unrepentantAuthor
A cat who writes stories
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reaction score
- 1,132
What would be the best way to work with talking Pokemon? I personally just want to do that because it will make things easier to work with.
You got four basic options for a conventional setting.
1. You just don't think about it too hard and don't invite the reader to either. This is suitable for a 'soft' realism story.
2. You carefully think through every detail about how society would look and behave, accommodating for people's treatment of pokémon as sapient beings.
3. You have a subset of trainers with the rare gift to understand pokémon. Of course, pokémon 'language' should be appropriate to their sapience. If they had the same level of existential awareness as humans, it's basically the same as #2 with the proviso that most humans just don't know that pokémon are that cognitively developed.
4. The existence of translators. Of course, if the translators let pokémon 'talk' to humans at a level beyond "I'm hungry" and "follow me" then it runs into the same problems as above if you're trying to worldbuild at all. If pokémon can 'talk' at a human level, what right do we have to treat them as anything other than equals?
You could also have a small number of pokémon that speak, and not others. Human-like pokémon like gallade and medicham are good examples for this.
You could also have pokémon communication of a limited sort. I spend a lot of effort in my fanfic having pokémon use standard vocalisations and sign language to indicate simple concepts, with most pokémon not being able to manage anything sophisticated. Throh are just barely able to tell stories in a very simplistic way.
I guess I could do an AU where Pokemon being able to talk is normal. It's always been like that.
I don't know what the alternative was that you were considering.
Although, look at Digimon, the creatures can talk, they are sentient and are owned.
They're not part of the human world. Only a select number of children have access to them, and those children have bilateral 1-1 bonds with them. It's a very different scenario that doesn't seem to imply ownership.
Well done, @UselessBytes! Happy for ya.