What about fishlips?
@AI: Sex should not have anything to do with it either.Ciao!GW
The world likes to fix on a limited range of cliches and images and flog them to death.Look at the story of AD&D and the Rakshasa. The original MM has a good picture of a rakshasa with a tiger head and gamers being the imaginative folk they are fix on Rakshasa having tiger heads even when the text accompanying the illustration clearly identifies the monster as a magical illusion user that conceals it's appearance. For the rest of time Rakshasa in D&D land will have tiger heads.Gamers and fanboys are going to associate tentacles and cthulhu with each other for the rest of our lives.
Now I can dig out my copy of Necronomicon and rethink everything from a new, exciting perspective. What a wonderful day.
I agree, though I do think tentacles and Lovecraftian horror might still work if enough though is put on why did the combination work in first place. Why these features of deep sea creatures were used to invoke disgust and sense of otherness and profound feeling of dealing with something alien, something that is really not anything like you. I think the key is to avoid the clishe and use the trophe.
But we can still use both in the same sentence?
I fully sympathize, Jim. For the longest time I've been insisting that "Lovecriftiis" and "testicles" are not synonymous, and they are still used interchangeably.
Really it depends on whether you're using Euclidean or non-Euclidean synonymity. Plus, if in strange eons even death may die ... that's going to have a big effect on stuff like synonyms and antonyms. Or did have a big effect, depending on your location in time. It's really a pretty complex issue...........
Wait--oh, TEN-tacles. *relieved!*
It is the modern way, when confronted with the profound or sublime, to fixate on it surface appearance, which explains much of what's wrong with the human species.
Honey, surface is depth where I come from ;)Yes James - more creeping fear and confusion, less slimysquidfeatures