual folkloric werewolf is either a wolf or a very wolf-like canid. Sometimes they had human characteristics like eyes, hands or toes, sometimes even speech. But in either case those shapes had no resemblance to the man-wolf. But the most common shape was simply a big wolf.
And like I said the bite doesn't exist in legend, there is no credible source claiming this, the cyclic transformation could be tied to all sorts of factors and the most common means of transformation was via pelt/shirt or ointment. Also drinking magic water or having "lycanthropus flowers" (no idea whether these were legendary flowers or actually existing ones) were a means to an end. And that is another distinction between fiction and folklore. In folklore transformation is usually voluntary, in fiction forced.
Now some probably noticed the influence of Prescott and Lullabi here and while Prescott inspired it, I admit to directly copying Lullabi's style, because I think that fits, because most fictional werewolves especially in movies are just copies from another, you can easily switch them and there would be no difference.

It is one thing to want to address the werewolf from all angles, but claiming legends to exist when they are not is promoting untruth. Even if you think that myths and legends are also just fiction… that doesn't matter. If you claim a work of fiction to be something it is not you lie and in historical documents, whether fiction or not, thereby you make false claims about history.