It is difficult to consider a society in which mankind and animal do not exist together, but today, living in such a world, there is a significant distinction between what is considered human and what it is considered animal. Yet, as humans, we tend to identify our own attributes in these creatures, such as by paralleling their emotions to that of our own even though there is no way of knowing the reason behind why animals exhibit certain responses. As such, both types of life reveal various aspects about one another to the point where the line that separates both types of life can often become blurred. Perhaps it is due to the fact that mythology produces creatures that are a combination of the two and those creatures retain the ability to communicate through human language and can rationale on a basis of…show more content… Compared to the films, Bisclavret is able to retain his human qualities as a werewolf, most clearly expressed through his relationship with the king. When the king initially comes across the bisclavret, the creature “kissed his leg and his foot…humbling itself to [him],” a notion paralleled to the affection that the bisclavret would normally display to the king as a human knight (Bisclavret 96; Crane 61). Furthermore, the beast demonstrates the capability to feel shame, a human emotion, when he refuses to don his clothing in front of the king, representing the idea that he is fundamentally still human, but he is just trapped inside the body of the beast. Thus, he proves to be more human-like as a beast than some of the actual humans of fable, such as the wife; the bisclavret is portrayed as the protagonist, rendering sympathy for him, but the wife is left as a nose-less monster in the resolution, signifying her as the antagonist. Yet, her husband was a beast the entire time, so why do the readers not feel any sympathy for
