>>51650672It really isn't. This is why I tell people to read Takashi Shudo's writings on the Pokémon world since he spills out as the most descriptive source we have from someone who worked on the series. and even better since he's was the former headwriter of the anime meaning his word holds weight on top of being in contact with the creators.
But aside from that this is why the use of imagery is immensely important in trying to build a point. In another post I recalled how Dr. Owen Rees, a scholar who focuses on PTSD and dogs in the ancient world, said in a podcast on how you get a sense of familiarity reading ancient text and seeing ancient imagery involving dogs. Even over 2,000 years removed from contemporary society there's still many things we can see reflected as familiar to us in the modern era. Fantasy and fiction in general make extensive use of this, in fiction many fictional words evoke certain concepts or civilizations like the Roman Empire from perceived imagery, which is not always accurate, that we associate with them. It doesn't even have to be accurate, Dr. Devereaux coined a term about things that are perceived to be accurate but aren't which the term eludes for now, as long as it evokes said feeling in people.
Pokemon may be fantastical but it evokes a feeling of familiarity in the way it constructs Pokémon. This is why Pokémon eat certain things, are interacted a certain way, or behave in a certain way. The 2012 product guide explicitly states this and the way they talk of Pokémon and want others to construct Pokémon all play into this.
Most people are aware of this except for the dopes here who want so badly for Pokémon to be something they're not. Suffice to say the series, nor anyone, owes any of you anything to entertain these inane notions you have.
