>>50118124No, that's not how it works. Trying to deflect by using such a broad term like "monster" doesn't work in this case. Case in point no one would whine if people said the monsters in SMY are spirits and gods or that Digimon are computer data. Or try to pass off the cliffraces from the Elder Scrolls occupying the same context as the Demora. All could be considered "monster" but they clearly exist in their own specific context.
Which is why I brought up said examples put out by Dr. Rees. He was talking about ways that humans interact with their pets that still resonate to this day. The young boy in playing fetch with his dog in the vase would be a recognizable to the modern eye, so is the scene with the man getting his dog attention, minus the turtle, and there's scenes depicting babies and dogs crawling in the ground. Familiar imagery that resonates with a modern audience thousands of years later. Of course it wasn't all sunshine such as religious sacrifices involving the killing of dogs or using puppy fat for remedies. They also didn't humanize their pets to the degree modern people do such as giving them human names or dressing them up in clothes. When it comes to Pokémon when the series makes use of that imagery it's trying to clearly evoke the image of one's own pet, be it the few examples provided or even the food that Pokémon specifically eat. Pokémon may be shown eating people food but there is a clear example of their own food being identical to animal feed, and I do stress that even the type of food or the way it's eaten can be vital in expressing an idea. In these few examples they're signaling to children, and adults as well, that you should think of a domestic Pokémon as being more akin to your own pet dog.
And that's just the domestic side, I could provide a good amount of examples on how the series also wants you to think of Pokémon as critters more than anything else. People easily pick up on the context clues.
