>>50332137Saying that doesn't actually tell us anything. People call the loch ness monster, well, a monster but if it's real it's an undiscovered animal species. There's things like vampires and demons called monsters but they're supernatural beings. Throwing the term monster doesn't do us any good, and indeed, I don't see people referring to Pokémon as monsters as much as people using the animal label, for a good reason as well.
See, anyone can recognize Pokémon don't represent *real* animals. Even shudo who constantly refers to Pokémon as animals and says he wrote stories about 151 animals makes the distinction between Pokémon and real animals. It's important to note the usage of *real* animals rather than just animals because it never separates Pokémon from what an animal is hence why Shudo calls them that. They're not real animals but beasts of the fictional variety nevertheless. Even the guide by TPCi makes the same distinction, even going as far as to claim that Pokémon *replace* real animals. They didn't simply say animals don't exist, they made the distinction of *reap* animals and went as far as to say Pokémon *replace* them.
Suffice to say many of the things the franchise does revolve around pushing that view and as to why it is so common, it's not a coincidence but part of a carefully constructed image. Simply throwing the label monster isn't telling us much and Pokémon pushes the opposite. Take for example that Shudo never once called the Pokémon monsters but easily refers to them as animals. Notice that the TPC guide says Pokémon serve as a replacement for real animals and also not to refer to Pokémon as monsters.
>>50332661It's neither. It's pokephilia which is attraction to fictional magical beasts.
