For those of you who like your transformations gritty, check out the book, Red, by Jordan Summers. It's pretty gruesome...high ick-factor, but a good story. I plan to read the next book in the series.

I prefer the non-magical transition where bones shift and fur flows. To me, there is just more realism to that type of shape shifting. I like the type of lycanthropy that's both tied to the moon, and under the lycanthrope's control.

On skinwalkers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin-walker

Thanks, new_user. I appreciate the insight.

It's a Native American legend, witches who wore the skin of animals and could transform into them. From what I understand, they were generally considered evil, although they are not, in most fiction.

What is a skinwalker?

Hi Penny-Anna! Welcome to the group!

I like both, personally - though most things go with the painful kind of transformation, which is starting to bug me. I do rather like the idea of the change being easy because both forms are the same being... if that makes sense (when I write about werewolves, it's pretty much like that... I guess that's offtopic, though).
Also, I just joined. Hi.

Lol, Lucianne, I used to love those back in the day.

The children in my library love the Animorphs series

If you think scientifically, then changing from what we are (ape-like) to another species would be painful as bones and muscles would be different.
I know hat when I wrote my erotic paranormal novella, Beast Magic as pseudonym, Sapphire Phelan (in the feline shapeshifters print anthology, Shifting Desires), my werelions and other werepeoples use 'beast magic' to change and do not feel pain when shifting. But I haven't wrote any other shapeshifters that way, just for that series.

Eric, I like when authors expand upon less well-known folklore too. Richelle Mead has been getting creative, starting first a succubus series and then another with a kitsune co-star. I haven't either yet, but The Fox Woman also starrs a kitsune, actually in a Japanese context. They sound very interesting.

Edit: Also found Wen Spencer, who writes oni (Japanese demons) villains into his fantasy. I'm assuming they take the place of orcs, goblins, etc.

I think werewolves should have a longer more grusom (but not blood squirting or anything like that) changing verses the shiftchangers. But I think both should either have to take the clothes off or they get ripped issue.

I get irritated when the werewolf/shiftchanger idea gets mixed with the skinwalker issue. To me, they are 3 seperate things. Werewolf = long grusome transformation, shiftchanger = more of a "poof" transformation, skinwalker = has to have some of the skin/fur of the animal. That's really the only issue I have with Patricia Brigg's Mercy. To me, she should be a shiftchanger, not a skinwalker.

What about the werewolf transformation with Van Hellsing the movie? Where the man climbs up the wall like spiderman and starts to tear off his skin and fur is beneath it, and the same for changing back. *shudders*

I think that looks a bit painful for me for the werewolf, and I also think it was slightly to much where the guy can easily climb up the wall in the movie while he was transforming. I kind of wanted to scream vampire at that moment of his transformation. Because out of all my readings on werewolves and transformations, I have never heard of one where they easily climb up the wall like a vampire without injuring the wall.

Interesting question, Suzann. I too prefer the "realistic" route. As Kat said, suspension of disbelief has limits. Thankfully, I've never read a transform that's messy. I like Briggs' way. It seems more credible and lends an appealing vulnerability to the character.

I also prefer realistic wolf transforms over man-beast...things. That's why I liked the Blood & Chocolate film. They used actual wolves, and the change (the whole legend) seemed so beautiful and natural. The director envisioned the change as a leap from one state to another, and they depicted it as such. I usually like the species theory to the monster, but some authors can manage to pull anything off, lol. Briggs' wolves are fascinating and the most wolf-like that I've read. I always appreciate when an author researches, including folklore, like in Bradshaw's The Wolf Hunt. I also like to see them changed now and again, because what kind of self-respecting werewolf never changes?

I guess one of my peeves is when an author decides to throw in every kind of imagined species or myth known to man, lol. Suspension of disbelief will only allow so many "creatures." That's partly why I like Briggs' second series (so far) better than the Mercy books.

I agree about LKH's way being gross. Goopy!

I think Laurell K. Hamilton’s way is kind of gross. Their backs splitting and clear goo like liquid going everywhere. I think it’s pretty ridiculous when shifters can shift without there clothes being torn and then they shift back with their clothes still on lol. I know shifters aren’t realistic creatures so the idea of their shifting style shouldn’t really matter, but it actually does and the more realistic the better.

No, not off topic at all. Shapeshifters...were-animals...skin walkers...
They're different from each other, but all very interesting and unique. :)

I am fond of the Japanese shapeshifters like the Kitsune (fox spirit) and the Skinwalker (Navajo Witches) therianthropes. There are not many examples of them in modern fiction. They are fun to write about, and even more fun to read about.

Is this off topic?

Ha,ha! There was a scene just like that in the 3rd Mercy Thompson book. She had to change forms very quickly, and got tangled in her bra as she made a mad dash to get away from something that was going to kill her for sure. (Mercy changes into a coyote, not a wolf, but the same clothing issues apply)

Its true on what you guys talk about. I also prefer the whole idea that clothes don't just magically disappear but one either has to pull them off or else they would ripped and destroyed and perhaps even entangle they're limbs when they fully transform into the animal form.

Jim Butcher uses the wolf belt idea, too. I thought it was really clever - had no idea it was based on existing lore.

I have done werewolf/shapeshifter stories and in each one do them differently. One is by use of 'beast magic', other's painfully, another by magic while the werewolf had to depend on the full moon.
But on any book, it depends on what happens to the one shifting. Does he know about it and suddenly he is shifting and the clothes rip because his form is reshaping to something that is not apelike (like humans are). Or does he use a belt made of wolf fur and takes off his clothing and puts the belt on and uses a chant to change (this is actually true--I read this in a book back in early '70s as found on a medieval manuscript). Read books on shapeshifters around the world and see how each one does in all the myths and legends.

Crystal, I agree with your Stephanie Myer comment. I thought it was funny that Jacob had destroyed all of his shoes but finally leaned to undress first and tie a pair of sweats to his leg so he'd have something to put on when he phased back.

I also liked how she handled the fact that the phasing became easier as they got more experience doing it.

I'm new to this genre of books, except for reading all of the Anne Rice books 100 years ago, but I don't think I like it when the change is too violent or messy. I guess it depends on the character and how they came to be what they are.

When I watched the movie "Blood and Chocolate", they transformed the magical way and I thought that was extra cheesey. That turned me off on the whole movie.

Kelly Armstong and Stephanie Myer have the transformations that I like the best. I agree with Jess on the clothing issue. I like that detail, seems more realistic.

Oh yeah, I meant to mention that too...how some authors treat werewolves as another race rather than some innocent human who got mauled and turned into a monster.
Also, some were-animals are able to change at will, while others are forced to change at the full moon, etc.

I like the way Kelley Armstrong handles it in the Women of the Otherworld series. The transformation is extremely painful and brutal and isn't instantaneous, which feels the most realistic/authentic to me. They also have to worry about where they left their clothes.

Also, it's rare that anyone who is bitten survives the transformation, so most of the werewolves in the series are born, not created.

I kinda liked in "Fool Moon" how Harry Dresden had to deal with multiple types of werewolves- that most of them existed, but for different reasons, etc. That said, I prefer werewolves to have to deal with the clothing issue. We're already stretching our imaginations and wishful thinking when we suspend our disbelief while reading these books, is it too much to ask for that tiny bit of realism so I don't have to remember I'm reading a fantasy and just enjoy the book? The clothing issue is honestly my only care when it comes to that.

Have you noticed how differently authors treat the transformation of a were-animal/shapeshifter from his or her human form into his or her animal form?
With some, it's magical, and happens with the greatest of ease. With others, the transformation is brutal, with shifting bones and a mess of bodily fluids.
Some transformations happen almost intantaneously, while others take a while, leaving the animal/human vulnerable to attack.
With some authors, clothing miraculously makes it though the transformation and back again, while with others, the shapeshifter must disrobe first or risk distruction of their garments.

I wondered what other people's opinions are of this. Do you like the magical transformation or the more brutal one? I tend to like the quick magical transformation, but I find the idea of having to be mindful of the character's clothing to be a needed little annoyance for the character. Otherwise it just seems a little bit TOO easy. You know what I mean?

So what are your thoughts you guys?