I've only recently come to learn about Roman-Chinese trade connections, which I suppose was also the vector of the frog-and-jewel mytheme. So close, no matter how far!
I can't help but mention that I feel that Bulbasaur was not so much an inspiration for the later generation starter Pokémon, but simply that the triangular circle of advantaged/disadvantaged types was preserved. There are some Pokémon that are strictly vegetal, but these are not as cute and therefore not as potentially adequate as starter Pokémon.
I wonder if you make anything out of the particular choice of starter types, namely fire, water, grass?
Re: fire, water and grass starters, part of it is just that, because the first games were so successful, that became the formula.
As to why those three in particular? a) because it's a neat rock-paper-scissors of type advantages and disadvantages and b) if you consider grass as part of 'earth,' they represent three of the four classical elements.
Yes, I thought of the elements. But, indeed, there is no grass/plant within the four elements while there is earth (or “ground”) in the Pokémon types. I also thought about the Chinese “five elements” which do indeed include “wood” in them. But in either case the fitting is not perfect. I guess the choice was rather arbitrary.
Looking at other trios in Pokemon: the legendary birds are fire/ice/lightning, the Gen II legendary beasts are fire/water/lightning. There is a level of arbitrariness to it, absolutely.
Thanks as always for your comments. You're just the kind of reader I hoped would discover this series.
In the vain of ‘vegetable lambs’ I wanted to mention the barnacle geese, having misremembered them being born out of acorns. Still a curious myth!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnacle_goose_myth
I've only recently come to learn about Roman-Chinese trade connections, which I suppose was also the vector of the frog-and-jewel mytheme. So close, no matter how far!
I can't help but mention that I feel that Bulbasaur was not so much an inspiration for the later generation starter Pokémon, but simply that the triangular circle of advantaged/disadvantaged types was preserved. There are some Pokémon that are strictly vegetal, but these are not as cute and therefore not as potentially adequate as starter Pokémon.
I wonder if you make anything out of the particular choice of starter types, namely fire, water, grass?
Re: fire, water and grass starters, part of it is just that, because the first games were so successful, that became the formula.
As to why those three in particular? a) because it's a neat rock-paper-scissors of type advantages and disadvantages and b) if you consider grass as part of 'earth,' they represent three of the four classical elements.
Yes, I thought of the elements. But, indeed, there is no grass/plant within the four elements while there is earth (or “ground”) in the Pokémon types. I also thought about the Chinese “five elements” which do indeed include “wood” in them. But in either case the fitting is not perfect. I guess the choice was rather arbitrary.
Yes.
Looking at other trios in Pokemon: the legendary birds are fire/ice/lightning, the Gen II legendary beasts are fire/water/lightning. There is a level of arbitrariness to it, absolutely.
Thanks as always for your comments. You're just the kind of reader I hoped would discover this series.