Not this inanity again. Dear mods, if you would kindly clean up this mess.
>>50285835This ignores and strips away all context on what a Pokémon *is* and thus does no good. I can tell you that when it comes to studying history context is incredibly important and contextualizing texts is immensely important in understanding history. One must not take everything at face value.
Pokémon conceptualizes all these creatures as fantastical magical beasts. Verily what you mention in your post isn't all that far off some concepts in the real world, for example people often think of coral and sponges as objects when they are in fact living beings an as the concept of reincarnation is a thing which applies to a fair amount of ghost Pokémon. But back to my point, the series is built upon Pokémon being *fantasy* *fictional* animals and the series is structured that way, it is no coincidence that people think of Pokémon as animals, that's what the franchise wants you to see Pokémon as. Saying a blanket term like "monster" doesn't take away that indeed people call creatures like the loch ness monster and big foot monster but these are also a supposed undiscovered animal species. These would be different than supernatural entities like vampires and demons, context is *key* and not just randomly throwing words hoping they stick.
Verily indeed this is what makes Shudo's reflections fascination, this man who was key in shaping the Pokémon in the early days thanks to his involvement in the anime constantly refers to Pokémon as animals. He makes the distinction between real animals and Pokémon but never puts Pokémon outside of what an animal is. He claims to have written a story about the "151 animals" and how he wrote a story about these animals in his blog. He never once separated any Pokémon from that label and that includes Pokémon like ghastly and magnemite. (1/2)
