Ellington

I must thank my fellow writer Eric Shellan for bringing this topic to light. At a recent teatime with my friends, Eric was telling us his plans to create a museum exhibit highlighting mythical creatures such as the unicorn, dragon, hippogriff and narwhal.

Wait a second.

Aren’t narwhals real? That’s what I thought, anyway. An argument ensued. It was five against one. Eric, the self-proclaimed “expert” on mythical creatures, was having his fantasies ripped to shreds.

But then I began to think. Had I ever seen a narwhal? No. And how practical would the existence of the narwhal be? Not very.

It looks like my friend had a point.

Narwhals are clearly just mythical creatures. Seriously, a whale with a giant horn? It’s obviously fake.

We all know that unicorns are mythical creatures. It is also clear that the unicorn is more likely to exist than the narwhal. Many real animals, such as antelope, moose and goats, have horns. How hard could it possibly be for Mother Nature to stick one on a horse?

As for narwhals, we aren’t looking at a little horn on top of the head. We’re talking about a 10-foot tusk jutting straight out from the jaw. That is just impractical. What happens during mating season? Do horny (pun intended) narwhals, blinded by lust, impale each other in an attempt to copulate? Mating would be such a chore.

And what about eating? Sure, the narwhal could create a fine fishkabob with its tusk, but what would it do next? It can’t just reach around with its hands to eat its food (I guess it could have hands since it is a fake animal). There really isn’t a way for narwhals to use their tusks as eating utensils, unless they sort of “spoon feed” each other. But that would be extra dangerous — and extra silly.

So tell me, have you ever seen a narwhal (and if you have, I mean in real life)? Probably not. Why hasn’t anyone seen a narwhal? Why can’t we see narwhals swimming in zoos alongside beluga whales? I’ll tell you why: It’s because they don’t exist.

So what if you’ve seen pictures. Have you heard of Photoshop? Photographic evidence just doesn’t cut it these days. And don’t get me started on the video documentation. Even avid movie-goers can distinguish between special effects and the real deal. Take the dinosaurs in Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park, for example — those were real (and scary). On the other hand, the elves in Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings — fake as narwhals.

Don’t you dare cite National Geographic as evidence of the narwhal’s existence. Such an impractical creature couldn’t exist, let alone sustain itself. Any video documentation is computer-generated to show how narwhals could theoretically, and only theoretically, exist.

It is also true that Wikipedia does not classify the narwhal under mythical creatures. But we all know that Wikipedia should not be a trusted source. Anyone, including narwhal conspirators, could edit Wikipedia’s entries.

Created by myth, imagined by children and perpetuated by marine biologists, the narwhal’s existence is nothing but an environmental conspiracy, much like “global warming.” Some cultures refer to narwhals as “unicorns of the sea.” And that is just what they are: mythical creatures. Anyway, if Mother Nature had a choice between creating unicorns or narwhals, I’d go with unicorns. They’re prettier and prance over rainbows.