There was a joking comic strip that went around about the pokedex entries. Since your character was very young and was filling up the pokedex, then they would be the one to write those entries – and end up with exaggerations because pokemon would just impress them that much.

Continued: “And of course a comic strip from Rare Candy Treatment about “Dexbusters”, who would test pokedex descriptions the same way our Mythbusters would test weird theories.”

I’ve seen both – I don’t think I’m happy to say that something quite so absurd can actually explain what’s going on (I mean, obviously these things were produced with humorous intent), but these depictions might well be close. I think we should bear in mind that (even if you don’t imagine it actually being written by children on their Pokédex quests) the Pokédex is a field guide for children, not an academic or scientific database. It probably contains a fair amount of apocrypha, derived from folktale, urban legend, or simple exaggeration, meant to create an impression of what a particular Pokémon is like rather than a scientifically rigorous description.

Question! How do you think that literature and other forms of fiction would have developed in such a ridiculously Pokemon-centric society as the one in the games? Obviously, Pokemon featured prominently in most – if not all – of their ancient myths, but how would storytelling have developed from there? Do you think that similar genres and cliches would exist in the Pokemon world as do in the present-day real world? Would there even be such a thing as a story without Pokemon in it?

Well I don’t see that there’s anything about the Pokémon world that particularly precludes similar narratives and tropes to the ones that exist in our world, although how art and literature deal with Pokémon would presumably vary significantly from one culture to another. If a culture regards Pokémon as essentially clever animals, then one imagines their literary motifs would develop along fairly familiar lines. It sort of depends on how willing people are to think of Pokémon as ‘non-human persons,’ and how widely stories that treat them in this way are accepted. Even then, there certainly have been cultures in the real world that were happy to ascribe free will and agency to animals, and to tell stories that depict them as equal to humans, so I’m not sure the presence of Pokémon per se would prompt them to develop any literary forms that are actually without parallel in the real world.

i am not suer if you answered this befor but is the pc box thing a real thing or just game mechanic

I’m… pretty sure I’ve talked about this because it was important to one of the points I was making in the ‘If I Were In Charge’ series but I can’t really remember how much detail I went into or how explicit I was about it, so…

Basically, I have difficulty with PC boxes because I normally prefer trying to reconcile the games and anime, but the differences in how Pokémon are stored seem to be just too stark. It seems to me that the two different systems – the PC boxes we use in the games, and Ash’s set-up with Professor Oak in the anime – are best seen as responses to the demands of the different media. The games need something simple that doesn’t require too much complicated and tedious interaction on the part of the player (whether you like it or not, it has to be admitted that my alternative would be a lot of work for both designers and players). The anime isn’t comfortable portraying trainers as storing their Pokémon in this comparatively unsettling way, and so produces the narrative of Professor Oak’s huge Pokémon habitats. I’m inclined to favour the anime as a portrayal of what the creators ‘really think’ and take the games’ version as an abstraction that keeps us from having to think about it too much, but the alternative – that the games represent ‘reality’ (whatever that even means here) and the anime is just a story concocted to make it seem more pleasant – really has equal support here.

You could suggest that both systems are actually in use and that PC boxes are used when the Professors run out of space, or by trainers who just don’t have the special relationship with a Professor that Ash does, but then the question just becomes ‘why wouldn’t the Professors just keep the extras in Pokéballs most of the time’? Perhaps Pokémon in Pokéballs need to be let out more often for food and exercise than Pokémon in PC storage (which is more of a deeper hibernation)?

I read your ancient slavery and I admit I didn’t think of it that way. I suppose and I did think pokemon was slavery at its core and could not be argued and that fans were being sort of delusional. I recall another blogger saying, N says goodbye to the main character, she said he puts you in charge to end pokemon slavery in BW or BW2. I guess its more about relative interpretation with different opinions from people much more than I thought. For a cynic myself, it’s hard to grasp their lifestyle

This same person later added: “So those two articles [the articles in question are these ones], I hoped they gave you a laugh. I guess its easy to see trainers as abusive always fighting for profit constantly non stop, cramming the PC with the animals caught forcibly; pokemon who are sadistic creatures with additional Stockholm syndrome. But franchise says otherwise. I treated as unrealistic propaganda. But after reading your past blog, I guess to sum it up, I am looking at it wrong? It feels unrealistic. Don’t hate me man. I remember making Michael Vick jokes too.”

I’d seen the first article before, but not the second. From an analytical perspective there are a lot of problems with them but they’re clearly meant as jokes, and they certainly succeed at that, so I’m not really bothered.

Anyway, I’m glad I’ve given you something to think about. I suppose ultimately for me the question is one of authorial intent, and I think it’s obvious that no-one at Game Freak actually intends Pokémon to be apologistic of animal abuse. Clearly they feel that something is implicit in the way the setting functions which makes it fundamentally different from slavery and animal abuse, which is why I tend to favour reading more into it, and extrapolating the kind of outlook a Pokémon would need to have in order to make the system work. Of course you could go all “death of the author” and say that what Game Freak intends is irrelevant anyway because all that matters is that people can read it as slavery, but I’m really not a fan of death of the author (maybe because, in history, reading a text without considering authorial intent is sheer insanity, and that tends to influence my outlook even when I’m thinking about literature). On the other hand, if you can make a good story out of portraying Pokémon that way, go for it! For instance, I was recently reminded of this comic (slowly progressing and in no state resembling completion, but nonetheless worth every second you spend reading it), which portrays Pokémon training in a much bleaker light than I’m used to arguing for, and as a result is absolutely fascinating. I would almost think that Game Freak avoid tackling the issues head-on on purpose, to allow people more freedom for this kind of darker interpretation, except that they don’t support or even acknowledge fan fiction, so I don’t know.

Who is Michael Vick?

I might as well ask too due to the influx of questions recently, few were serious. Two parter. First. how would you treat your pokemon on your journey. Second, how do you think other trainers would treat them? Anime, game, and real world of ours. For example journey includes feeding, training, and interacting. 2nd example is such as a pokemon not meeting training expectations and what would you do with it. 3rd example is methods of bonding. Don’t worry no “sir” from me unlike the other guy.

So, sort of an exercise in roleplay? I can do that.

I think “how would other trainers treat them?” is sort of too broad a question – we can see in the games and especially in the anime that there are a lot of answers! Think of Ash and A.J. in the Path to the Pokémon League, for example, and then compare both of them to Jessie and James. Compare Alder and Giovanni – it’s night and day. The real world would doubtless be even more complicated, because what we’ve seen of the Pokémon world is (or at least seems to be) quite culturally homogenous, which our world isn’t. You could fill a book with that stuff. I can talk about myself, though.

I see Pokémon training as being, in an ideal world, a sort of mutually beneficial contract. The trainer has greater freedom to define the terms of the relationship – the Pokémon’s main options for renegotiating are to refuse orders in battle (which could end painfully) or to leave outright (which, depending on the circumstances, might be undesirable). This makes it the trainer’s responsibility to seek approval from his or her Pokémon before making decisions that affect their relationship and ensure that they have the opportunity to leave on favourable terms, purely as a matter of courtesy. For instance, I recently moved from New Zealand to Ohio – if I were bringing Pokémon with me, a big concern would be making sure that they understood what that entailed and had a chance to refuse. Some things can be assumed – unless they’ve been fighting already that day, I think I can generally expect my Pokémon to be willing to battle. Anything out of the ordinary should really be run by them first, though; if I’m leaving town for a few days, they should have the option to come with me or stay at home; battles with Gym Leaders should wait until they feel ready. Pokémon can’t talk, but they’re pretty sharp by animal standards and seem to understand a good portion of whatever is said to them, so a big part of interaction should involve simply talking to them, learning to read their responses, and getting used to the way they communicate their desires.

My philosophy for training rests on two assumptions: first, that Pokémon work with human trainers because they desire wider experience than they would enjoy in the wild; second, that Pokémon intend, at least in principle, to return to the wild at some point. The first of these, to me, seems axiomatic; the second may well turn out to be false, but I think the healthiest practice is to assume initially that it is true. The way trainers develop their Pokémon’s skills should reflect this. I would see my principle responsibility to be researching techniques and studying the capabilities of different species of Pokémon, and giving my own Pokémon the opportunity to try out many different attacks. I also think that one of the most significant types of ‘wider experience’ trained Pokémon gain is working with Pokémon of different species, so I would place a priority on double battles. Exposure to the human world is important too – look for opportunities to hire them out for things other than battling, like construction for big Fighting-types, or aerial survey for Flying Pokémon. If I had the time and energy, I would prepare food for my own Pokémon, but this is more a matter of preference than any comment on training philosophy – I just like preparing food. Most of any money won in battles or earned for performing tasks should go back to the Pokémon, in the form of food, toys, training equipment or medicine. Pokéballs should be regarded as tools for specific purposes – they can offer protection, facilitate travel, and provide a place to sleep, but the majority of a Pokémon’s waking hours should be spent outside when circumstances permit.

As for Pokémon who don’t meet expectations, I think the most important thing there would be for the trainer to assume nothing – especially don’t assume that the Pokémon is in the wrong. The first thing to try is to look for areas other than battle where the Pokémon might excel (this is one reason it’s good to spend time having your Pokémon working on miscellaneous projects) and figure out what skills it’s using there. It could be the battle style you’re using just doesn’t match up with the abilities your Pokémon is most confident with, and you need to radically change its moveset to something that makes more sense for it. Alternatively, battle just isn’t this Pokémon’s thing (in which case you should try to focus on other pursuits, like contests or non-competitive work), or maybe something just isn’t working in your personal interaction – either way, it might be a good idea to look into trading with someone you know to be a responsible trainer, ideally someone your Pokémon already knows. In short – the point is to work with them, figure out (by trial and error if necessary!) what talents they have, and develop those talents in ways they wouldn’t have the opportunity to on their own.

Does games treat pokemon differently overtime? Anime was pretty consistent I think although I could be wrong in about being friends. RBY 1st generation pokemon were more like slaves at worst or half willing gladiators at best from what I recall (memory fuzzy). Although to be honest gameplay seems to treat them like it. What do you say dude?

Well, it’s sort of not easy to draw detailed conclusions from the games, because they’re just less detailed on the world-building front (especially the earlier ones, which also suffer from limited characterisation all around), but I don’t think I would describe Red and Blue that way. The rival character seems to act at times as though he sees Pokémon that way, so it’s important to note that callous views of Pokémon training do exist (up to and including Team Rocket) – but Blue gets called out on that, hard, by Professor Oak, who emphatically attributes your victory over Blue at the Pokémon League to your stronger relationship with your Pokémon. The Gym Leaders are pretty vague on all this. Agatha’s position, though, is very interesting – she is convinced that Pokémon are meant to fight, and that scientific or cultural pursuits are a waste of time. There are several ways you could interpret her vehement disagreement with Professor Oak here – it could be that there’s a wider ideological conflict over the status of Pokémon going on in the background, or it could be that Agatha is a relic of a much older tradition of Pokémon training… or, perhaps more worryingly, it could be that Professor Oak is the radical (after all, Agatha does single him out when she describes her training philosophy to you), and is pushing for change in a world that mainly views Pokémon as Agatha does – not necessarily in a systematically abusive light, but more callous overall than later portrayals suggest. I think the subsequent games, particularly Black and White, establish something of a consensus on the matter, but if you want to read Red and Blue alone, as though when they were first released, there’s a bit more room for elaboration if you’re willing to downplay Professor Oak’s authority.

OH GODDAMMIT okay non-eloquent now: boiled down to “I read your TYPE CLASSIFICATIONS ARE HARD posts, think it’s neat how it’s hard to define “ground” or “dark” or “normal” type sometimes yet pokemon fans just /get/ what they mean, this is more of a ‘i had an idea do you think it’s cool’ than a question but do you think the existence of types is expressed somehow through pokeworld culture, perhaps as universal archetypes? the thought of elemental astrology or w/e is funny to me for some reason.

[Context: this question has been sent to me at least once before, but was apparently lost in the celestial aether before reaching my in-box]

Hmm…

I’m trying to think of examples that appear to show something like this. The first thing that comes to mind is the Power of One’s “disturb not the harmony of fire, ice and lightning” maxim, and I suspect legendary Pokémon in general would play a very important part in defining concepts of that kind. It would certainly make sense if they had ideas like this; the idea of ‘basic elements’ is widespread enough in ancient thought. I, of course, am most familiar with the four Empedoclean elements of western thought, and their precedent in Thales’ conjecture that all things were made of water (this is really interesting; basically, Thales’ insight was realising that water is the only substance that can be found in nature as a solid, a liquid or a gas, and suggesting that earth and stone were really just further cooled and condensed forms of ice, while air and fire are further heated and rarefied forms of steam – I mean, he was totally wrong, of course, but it was a fascinating hypothesis), but more interesting in terms of Pokémon is the classical Chinese system of five elements – water, fire, earth, wood and metal. This system has a cycle of relationships of ‘destruction’ reminiscent of Pokémon’s elemental rock-paper-scissors, such as “fire destroys metal” and “wood destroys earth,” but also has a cycle of relationships of ‘creation,’ such as “water creates wood” and “fire creates earth.” If I were trying to construct a history of the Pokémon world, I’d be tempted to place the origins of the type system in one or more cycles like that.

I tend to think that type is something that, in many if not most cases, actually has little to do with Pokémon biology but is a system of classification imposed by humans largely for the purpose of providing a heuristic framework for understanding the ways in which different Pokémon and attacks affect each other in battle – instead of remembering strengths and weaknesses for every Pokémon and every attack you come across, you can memorise a set of general rules that will usually work. If I’m right about that, then it would make sense that the system didn’t simply spring into being fully formed, but had a number of more rudimentary antecedents which failed to describe the abilities of different Pokémon as thoroughly or accurately (maybe they had too few types to account for all the variability, or divided similar Pokémon for superficial reasons). It would further make sense that the earliest of these systems would seek explanations in magic or astrology. Hell, in the case of Ghost-, Psychic- and Fairy-types, they may be absolutely right to do so.

Dear Sir, I asked the question almost a week ago. I am sorry to you and Random Access for any confusion. Yes, it was mainly about pokemon, perhaps the confusion was why your answer was very short. For example Ash Ketchum was accused of such, such as when his pokemon protected him from the cold in the Snow in the cave, few thought of it as slaves or Stockholm syndrome but to me it seemed a very poor simplified misunderstanding. Hence why I asked on simplified judgments such as on those two topics

Yeah, it… sometimes takes me a while to get around to answering these, especially if I’m not sure what to say immediately… eheh…

Okay, so, what you’re actually saying is that you think ‘consent’ should not automatically prevent us from labelling Pokémon training as slavery? That is an interesting point. As I said, I don’t think slavery actually precludes consent if you go by a dictionary definition; I just can’t think of any real-world examples of consensual slavery (well, except for people who are born into slavery and simply never think to challenge it, but that’s sort of a different issue – that happens in Pokémon training too, when trainers hatch eggs, but I think here we’re mainly considering cases where there is an actual moment of capture). If you look at it from a strictly definitional or legal perspective, then it depends on whether you consider a Pokémon a person (I suspect the laws and governments of the Pokémon world do not) and on whether trainers actually own their Pokémon in a legally binding sense (and I suspect that they do, although unsurprisingly I don’t think the question has ever come up). If we say “yes, Pokémon are people too” (which is something I’m reasonably comfortable doing, for the sake of argument) and assume that there is legal ownership involved, then that would mean that Pokémon training is, in fact, slavery – the difficulty is that it would be slavery of a kind that has never actually existed in the real world (as far as I know – if anyone knows of a real culture that practised consensual slavery, please do speak up!), which gives the word an extremely limited heuristic value. Would we actually consider slavery a bad thing if it were almost always consensual and strictly regulated to ensure slaves’ wellbeing? I don’t think you can easily answer that question, since (again, as far as I know) it’s never happened. We’re kind of going off the deep end of cultural relativism there.

What I said about Stockholm syndrome the first time stands, I think. I mean, I’m not a psychologist, so perhaps I don’t understand the phenomenon as well as I should, but I’m pretty sure that Stockholm syndrome is, by definition, something experienced by prisoners, and is normally used to describe victims in a hostage situation. I would say that, if there is consent involved from the beginning, especially if the subordinate party is free to leave (as I do believe Pokémon are), it’s not Stockholm – just plain old friendship.

P.S. You really don’t need to call me ‘sir’. I’m not exactly an authority figure here. 🙂

EDIT: Actually, there’s another point I hadn’t thought of – slaves are commodities. There is a market (in the abstract, economic sense) for slaves in societies that have them; slaves are bought and sold regularly for prices dictated by market forces. Do people buy and sell Pokémon? The only example I can think of is the game corner, which is problematic, firstly because the original game corner in Red and Blue was a Team Rocket operation, so using it as our standard for legitimacy is clearly suspect, and secondly because later iterations of the game corner stopped offering Pokémon and started dealing only in rare items (which suggests to me that the designers may have been aware of the incongruity and deliberately chosen to remove it). Pokémon can be traded; they can be exchanged for other Pokémon, but not for money, or indeed anything else, as far as I know. Can anyone else think of any other situation in which Pokémon are bought and sold legitimately? If not, then that would suggest that Pokémon trainers do not have total freedom to do as they wish with their Pokémon (or, at the very least, that Pokémon are considered uniquely valuable in a way which would make traditional chattel slavery difficult to accommodate).

Have you ever watched Game Theory on YouTube? It’s a really educational and interesting series! They’ve done more episodes on Pokémon than any other video game, and their latest episode is about “How Pidgey “Proves” Darwinian Evolution”. Since we all know how much you like to rant about that (i.e. real-world evolution being a thing in Pokémon), what are your thoughts on their, well, theory? (also, they have a video on FFVII, if you’re interested, but you might wanna watch it after you finish…)

I can’t say I have seen it before, but I like it. I’m actually not totally convinced by their arguments, but I approve of what they’re doing here, not just for being the same kind of thing as what I do, but for providing an example of “let’s look at the evidence for evolution!” for their viewers, which I can only regard as a positive thing. Their analysis of the different types of bird Pokémon is also admirably creative and consistent. Having said that…

I actually think it’s pretty clear from a number of Pokédex entries that Game Freak assume something like Darwinian evolution is happening in the Pokémon world – the only ones I can think of off the top of my head are the entries for Kabutops, which make statements like “It was apparently evolving from being a water dweller to living on land as evident from changes in its gills and legs,“ and ”It is thought that this Pokémon came onto land because its prey adapted to life on land.“ For that matter, the mere fact of the existence of fossil Pokémon is telling – in the 19th century, the rapid advancement of palaeontology was one of the major contributing factors to the development of evolutionary theory since, if species can become extinct, there must be some way of replacing them.

However, I don’t think that this, or any of the evidence Game Theory presents, necessarily proves Darwinian evolution – that is, descent with modification mediated by natural selection. True, that’s one possible explanation, and I would be very surprised if natural selection had no influence on the Pokémon world, but a lot of the evidence we’ve seen could also be consistent with Lamarckian evolution. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a biologist of the same era as Charles Darwin, believed that evolution was driven by the inheritance of acquired characteristics – that is, that traits an organism develops during its own lifetime can be passed to its offspring (work out, and your kids will have bigger muscles, basically). And the thing is, we actually know that this is true for Pokémon, because they can inherit TM moves. Again, I’m sure natural selection does play a part, but I also think there’s more to it (incidentally, even in the real world, where we’ve known that natural selection is the main driver of evolution for a long time, modern understanding of epigenetics is starting to indicate that Lamarck may actually have had a point too).

The other thing that I can’t let pass is Mew, because I actually think that the Pokédex and its in-universe authors are just plain wrong about her, for reasons that I don’t think anyone else has picked up on. Mew is thought to be the common ancestor of all Pokémon, because she possesses the complete genetic codes of every known species (this being the reason for her supreme versatility) – but under modern evolutionary theory this is not something we should expect a common ancestor to have. Think about it. In the real world, evolutionary theory predicts the existence of a common ancestor of all life, way back in the Precambrian eon – an incredibly basic single-celled being that can’t even be called a ‘bacterium’ because it’s even less complex than that. The traits on which natural selection operates are not assumed to exist from the beginning; they arise over time from random mutations. Mew expects us to believe that not one new biological trait has ever arisen in the history of the evolution of Pokémon. If anything, her existence is a strong argument against Darwinian evolution in the Pokémon world.

Hello, here is my 2nd question from the first one I told you about that site. A person did a nuzlocke called Pokémon Unchained. The person said this, “I read Pokémon Black/White as an allegory for antebellum US south. In a sense, a way to explore ‘How did people rationalize slavery?’ Well, in these games, they are rationalizing the enslavement and fighting of Pokémon, in a contemporary world where, at least in the US, dog fighting is illegal.” Sorry for double questions.

I don’t think there was actually a question in there, per se, but I’ll run with it anyway.

Here’s the story: http://pokemonunchained.tumblr.com/. It sort of trails off around the Dragonspiral Tower, but it’s worth a read.

It makes me distinctly uncomfortable, which shows that it is succeeding in its aims. One bristles at the substitution of ‘slave’ for ‘Pokémon’ and ‘master’ for ‘trainer’ – the instinct is to shout out “it’s not the same thing, damnit!”, especially for someone like me who has put so much thought into how and why it’s not the same thing – but of course impugning Pokémon is not the point; it’s a thought experiment, and one for which Pokémon is extremely well-suited. An allegorical reading of Pokémon can give insight into the mind of an American slave owner and help understand why they felt willing to fight and die to protect a ‘way of life’ that now seems obviously corrupt and horrific to us. To the mindset of an early 19th century white slave owner, it was all too easy to list ways in which blacks were supposedly better off in servitude to whites, which is what made the ideology so pervasive and enduring. Morbid, perhaps, but useful.

Having said that, I feel that if one reads Pokémon the way I do, the differences are too numerous and too obvious to be worth listing. I think it also bears pointing out that much of this narrative’s strength is drawn from the volatile and fatal nature of battle under the Nuzlocke rules (which, of course, have no counterpart in any official depiction). It wouldn’t really have the same punch if the ‘slaves’ actually were happy and healthy, would it? I also can’t help but wonder whether the story ends at the point it does because the author couldn’t think of a way of rewriting N’s attunement to Zekrom that fit with the slavery analogy (although perhaps I am giving her too little credit).