Anyone know the status of Reality Check the comic...
M. white
Just was wondering......it was put out by Sirus comics.
Thanks in advance.
M White
Sarenthalanos
"M. white" <mfw...@recorder.ca> wrote in message
news:3A57FA3C...@recorder.ca...
Wonderful comic, I agree! The last issue I really remember was more than a
couple of years ago, and then it kind of dissapeared. A real shame since
Felicia and some of the other characters were really interesting. The
author's site is still up, which might be able to be found through
Google.com (I forgot the URL of the site itself), and you can tell it's been
a long time since updates.
Dunno what to say, because it was really well done...
:-/
-Sar
Sarenthalanos
http://members.aol.com/tavicat/comics.html
I believe this is the artist's page.
Also, why was I thinking Felicia? 0.o
It's Catreece!
-Sar
========================================
Also a note for those who are not familiar with this wonderful series, it
has no relation to THIS Reality Check comic:
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/reality/
slu...@earthlink.net
>
> More info here, I found a URL:
>
> http://members.aol.com/tavicat/comics.html
>
> I believe this is the artist's page.
>
> Also, why was I thinking Felicia? 0.o
>
> It's Catreece!
That site hasn't been updated since 1998.
I'd say Reality Check is dead now.
Sarenthalanos
<slu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A5846F3...@earthlink.net...
>
> That site hasn't been updated since 1998.
>
> I'd say Reality Check is dead now.
Tragic, non?
I really liked that series because it was so off the wall, and it had fun
characters.
Catreece not only was fun, but was REALLY cat-like at times.
Ah...hell....
Let's wait for the next good thing like it.
-Sar
SilverJain
allow me to interject:
Reality Check was a color comic at Sirius. But sadly, it wasn't selling enough
to warrant color printing anymore. (A color comic needs to sell between
6000-7000 copies to *break even* on the printing costs. RC! sold in the
4500-5500 range. Very good for a black & white comic, but bad for a color
book.)
Sirius asked them if they wanted to make the book black & white. They didn't.
They stopped producing the book, since the whole point of it was to be in
color, and thought about taking it to another publisher or self-pubbing again.
That's when things got ugly, and they discovered that their "creator-owned"
contract wasn't as creator-owned as they thought. Much as they would like to
continue Reality Check, they can't because it will be tied up in contract
disputes for another 4 or 5 years.
The lesson here? ALWAYS read your contracts carefully kids! And if the rights
don't immediately revert to you after publication, or after a year, don't sign.
Rikki & Tavi are working on a new color book called Ranklechik and his
Three-Legged Cat, which is a spinoff character from Reality Check. It will be
coming out from Slave Labor Graphics.
Oh, and there's an interview with Rikki & Tavi in Mangaphile #4 that explains
even more of this stuff. (Obligatory Radio Comix plug...)
--Elin
Selling my collections! Always different stuff! Check out the deals here:
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/silverjain/
Radio Comix Online:
http://www.radiocomix.com
slu...@earthlink.net
> That's when things got ugly, and they discovered that their "creator-owned"
> contract wasn't as creator-owned as they thought. Much as they would like
> to continue Reality Check, they can't because it will be tied up in
> contract disputes for another 4 or 5 years.
Oh, man. I really feel for them now. I met them once. They
really loved what they were doing.
At least they learned a valuable lesson in all of this. I hope
they can get back the rights to Reality Check and continue on with it
in the future.
Ucalegon
this item in the current *Previews*, from the upcoming-furry-comics
thread:
pg. 196
AMAZE INK/SLAVE LABOR
Ranklechick and His Three-Legged Cat #1 (of 4) - ?p - $3.95
A spin off from the definitely furry *Reality Check!*. I dunno
about this one but there's the cat, at least.
And the trade paperback of issues 1-6 is reoffered by Sirius
on p. 278.
Acag, Treesong (ucal...@aol.com)
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> I'd say Reality Check is dead now.
And it's Sirius that killed it. Rik and Tavi would be a far better source for
the details, but basically, they signed a contract with Sirius for the
publication, and lost a few rights along the way.
Latest thing from Tavicat Studios I saw was a digest sized comic from Mixx
called SushiGirl. It was very... odd. And not furry.
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Allen Kitchen
Ucalegon wrote:
>
> I dunno, but, the creators haven't disappeared, as witness
> this item in the current *Previews*, from the upcoming-furry-comics
> thread:
Better not let -them- hear you call their work "furry." They've
gone out of their way to insist that their stories and artwork
are not furry.
The comic has ceased to be, btw. It has been cancelled due to
poor sales numbers for well over a year now.
It was an interesting comic; great visuals due to the use of
computer-generated backgrounds and coloring. It had the potential
for fantastic storylines, but after the first 3 comics the
plot just died and the story seemed to go nowhere. I bought
most of them but had given up on it about the time it was cancelled.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/
Timothy D Fay
>Ucalegon wrote:
>>
>> I dunno, but, the creators haven't disappeared, as witness
>> this item in the current *Previews*, from the upcoming-furry-comics
>> thread:
>Better not let -them- hear you call their work "furry." They've
>gone out of their way to insist that their stories and artwork
>are not furry.
As I recall they were interviewed in some comics publication
and denied up and down that they were "furry" and went out of
their way to point out their "problems" with furry fandom. Not
that I disagreed with them, but it was rather hypocritical of
them to promote their comic in this newsgroup (as they did
several times in the past) and then turn around and bite the
hand that fed them, so to speak. That interview probably
contributed to their declining sales and eventual cancellation.
As for "Reality Check," well, no big loss. Yet another URUSEI
YATSURA rip-off that was banal, unfunny and sexist. (I'm surprised
anyone could get away with creating a shallow, sterotypical
character like Catreece -- but, hey, it was the '90s. I guess.)
--
-- http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001 --
"My mental facilities are TWICE what yours are -- you pea brain!"
-Percival McLeach
++++ Stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal! ++++
++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
++++ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/mumia002.htm ++++
DishRoom1
>Allen Kitchen (all...@blkbox.com) wrote:
>
>>Ucalegon wrote:
>>>
>>> I dunno, but, the creators haven't disappeared, as witness
>>> this item in the current *Previews*, from the upcoming-furry-comics
>>> thread:
>
>>Better not let -them- hear you call their work "furry." They've
>>gone out of their way to insist that their stories and artwork
>>are not furry.
>
>As I recall they were interviewed in some comics publication
>and denied up and down that they were "furry" and went out of
>their way to point out their "problems" with furry fandom. Not
>that I disagreed with them, but it was rather hypocritical of
>them to promote their comic in this newsgroup (as they did
>several times in the past) and then turn around and bite the
>hand that fed them, so to speak. That interview probably
>contributed to their declining sales and eventual cancellation.
Being a few years younger, I used to read "Reality Check", until the time the
creators wrote their usual editoral in one issue and they were denying on the
spot that "Reality Check" wasn't furry, despite that Catreece appeared as a
humaniod cat in her virtual world. Nothing wrong with that. However, I was
stung by that they disliked the fandom for its sex-related material from the
fandom. As a fan of furry erotica and other adult furry material, I was
outraged at what Tavicat blutted out and never bought another "Reality Check"
comic again. I suppose that other furs, maybe the core base of the comic, felt
the simular way, for one reason or another, on the furry mature content issue
and dropped "RC" as well.
It was bad enough Siruis a$$holed Tavicat on the copyrights to "RC". But to
tell your fans that you hate their personal fandom is unterestimating it all.
Ever though they have the right to their opinions, as I notice growing up.
>
>As for "Reality Check," well, no big loss. Yet another URUSEI
>YATSURA rip-off that was banal, unfunny and sexist. (I'm surprised
>anyone could get away with creating a shallow, sterotypical
>character like Catreece -- but, hey, it was the '90s. I guess.)
Never thought of it that way.
J. Shughart
aka Jetstone Tigre
Matthew High
>>contributed to their declining sales and eventual cancellation.
Happily, this was not the case. Last I heard, sales were on the upswing in the
later issues, but not enough to keep the publisher happy...but that's another
story. Fore more up-to-date Tavicat news, check out Mangaphile #4, or visit
www.tavicat.com.
Future issues of Reality Check are planned, but Rikki and Tavi are kinda busy
right now. They are working with Jhonen Vasquez on Invader Zim for
Nickelodeon, and have recently finished the first issue of the RC!-related
Ranklechick and His Three-Legged Cat, due out in March.
----------
"Matt! Come into the light" "No! I like the darkness!"
Distributor/Retailer Liaison Radio Comix http://www.radiocomix.com
Promotion/Sales Cold Cut Distribution http://www.coldcut.com
Furplay
Matthew High wrote:
>
> >>hand that fed them, so to speak. That interview probably
> >>contributed to their declining sales and eventual cancellation.
>
> Happily, this was not the case. Last I heard, sales were on the upswing in the
> later issues, but not enough to keep the publisher happy...but that's another
> story. Fore more up-to-date Tavicat news, check out Mangaphile #4, or visit
> www.tavicat.com.
>
> Future issues of Reality Check are planned, but Rikki and Tavi are kinda busy
> right now. They are working with Jhonen Vasquez on Invader Zim for
> Nickelodeon, and have recently finished the first issue of the RC!-related
> Ranklechick and His Three-Legged Cat, due out in March.
>
Never having read the article in dispute, was it really ANTI-furrydom,
or just merely them saying that RC! is'nt intended to be a "furry"
comic. From the email conversations I've had with them, I believe the latter.
--
"It sure would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, so long as I
was the dictator." -- GW Bush 12/18/00
"One Divided Nation, Under Bush. Intolerable. Without Liberty, And Just
Ass for All"
SilverJain
or just merely them saying that RC! is'nt intended to be a "furry"
comic. >>
Since I know Rikki & Tavi pretty well and consider them good friends of mine,
I'll try to answer this.
The editorial wasn't meant to be a slam on furry fandom or furry fans. After
all, there were furry fans who bought the book, and supported it, and I've been
friends with R&T for a long time and they know about my connections with the
fandom. They're also good friend with Dean L. Norton, who does a lot of furry
art, so they don't have any kind of vendetta against furry-dom or anything
sinister like that. (I don't think Rikki & Tavi could have a vendetta against
*anybody*- they literally are some of the nicest people in comics.) All Rikki
and Tavi were trying to say was that they were not furry fans, and weren't
really a part of the fandom. Until Dean Norton told them about ConFurence and
mentioned they ought to try to sell Reality Check there, they barely even knew
about furry fandom, since they are big anime fans from way back. Rikki & Tavi
don't dislike furry fandom, they just aren't furry fans. If they're anything,
they're happy goths. ^_^
(As an aside though, I have to say Rikki was pretty horrified by the guy in the
Chewbacca costume pole-dancing at the convention dance. (This was back in 1995,
well before CF cleaned up its act.) Some people don't really want to see a male
wookie shaking his money maker that much. That CF was also the one that
featured the infamous dixie cup incident. And no, I won't go into that...)
Rikki and Tavi conceived their book as a cute all-ages title, heavily
influenced by the manga, anime and cartoons they grew up enjoying. Since they
had no connection to furry fandom, they didn't really consider Catreece to be a
"furry", she's just a character that Tavi has had knocking around for years
before she did the comic. What upset Rikki & Tavi was the fact that people from
furry fandom kept coming up to them and telling them "I KNOW you wrote this
book JUST FOR FURRY FANDOM." They also didn't like the idea that people thought
the book would be adults only just because Catreece was a cartoon cat, and
hence didn't wear clothes. (In the style of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, the
Wildlifers, etc.) I've noticed that artists really don't like it when people
tell them what their book is supposed to be about or who their book is supposed
to be for. It irks them. If someone started telling me that Tales of the
Fehnnik was written *just* to appeal to housewives who don't work outside the
home, I'd protest- since I'm not a housewife, I'm not writing for that audience
specifically. It might appeal to them, but when I write, I write to entertain
myself first. And I'm pretty sure Rikki and Tavi do as well.
It wasn't part of an evil "Furry Sucks and So Do All You Furry Fans!" campaign.
Furry fandom really needs to get over its persecution complex and lighten up a
little. Not everyone in the world is going to like the same things as everyone
else, which is a good thing! It makes things much more interesting!
Sarenthalanos
"SilverJain" <silve...@aol.comspampie>, message
news:20010121153304...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
(snip)
Anyone have a URL to a copy of this editorial in question? I'd like to take
a look at it, particularly when it was apparently paraphrased on a Project
A-Kon 9 page that they didn't want their comic to be considered furry
because furry 'zines are often considered all about sex. I'd like to see
what they themselves had to say verbatim about this subject before making
any opinion at all about it.
http://www.fansview.com/053198c.htm
-Sar
Furplay
SilverJain wrote:
>
>
> Since I know Rikki & Tavi pretty well and consider them good friends of mine,
> I'll try to answer this.
>
[text snipped, but valid points well put]
I knew R&T had no prob with furs. Hell, Dean & I even asked them if it's
okay for us to one day discretely drop Catreece into a "cameo role" (a
non-smutty appearence, natch) into a future DS episode. That's all the
proof I need of their non-animosity towards furrydom. <g>
It's sort of like they way Vicky Wyman would look at her works in
Xanadu. She's *not* a "furry artist", she's a an *illustrator*.
DishRoom1
Is that the real reason about what they wrote about having problems with
furrydom and its adult themes? If so, I'm sorry if I was a bit rash on their
article. I'm really a nice guy, don't want to cause trouble for anybody, nor to
ruin anyone's reputations. :x(
DishRoom1
>It's sort of like they way Vicky Wyman would look at her works in
>Xanadu. She's *not* a "furry artist", she's a an *illustrator*.
>
Vicky actualy thinks that way? Man, never knew that before.
Sarenthalanos
"DishRoom1" <dish...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010122061458...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> Is that the real reason about what they wrote about having problems with
> furrydom and its adult themes? If so, I'm sorry if I was a bit rash on
their
> article. I'm really a nice guy, don't want to cause trouble for anybody,
nor to
> ruin anyone's reputations. :x(
>
> J. Shughart
> aka Jetstone Tigre
Heya....that's why I want to know what the editorial said and all.
I know that everything has it'as adult themes and such (and Tavicat should
have realised the no-brainer of what having a character 'in the fur' would
mean, particularly when the character was definitely shapely). Other genres
have the same situation even moreso
As for a 'forceful denunciation', I would like to see the editorial in
question before I try to disseminate and analyze along those routes.
-Sar
DishRoom1
I wrote--
>> Is that the real reason about what they wrote about having problems with
>> furrydom and its adult themes? If so, I'm sorry if I was a bit rash on
>their
>> article. I'm really a nice guy, don't want to cause trouble for anybody,
>nor to
>> ruin anyone's reputations. :x(
>>
>> J. Shughart
>> aka Jetstone Tigre
>
>Heya....that's why I want to know what the editorial said and all.
>
>I know that everything has it'as adult themes and such (and Tavicat should
>have realised the no-brainer of what having a character 'in the fur' would
>mean, particularly when the character was definitely shapely). Other genres
>have the same situation even moreso
>
>As for a 'forceful denunciation', I would like to see the editorial in
>question before I try to disseminate and analyze along those routes.
>
Maybe I'll try to find in what issue that editoral was in. All I know that it
was in a latter issue somewhere. If I can't find it then could anyone who still
have all issues of "RC" find in which issue the editioral I was talking about
is?
Allen Kitchen
Issue 9
*****
We've noticed something lately that makes us
feel a bit awkward: some people think we are
furry fans - that is to say members of a fan
organization dedicated to the promotion of
anthropomorphic (half animal/half human)
characters. I've gone back and re-read our
Kitty Letters pages from past RC! issues, and
I don't remember EVER writing that Reality
Check! is a furry comic or that we are furry
fans.
<large snip>
People find their own reasons to make
associations and for forming things into groups
and categories, and often go about it by basing
those things they wish to group on a model of their
own intersts. It's the furry fans that
have decided that certain conditions make the
book a furry book - not us. So why should we
concern ourselves with these subjective
conditions? I write what I want and Tavisha
draws what she wants regardless of what
someone will catagorize our work by. We can't
stop furry fans from calling RC! a furry book,
but Sirius know that the mere mention of the
word "furry" anywhere near RC! in a Direct sales
catalog like is instant death. Which is fine with
us that Sirius feels that way.
<more snip>
We've usually don't read comics
specifically aimed at the furry audience, because
the presence of the target audience is blatant
on every page, and the authors deep desire for
acceptance of that specific audience, permeates
every page, making it un-enjoyable for us to
read. It's not that we're TRYING to not read
them - it's just that they're not our thing. That's
really all it comes down to.
<And yet, still another snip>
*****
Why all the snips? Well, I don't want to copy EVERY
word Rikki wrote due to violation of copywrite. This
should squarely fall under fair use, however. I've gone
to pains to ensure that the transcription is correct,
typos, grammar errors, and all.
As for my view; if it wasn't their thing, it wasn't their
thing. I'm cool with that. But like it or not, the comic
had anthropomorphic characters. Also, the first couple of
books created a delightful story with endless possibilities.
The story and plot soon became banal and dull, however, and
it was for that reason I removed the title from my
"Buy every issue" list at my comic store. It wasn't the
fact that the creators were spooked by a certain comic title
and it's subject matter; I'd be willing to wager that lots
of other comic titles out there would squick them just as
bad if not worse! (Hentai, anyone?)
Heh. Here is a Reality Check; that scary, evil, dirty, "furry"
title is still selling well whereas the other book (insisting
that it wasn't furry, despite all the anthropomorphic characters)
is no more. Furrlough, a clearly furry title, is still selling
well and is about to reach its hundredth issue without so much
as one dirty image in it. If it were my comic, then I wouldn't
care if the Cult of Occular Displays purchased it! They'd at
least be purchasing it; sales are sales, after all.
Sarenthalanos
"Allen Kitchen" <all...@blkbox.com> wrote in message
news:1669C0820B423DB6.019D18DD...@lp.airnews.net...
> Heh. Here is a Reality Check; that scary, evil, dirty, "furry"
> title is still selling well whereas the other book (insisting
> that it wasn't furry, despite all the anthropomorphic characters)
> is no more. Furrlough, a clearly furry title, is still selling
> well and is about to reach its hundredth issue without so much
> as one dirty image in it. If it were my comic, then I wouldn't
> care if the Cult of Occular Displays purchased it! They'd at
> least be purchasing it; sales are sales, after all.
How about we redefine irony as well?
Have you noticed the Muppets ad on television uses 'furry' in the wording,
even quite freely? That must be bad, I guess. Or how about an upcoming
Nintendo title? Or various other things. It would be insisting that Isaac
Asimov's (mhrip) android series are not a work of science fiction, but
instead all about philosphy and has no connections to sci-fi due to the gory
horror aspects of sci-fi.
That's just about as baseless as Sirius' claim to Tavicat. But then Tavicat
went ahead, and then as I have to agree with others, shot themselves in the
foot with a howitzer with the further skewed classification of furry with a
note of condemnation inherent with depicting the content of furry 'zines.
(Sarcasm alert in the next bit for the humor impaired) Yet they claim that
their work is anime-style, and we all know that stuff is just tentacle-rape
of underage schoolgirls.</Sarcasm>
While we can insist that a duck is not a duck due to cutting off it's legs
and wings off, then giving it a tracheotomy, the heart of the matter is that
they not only just alienated what was undoubtedly their fan base - but also
insulted them as well.
(Another sarcasm alert) I guess such dreck like Furrlough and
http://www.kevinandkell.com doesn't rate with such high-quality and valuable
productions like Reality Check!</sarcasm>
-Sar
DishRoom1
Thanks a lot, Allen, You're a good friend.
SilverJain
Actually Rikki & Tavi have read issues of Furrlough and enjoyed them. In fact,
way way way back when, Tavi talked to me about Antarctic Press perhaps
publishing Reality Check! before they got their deal at Sirius. (Sadly, I don't
know why it didn't happen at AP- I wasn't editor in chief there, so I couldn't
approve miniseries.)
At the time the editorial was written, it would negatively impact sales on a
comic if you used the word "furry" in reference to it in its advertising. Not
because people hated furry fans, but because retailers have looooong memories,
and in the early to mid 90s, many retailers still had boxes and boxes of furry
titles left over from the Black & White Boom & Bust of the 80s. Since you have
to sell to comic retailers, it made sense to avoid a word that made them (the
retailers) order fewer copies for the shelf. This is why we tend to use the
terms "anthropomorphic" or "funny animal" when writing solicitation copy or
advertising- something we've been doing since Furrlough and Genus were at
Antarctic Press. (And this month, in the Diamond Dialogue magazine which goes
to all retailers with Diamond accounts, they did coverage of Furrlough's 100th
issue, basically urging retailers to buy it. So there's no conspiracy there.)
Or we don't even mention the anthro quotient at all- and simply let the artwork
do the talking. People will generally figure out a book might appeal to furry
fans if all the advertising and preview art features anthro characters. Selling
Havoc Inc as a science fiction comedy/adventure has worked out quite nicely so
far. ^_^
People need to worry less about labels, and just concentrate on whether or not
they enjoyed the comic. I bet Frank Cho, artist of Liberty Meadows probably
doesn't consider LM a "furry" book even though it's crawling with funny animal
characters. I hate Cho's editorials in the back of the book, but love the
strip, so I keep buying it. Works for me.
--Elin
Selling my collections! Always different stuff! Check out the deals here:
Matthew High
>on a comic if you used the word "furry" in reference to it in its advertising.
>Not because people hated furry fans, but because retailers have looooong
memories,
>and in the early to mid 90s, many retailers still had boxes and boxes of
>furry titles left over from the Black & White Boom & Bust of the 80s.
Just to expand on this a bit.
Today, in 2001, 'furry, funny-animal, and anthropomprhic' have a small stigma
attached to them. Not that big of a deal, really.
But go back a few years, and it was a major stumbling block. Not because of
the furry fandom of today, but because of the dozens and dozens of low-quality
TMNT ripoffs that came out in the mid-1980's. When the Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtles first "hit it big", it created a small-press black-and-white comics
boom. Soon, everyone and his dog was putting out TMNT clones (Adolescent
Radioactive Blackbelt Hamsters, Geriatric Gerbils, Kung-fu Kangaroos ... at one
time the CBG published a list of all the knockoffs they could find - it filled
a full newspaper page in small print).
Sales on these comics boomed - retailers did not want to get caught short and
miss out on the "next big thing". Unfortunately, most of the comics turned out
to be crap, and retailers were left with piles and piles of unsellable pap.
The B&W Boom quickly turned into a B&W bust. Hundreds of retailers went out of
business. Dozens of publishers went under (Antarctic Press was formed in the
middle of this B&W boom, and is one of only a handful of comic companies to
survive the following lean years). Even the largest comics distributor at the
time - Glenwood - went under. It was pretty ugly.
Rightly or wrongly, furry/fuzzy/funny-animal/anthropomorphic
comics/whatever-you-want-to-call-them apparently got the lion's share of the
blame. And comics retailers have very, very long memories.
So this has less to do with fandom (such as it is), and more to do with comics
retailing history. Since all of this really took place before my time (I was
not professionally employed in comics until 1993), perhaps some of the
"old-timers" who were around in comics retailing in the 1980's could expand
some more. Anyway, I hope this puts things in a better perspective.
Furplay
Well, call her a "furry artist" and see what her response is.
Furplay
Matthew High wrote:
>
> Even the largest comics distributor at the
> time - Glenwood - went under. It was pretty ugly.
Part of Glenwood's demise was the lousy business practices they pulled,
like slipping in some copies of a comic you never even heard of, let
alone wanted ("The Untouchibots" was the stinkiest one they've unloaded
unto me), and sticking you with the cost on the bill (I used to have an
account with them for RPG supplies, and they'd always try to burn me
with a "Glenwood Stowaway of the Month"). In most cases the items was in
such a small amount that shipping it back for credit was'nt
cost-effective, so you had to get stuck with it (which I'm sure the guys
at Glenwood counted on happeneing a lot).
Even when Geppi bought out the company and demanded that all retailers
fill a quota of several hundred dollars of orders per month or get
chucked, I still never missed Glenwood. Could'nt happen to a nicer bunch
of guys, IMO.
Just a small jog down memory lane.
>
> Rightly or wrongly, furry/fuzzy/funny-animal/anthropomorphic
> comics/whatever-you-want-to-call-them apparently got the lion's share of the
> blame. And comics retailers have very, very long memories.
>
I'm hoping that Furrlough is helping to dispell the myth that 'morph
titles these days are'nt just TMNT ripoffs.
Back when there was the Xeric Foundation (is it still around?), I was
told that one of the ways you would NOT get money from Pete Laird was to
ask for a grant to do a "funny animal title". Kinda ironic, since the
source of these grants were from all those Turtles megabucks.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>Part of Glenwood's demise was the lousy business practices they pulled,
>like slipping in some copies of a comic you never even heard of, let
>alone wanted ("The Untouchibots" was the stinkiest one they've unloaded
>unto me), and sticking you with the cost on the bill
I thought if you where sent something threw the mail unsolicited you
could consider it a gift and do whatever you like with it under postal
regulations.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Skytech
> While we can insist that a duck is not a duck due to cutting off it's legs
> and wings off, then giving it a tracheotomy, the heart of the matter is
that
> they not only just alienated what was undoubtedly their fan base - but
also
> insulted them as well.
>
I've dumped a few 'furry' titles in the past because of direct or indirect
condemnation of furry. I would have kept buying if they had not made it
clear and open they wanted no association. They couldn't just accept that a
certain group really liked their work Couriously, many of the anti-fur
titles are also manga(ish) titles. Consitering the very common sex and
violence that genre is associated with, that's calling the kettle black!
(BTW, I do watch/read anime-manga.)
--
Skytech
Skytech
> While we can insist that a duck is not a duck due to cutting off it's legs
> and wings off, then giving it a tracheotomy, the heart of the matter is
that
> they not only just alienated what was undoubtedly their fan base - but
also
> insulted them as well.
>
I've dumped a few 'furry' titles in the past because of direct or indirect
Chuck Melville
Allen Kitchen wrote:
>
> Heh. Here is a Reality Check; that scary, evil, dirty, "furry"
> title is still selling well whereas the other book (insisting
> that it wasn't furry, despite all the anthropomorphic characters)
> is no more. Furrlough, a clearly furry title, is still selling
> well and is about to reach its hundredth issue without so much
> as one dirty image in it. If it were my comic, then I wouldn't
> care if the Cult of Occular Displays purchased it! They'd at
> least be purchasing it; sales are sales, after all.
>
Not to disparage FURRLOUGH's record in any way, but I think your
assessment is misleading. FURRLOUGH is hanging in as long as it has
-not- because of great sales, but more due to the dedication of its
publishers, Elin and Pat. It does -okay- sales for a small publisher.
Certainly they could probably get better sales out of their more
manga-oriented books.
Whereas REALITY CHECK actually had much higher sales during its run;
publication was ceased because the sales weren't high enough by Sirius'
reckoning, as they had a much higher goal in mind. (Keep in mind, too,
that RC was being published in color which raised the break-even bar
considerably.) And of course, now it's not being even self-published
because the book is tied up legally and out of the creator's hands.
Also, RC was always trying to reach a much wider audience than just
furries. It may seem insulting to -us- that being a furry comic just
isn't good enough for some creators (*sniff*), but the hard, cold fact
is that the number of furry fans compared to general comic fans is
pretty small, and even smaller when you realize that only a small
percentage of furry fans actually read comics, even furry ones. You
can't make money (and publishing comics is just as much about making
money as it is about making comic art) with such a small, narrow
audience. FURRLOUGH does pretty well, but nobody's making a living off
of it.
The few furry titles that are successful are those that appeal to a
wider, general audience -beyond- the furry fans: USAGI, OMAHA, TEENAGE
MUTANT NINJA TURTLES... even the x-rated comics are bringing in an
audience from beyond the pack. (Yes, I know neither OMAHA nor TMNT are
being published anymore, but when they were, they did pretty well with
more than just furry fans.)
Sales are sales, yes; but if you don't have -enough- sales, you
don't have a book.
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/
online graphic novel: FELICIA: THE SORCERESS' APPRENTICE
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/felicia/felicia.html
weekly comic strip: STARS 'n' STRIPES
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/starsstripe/sns.html
Bart: Wow, a former president living right across the street.
Homer: Oh, why did he have to move in on _my_ territory? Look at
him. Thinks just because he led the free world, he can act like a big
shot! Stupid President... why couldn't he just stay in his own state?
Lisa: Actually, this _is_ one of the nine states where Mr. Bush claims
residency, Dad. I wouldn't have voted for him, but it's nice to have a
celebrity in the neighborhood.
Homer: Wait a minute... if _Lisa_ didn't vote for him... and _I_ didn't
vote for him --
Marge: You didn't vote for anybody.
Homer: I voted for Prell to go back to the old glass bottle. After
that, I became deeply cynical.
-- A rare glimpse of Homer, member of the electorate, "Two Bad
Neighbors"
Dark Ren
"Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > While we can insist that a duck is not a duck due to cutting off
it's legs
> > and wings off, then giving it a tracheotomy, the heart of the
matter is
> that
> > they not only just alienated what was undoubtedly their fan base -
but
> also
> > insulted them as well.
> >
>
> I've dumped a few 'furry' titles in the past because of direct or
indirect
> condemnation of furry. I would have kept buying if they had not made
it
> clear and open they wanted no association. They couldn't just accept
that a
> certain group really liked their work
No, I would think they were just being sure that their status was
known. What does it matter if they don't want to be labeled furry? Does
it change the quality of their work? Not really. I don't really like
association with the fandom at large either, so would respond neutrally
to being called 'furry'.
To be quite honest, I think that sort of reaction to an artist of any
kind is a little petty. Especially since such statements are often
neutral and lacking malice.
> Couriously, many of the anti-fur titles are also manga(ish) titles.
> Consitering the very common sex and violence that genre is associated
with,
> that's calling the kettle black!
No. It's an artist(s) saying they aren't what a group of people have
decided to label them.
--
I see the ghosts of navigators but they are lost
As they sail into the setting sun they'll count the cost
As their skeletons accusing emerge from the sea
The sirens of the rocks they beckon me
Ghost of the Navigator : Iron Maiden
Under Construction - Sins of the Past MUX
http://riftsmux.dhs.org/~sins/
Dark Ren - http://www.deja.com/my/pb.xp?member_name=darkren
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Dark Ren
cp...@zipcon.com wrote:
<<SNIP - Very well reasoned comments>>
That seems a habit of this hobby. Anything involving humanoid animals
is latched onto and given the brand as 'furry'. Of course, what some in
this hobby have to realize is that they aren't the only ones that enjoy
the genre. Anthropomorphics are present in several other genres and not
everyone who dabbles in the art has even heard of 'furry'. Expecting
them to happily be branded as furry is petty and unrealistic. Stop
trying to label things and just enjoy the fruits of creativity, eh?
Timothy Fay
>
> So this has less to do with fandom (such as it is), and more to do with comics
> retailing history. Since all of this really took place before my time (I was
> not professionally employed in comics until 1993), perhaps some of the
> "old-timers" who were around in comics retailing in the 1980's could expand
> some more. Anyway, I hope this puts things in a better perspective.
I was involved in publishing comics back then and what you wrote was
pretty much on-target. "Furry" comics have their problems, but I
agree that they were unfairly lumped in with the "Three Adjective
Funny Animal" fiasco of the 1980's.
But if that is so, then the "Reality Check" people also unfairly
blamed the "furry" label as a threat to their sales. Again, I
completely understand their situation. But, again, I think it was
very two-faced of them to push their comic in this newsgroup while
at the same time pushing away the very people they were trying to
attact.
The blunt fact is that "Reality Check" had lousy sales: 6000 may
be good in "furry" terms, but it's rather miniscule by industry
standards. And if RC had lousy sales, it was probably because it
wasn't a very good comic book, IMHO. At the very least, I don't
think they had a grasp on who their audience was. RC wasn't
"anime" enough for the anime fans, and it wasn't mainstream enough
for comic book fans, and they decided it wasn't a "furry" book,
after all. So who, exactly, was this book for? If they had worked
out these minor details, then they might have had better sales and
wouldn't have had to worry about getting tagged with that awful
"furry" label.
--
http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001
"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones
shockw...@my-deja.com
> Also, RC was always trying to reach a much wider audience than
just
> furries. It may seem insulting to -us- that being a furry comic just
> isn't good enough for some creators (*sniff*), but the hard, cold fact
> is that the number of furry fans compared to general comic fans is
> pretty small, and even smaller when you realize that only a small
> percentage of furry fans actually read comics, even furry ones.
Granted, furry fandom is small compared to the other fandoms
out there. But hey, SF started out small. Once upon a time the
names Asimov, Clarke, and Robinson were as unknown as yours and
mine are today. I'd like to think that someday our genre will
be looked at in the same light as SF is; small audience today,
big potential audience tomorrow.
Furry is, as we've discussed before, a widely used term that
covers a lot of ground. I think the problem here is not so much
calling some comic "furry" as it is forgetting to acknowledge
everything else about the comic. "Albedo" is a furry title. It
is also (deep inhale); Hard science fiction, space opera,
speculative fiction, and social/political commentary. Nothing
says that one label has to be the only label used. Furry fans
frequently forget this fact.
Yes, Reality Check was furry as far as it had Anthro characters.
It was also Manga. Furry fans did the comic a disservice by ignoring
that aspect of it. But likewise, the creators did their fans a
disservice by publically claiming "It's not furry!" in their comic
and elsewhere. If I were selling comics, I wouldn't worry about
who was reading it except to adjust the stories and improve sales.
And I certainly would not put down an entire genre based on one
or two comics I'd seen -- just imagine what I'd think of Manga
if I were to do that!
A wide audience is a good thing, and something to be strived
for. But if part of that audience jumps and says "hey! Furry!"
then the wise salesman should take their money and keep quiet.
Usagi Yojimbo is a story first, furry somewhere after that.
It's a big success by any yardstick. That's what comic writers
in our genre need to figure out; that creating something SOLELY
for furrys will ensure small sales until the genre grows.
Creating something that appeals to several groups at once will
get them ALL to buy copies, thus promoting growth and selling
the comic all at the same time.
Of course, creating such stories isn't easy, especially on
a routine schedule.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/
Sarenthalanos
"SilverJain" <silve...@aol.comspampie> wrote in message
news:20010123033119...@ng-md1.aol.com...
I believe you can understand the difference between saying there is no
association (which is perfectly fine if someone wants to insist that), but
the thinly-veiled insults were what set people off.
"We've usually don't read comics
specifically aimed at the furry audience, because
the presence of the target audience is blatant
on every page, and the authors deep desire for
acceptance of that specific audience, permeates
every page, making it un-enjoyable for us to
read. It's not that we're TRYING to not read
them - it's just that they're not our thing. That's
really all it comes down to."
Says it quite clearly. It's not 'labels' or anything like that. It's quite
an insult when they group together and lambast a genre in one fell swoop.
I'll say it again. Saying they do not want to be associated with furry is
one thing, the insults are another.
-Sa
Furplay
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:35:35 -0600, Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Part of Glenwood's demise was the lousy business practices they pulled,
> >like slipping in some copies of a comic you never even heard of, let
> >alone wanted ("The Untouchibots" was the stinkiest one they've unloaded
> >unto me), and sticking you with the cost on the bill
>
> I thought if you where sent something threw the mail unsolicited you
> could consider it a gift and do whatever you like with it under postal
> regulations.
>
Not if they sent it out COD, and then that is when you'd notice the
extra crap they slipped in there after you've handed the $$$ to the UPS guy.
Skytech
> To be quite honest, I think that sort of reaction to an artist of any
> kind is a little petty.
>
Funny, I thought the same of them. I felt furry was being snubbed as if it
was a lower lifeform to look down on.
> > Couriously, many of the anti-fur titles are also manga(ish) titles.
> > Consitering the very common sex and violence that genre is associated
> > with, that's calling the kettle black!
>
> No. It's an artist(s) saying they aren't what a group of people have
> decided to label them.
>
But it seems it's only the furry label that bothers them. It's not as if fur
fans are demanding the association. We see furry content, we like the
stories and art, we're proud to associate. Our appreciation is rewarded with
'who needs you!'.
Sca-rew that!! Why should anyone pay for abuse? You want my patronage, you
don't insult me.
--
Skytech
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Rightly or wrongly, furry/fuzzy/funny-animal/anthropomorphic
> comics/whatever-you-want-to-call-them apparently got the lion's share
> of the blame. And comics retailers have very, very long memories.
I dunno, with the serious population reduction in the Retailer side of the
market, maybe some of those longer memories are no longer around, and that
could be part of why Furry isn't as much of a stigma as it used to be.
On the other hand, we could STILL stand to grow the fanbase a bit, as most
shops only get furry comics for their "box" customers.
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Dark Ren
"Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > To be quite honest, I think that sort of reaction to an artist of any
> > kind is a little petty.
> >
>
> Funny, I thought the same of them. I felt furry was being snubbed
as if it
> was a lower lifeform to look down on.
You take it too seriously, I think.
> > > Couriously, many of the anti-fur titles are also manga(ish)
titles.
> > > Consitering the very common sex and violence that genre is
associated
> > > with, that's calling the kettle black!
> >
> > No. It's an artist(s) saying they aren't what a group of people
have
> > decided to label them.
> >
>
> But it seems it's only the furry label that bothers them. It's not as
if fur
> fans are demanding the association. We see furry content, we
like the
> stories and art, we're proud to associate. Our appreciation is
rewarded with
> 'who needs you!'.
You read far too much venom into a neutral statement. Personally,
I'd feel inclined to say the same thing about the MUX I'm making.
It'll have humanoid animal creatures in it. But it's not 'furry'. So am I
now calling you a lower life form and spitting on you like the poor,
downtrodden second class citizen that you feel like? No. I'm just
saying that label isn't proper. Get over it already.
> Sca-rew that!! Why should anyone pay for abuse? You want my
patronage, you
> don't insult me.
Don't let yourself be insulted then. There are a lot of things in this
world that are insulting. Stop being a thin skinned bleeder.
Matthew High
>be good in "furry" terms, but it's rather miniscule by industry
>standards. And if RC had lousy sales, it
Actually, if a comic book sells 6000 these days, it's doing pretty good.
Cerebus sells just over 7000, Usagi just over 8000. Ranma 1/2 barely sells
that much. Castle Waiting doesn't sell that much. Gold Digger barely sells
that much.The entire output of Fantagraphics (individually) sells below 6000.
Ditto for CPM, Drawn and Quarterly, Caliber, and most mid-sized publishers out
there. Almost all of Sirius, Antarctic, and Viz sell less than 6000. There
are DC, Image, and Dark Horse books that sell less than that.
Back in the mid-1980's, any no-talent hack could put out just about any comic
and sell 14,000 copies - which is why the market crashed in the first place.
The comic book market is very different nowadays - and an untested book in a
cautious market would be lucky to break a thousand copies. (Since I work for a
comics distributor, I get to talk to many artists/publishers that have been
disappointed by the reality of the comics market today). Sorry, bubba, but
your yardstick is far too long. 6000 is damn good. You really need to get in
touch with the current comics market before spouting off about things you don't
know about.
Anyway, I'll be away from the computer for the next week. But information on
how well comics sell can be found in rec.arts.comics.misc - monthly sales
charts are posted regularly, and can easily be found using dejanews. Look 'em
up before you embarrass yourself any further.
(PS Your hypothesis that Reality Check was trying to reach out to several
different groups but not really pleasing any of them is interesting. Hadn't
thought of it that way, definitely worth some thought)
Sarenthalanos
"Dark Ren" <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94mcgi$puc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> You read far too much venom into a neutral statement. Personally,
> I'd feel inclined to say the same thing about the MUX I'm making.
> It'll have humanoid animal creatures in it. But it's not 'furry'. So am I
> now calling you a lower life form and spitting on you like the poor,
> downtrodden second class citizen that you feel like? No. I'm just
> saying that label isn't proper. Get over it already.
>
It's *hardly* a 'neutral statement'.
Dark Ren
So? I don't find that offensive. I guess I'm the only one. Wouldn't be
the first time.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>
>"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
[...]
>> I thought if you where sent something threw the mail unsolicited you
>> could consider it a gift and do whatever you like with it under postal
>> regulations.
>>
>Not if they sent it out COD, and then that is when you'd notice the
>extra crap they slipped in there after you've handed the $$$ to the UPS guy.
Thats dishonest almost to the extent of being criminal. I'm amased
that thay where not brout up infrount of the fair trading or whatever
the US uses to procucute con men.
Timothy Fay
that doesn't alter this fact: 6000 is still a crappy run for a comic
book. If sales of USAGI and CEREBUS have slipped to that level, well,
did it occur to you that maybe those books might not be as good as
they used to be? (I can't comment on USAGI, but I haven't picked up
CEREBUS since about issue 100 or so; I think Sim lost most of his
audience ages ago.)
But then, perhaps my information is out of date. My understanding
is that maybe one or two titles sell over 100,000 copies these days,
with most mainstream comics selling between 20,000 and 50,000 a
month. Some might get as low as 15,000 before getting the axe, but
that's still over TWICE as many as any of the titles you mentioned.
6000 may be "damn good" for specialty comics like anime or furry
titles. But you must be smoking your back issues if you think that
even comes close to "damn good" outside of those niche markets.
Finally, don't cop that attitude with me, Matt. Get off your high
horse before you get a nosebleed.
Rick Pikul
>
>
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:35:35 -0600, Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >Part of Glenwood's demise was the lousy business practices they pulled,
> > >like slipping in some copies of a comic you never even heard of, let
> > >alone wanted ("The Untouchibots" was the stinkiest one they've unloaded
> > >unto me), and sticking you with the cost on the bill
> >
> > I thought if you where sent something threw the mail unsolicited you
> > could consider it a gift and do whatever you like with it under postal
> > regulations.
>
> Not if they sent it out COD, and then that is when you'd notice the
> extra crap they slipped in there after you've handed the $$$ to the UPS guy.
That's a YJMV issue, if they tried that here, (Canada), the extra
stuff is still an unsolicited good and you don't have to pay for it
regardless of how it is delivered.
If you had already paid COD, then you have an overpayment and can
demand a refund.
--
Phoenix
Skytech
> On the other hand, we could STILL stand to grow the fanbase a bit, as most
> shops only get furry comics for their "box" customers.
>
I can proudly say I've seen many furry titles on the shelves, in thier
proper alphabetical order, at the comic shop in the local mall (King of
Prussia). Haven't been there lately but a big comic shop in Villinova was
also fur friendly. Then again, this is the new home region for Anthrocon.
--
Skytech
Skytech
> > Funny, I thought the same of them. I felt furry was being snubbed
> > as if it was a lower lifeform to look down on.
>
> You take it too seriously, I think.
>
It seem others do too.
>
> > Our appreciation is rewarded with 'who needs you!'.
>
> You read far too much venom into a neutral statement. Personally,
> I'd feel inclined to say the same thing about the MUX I'm making.
> It'll have humanoid animal creatures in it. But it's not 'furry'. So am I
> now calling you a lower life form and spitting on you like the poor,
> downtrodden second class citizen that you feel like? No. I'm just
> saying that label isn't proper. Get over it already.
>
So if fur fans started getting into the MUX but openly started telling
others they enjoy what they consiter furry content in it, would you
publically declare there is absolutely no association with the fur fandom
which would lead readers to believe there must be something wrong with this
fur fandom thing?
> > Sca-rew that!! Why should anyone pay for abuse? You want my
> patronage, you don't insult me.
>
> Don't let yourself be insulted then. There are a lot of things in this
> world that are insulting. Stop being a thin skinned bleeder.
>
Where have I heard that before?
Obviously you think little of the fandom if being insulted for being a fur
fan is soooo trivial. Maybe there are insults that could be consitered
relatively more important but that shouldn't make bias against us any less
important.
--
Skytech
Dark Ren
"Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > You take it too seriously, I think.
> >
>
> It seem others do too.
Well, that's just too bad then.
> >
> > > Our appreciation is rewarded with 'who needs you!'.
> >
> > You read far too much venom into a neutral statement.
Personally,
> > I'd feel inclined to say the same thing about the MUX I'm
making.
> > It'll have humanoid animal creatures in it. But it's not 'furry'. So
am I
> > now calling you a lower life form and spitting on you like the
poor,
> > downtrodden second class citizen that you feel like? No. I'm
just
> > saying that label isn't proper. Get over it already.
> >
>
> So if fur fans started getting into the MUX but openly started
telling
> others they enjoy what they consiter furry content in it, would you
> publically declare there is absolutely no association with the fur
fandom
> which would lead readers to believe there must be something
wrong with this
> fur fandom thing?
I would publicly state that I accept no labels. Enjoy or not, my game
is manifesting into something that is not furry. A new genre I'm
crafting has anthro elements. and humans. and cybertech most
likely. and I've decided not to worry about aligning it with anything
specific. As you can see, it leads to annoying problems I don't care
to deal with.
Personally, I dislike the fandom overall, even though I enjoy
general aspects of anthropomorphics and things that have been
associated with it. Maybe that's why I respond to the so called
backstab with a shrug. Guess I'm not a real furry, but somehow I
don't seem to mind that fact either.
> > > Sca-rew that!! Why should anyone pay for abuse? You want
my
> > patronage, you don't insult me.
> >
> > Don't let yourself be insulted then. There are a lot of things in
this
> > world that are insulting. Stop being a thin skinned bleeder.
> >
>
> Where have I heard that before?
>
> Obviously you think little of the fandom if being insulted for being
a fur
> fan is soooo trivial. Maybe there are insults that could be
consitered
> relatively more important but that shouldn't make bias against us
any less
> important.
If you say so. I just don't see this hobb as that i mportant.
Kris Overstreet
<sarent...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>Says it quite clearly. It's not 'labels' or anything like that. It's quite
>an insult when they group together and lambast a genre in one fell swoop.
>I'll say it again. Saying they do not want to be associated with furry is
>one thing, the insults are another.
Um... saying 'we don't like furry stuff' in the most polite possible
way is an insult to you?
Redneck
Sarenthalanos
"Kris Overstreet" <red...@detnet.com> wrote in message
news:4evu6tg39msa1juvm...@4ax.com...
> Um... saying 'we don't like furry stuff' in the most polite possible
> way is an insult to you?
It's one thing to say you don't like furry art or 'zines, it's another to
belittle the furry 'zines in general.
Please read, okay?
-Sar
Chuck Melville
Skytech wrote:
> > Don't let yourself be insulted then. There are a lot of things in this
> > world that are insulting. Stop being a thin skinned bleeder.
> >
>
> Where have I heard that before?
>
> Obviously you think little of the fandom if being insulted for being a fur
> fan is soooo trivial. Maybe there are insults that could be consitered
> relatively more important but that shouldn't make bias against us any less
> important.
Afriad I have to agree with Dark Ren on this one. I think you're reading
far too much into the Tavicat's statement. I don't read it as an insult at
all, but as a statement of their position (and somewhat of a defensive one at
that) in light of some folks trying to browbeat them into accepting the
Furrie's definition of their book, when they themselves (being the creators)
have a different idea of what they were aiming for and wnat they really are.
And who would know better? In fact, from what I see, they were trying to be
as polite about it as they possibly could, and trying not to offend anybody at
all by stating their position. Unfortunately, there's always going to be
-somebody- who's going to be offended no matter what you do, I guess.
Dark Ren
"We've usually don't read comics
specifically aimed at the furry audience, because
the presence of the target audience is blatant
on every page, and the authors deep desire for
acceptance of that specific audience, permeates
every page, making it un-enjoyable for us to
read. It's not that we're TRYING to not read
them - it's just that they're not our thing. That's
really all it comes down to."
I've looked over it a few times and I don't see an insult to the genre.
At most, it could be seen as a slam against artists who make the
zines.
This is the only thing that could be insulting: 'because
the presence of the target audience is blatant
on every page, and the authors deep desire for
acceptance of that specific audience, permeates
every page, making it un-enjoyable for us to
read.'
And that is talking about the artists. and who knows, it might be
right in their view. Perception is a strong thing to the mind. And one
thing you have to realize is that it's not so easy to see the whole
picture looking from the outside in.
As such, perhaps an instant animosity and personal boycott is not
the right reaction to a slam, perceived or not. What might be better,
I think, is to open a dialogue with the ones who made the
statement. A -polite- one to be sure the opinion isn't based on a
misconception.
Who knows, you might just given them enough info to have their
view altered to something based closer on the truth than image. At
the very least, you acted in a better than they did. Just saying 'You
insult me so I hate you' is more or less on the same level as their
statement. Yes? No? Maybe?
Sarenthalanos
(snip)
I think the most insulting part if it all would be the lump-grouping and
all.
Kind of how I sarcastically said earlier about anime being nothing more than
tentacle-rape of underage schoolgirls.
Not as severe, no, but still a lump-grouping and dismissal of irrelevence
and despection/distaste in context with the prior points of Sirius' on
furrydom.
-Sar
Sarenthalanos
"Sarenthalanos" <Sarent...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94p8l7$s9$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
*gahs, and only half-read that, sorry...long night, but appends*
True...
I don't know what would be good at this point, but I think their prior
statements have alienated a bit of their fans, etc.
I'm not going to claim to know everything or whatever at this point, because
I'm obviously fatigued and thusly, you get the picture.
I hope that things do go well in the future and all wit them, because I did
like their work even if I read only the earlier stuff.
Blah, enough for now, bonsoir.
-Sar
William Earl Haskell
> In article <94meia$pci$1...@raccoon.fur.com>,
> "Sarenthalanos" <sarent...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
<snip>
> > It's *hardly* a 'neutral statement'.
> >
> > "We've usually don't read comics
> > specifically aimed at the furry audience, because
> > the presence of the target audience is blatant
> > on every page, and the authors deep desire for
> > acceptance of that specific audience, permeates
> > every page, making it un-enjoyable for us to
> > read. It's not that we're TRYING to not read
> > them - it's just that they're not our thing. That's
> > really all it comes down to."
>
> So? I don't find that offensive. I guess I'm the only one. Wouldn't be
> the first time.
I feel much the same way about superhero comix - not my thing, I avoid
contact when possible (except for things like Fission Chicken). I know Mike
Curtis likes them, which doesn't make him any less OK by me than it would if
he didn't like them either. Ho hum.
I miss Reality Check...
Allen Kitchen
William Earl Haskell wrote:
> I miss Reality Check...
I'll trade you all my RCs for a stack of Yarfs :)
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Dave Huang
Dark Ren <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>That seems a habit of this hobby. Anything involving humanoid animals
>is latched onto and given the brand as 'furry'. Of course, what some in
Well, seeing that that's the definition of furry, I don't see anything
wrong with that.
>this hobby have to realize is that they aren't the only ones that enjoy
>the genre. Anthropomorphics are present in several other genres and not
>everyone who dabbles in the art has even heard of 'furry'. Expecting
>them to happily be branded as furry is petty and unrealistic. Stop
>trying to label things and just enjoy the fruits of creativity, eh?
Doesn't matter if the authors have heard of furry, or if they like it--
if their work features anthropomorphic animals, it's furry. I think
what you need to realize is that calling something "furry" doesn't
exclude it from all other categories. If I call a ball "red," that
doesn't mean I can't also say that it's "round."
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: kh...@azeotrope.org | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 25 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
artist
"Dave Huang" <kh...@bga.com> wrote in message
news:94vne8$j0a$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> In article <94k79p$tbo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Dark Ren <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >That seems a habit of this hobby. Anything involving humanoid animals
> >is latched onto and given the brand as 'furry'. Of course, what some
in
>
> Well, seeing that that's the definition of furry, I don't see anything
> wrong with that.
>
> >this hobby have to realize is that they aren't the only ones that
enjoy
> >the genre. Anthropomorphics are present in several other genres and
not
> >everyone who dabbles in the art has even heard of 'furry'. Expecting
> >them to happily be branded as furry is petty and unrealistic. Stop
> >trying to label things and just enjoy the fruits of creativity, eh?
>
> Doesn't matter if the authors have heard of furry, or if they like
it--
> if their work features anthropomorphic animals, it's furry. I think
> what you need to realize is that calling something "furry" doesn't
> exclude it from all other categories. If I call a ball "red," that
> doesn't mean I can't also say that it's "round."
Of course, you can always call somthing square a ball, and call it red.
;p
Red the Dhole <Abe Flower>
Dave Huang wrote:
what you can't do is then take it and call it blue.
--
---------------------
AIM: reddevil550
ICQ:102722595
neopets: same as above
Book reccomendation: the “His Dark Materials” trilogy by Phillip Pullman
*especially for furs*
Furry code: FCF[Dhole]5s A+ C- D H+ M+ P++++ R+ T++++ W Z+ Sm? RL- a13 cm+++
d+++ e- f- h* i++++ j+ p++ sm#
Let what we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.
/^\
Z.....Q___
?---? ?????????/ O
/ \.../ >
| /’’’’\ ________ _--”
\./ \ /’’ \ |
| | | |
| | | |
|___> |___>
Sonic the Hedgehog, Freddy Mercury, Mick Jagger, AKIRA, Coca Cola, you get the
idea.
Dark Ren
kh...@bga.com (Dave Huang) wrote:
> In article <94k79p$tbo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Dark Ren <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >That seems a habit of this hobby. Anything involving humanoid
animals
> >is latched onto and given the brand as 'furry'. Of course, what
some in
>
> Well, seeing that that's the definition of furry, I don't see anything
> wrong with that.
>
> >this hobby have to realize is that they aren't the only ones that
enjoy
> >the genre. Anthropomorphics are present in several other
genres and not
> >everyone who dabbles in the art has even heard of 'furry'.
Expecting
> >them to happily be branded as furry is petty and unrealistic.
Stop
> >trying to label things and just enjoy the fruits of creativity, eh?
>
> Doesn't matter if the authors have heard of furry, or if they like it--
> if their work features anthropomorphic animals, it's furry. I think
> what you need to realize is that calling something "furry" doesn't
> exclude it from all other categories. If I call a ball "red," that
> doesn't mean I can't also say that it's "round."
So it matters not at all if the author doesn't want a label? That's
rather callous of you, considering.
Dave Huang
Dark Ren <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>So it matters not at all if the author doesn't want a label? That's
>rather callous of you, considering.
Well, I just think it's rather strange for the author to complain about
a fact. If you paint your house olive green, you shouldn't go "I don't
like olive green! My house is _not_ olive green!" when people mention
the fact. If you don't want people commenting on your olive green house,
perhaps you should paint it a different color. And if you don't want
people to call your comic furry, perhaps not having an anthropomorphic
catgirl as the main character would do the trick.
Dark Ren
kh...@bga.com (Dave Huang) wrote:
> In article <9525cg$dv4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Dark Ren <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >So it matters not at all if the author doesn't want a label? That's
> >rather callous of you, considering.
>
> Well, I just think it's rather strange for the author to complain
about
> a fact. If you paint your house olive green, you shouldn't go "I don't
> like olive green! My house is _not_ olive green!" when people mention
> the fact. If you don't want people commenting on your olive green
house,
> perhaps you should paint it a different color. And if you don't want
> people to call your comic furry, perhaps not having an anthropomorphic
> catgirl as the main character would do the trick.
Fan interpretation is not a fact. Here's a fact. I'm writing a story
myself. There are anthro critters in it as the main characters. I DON'T
consider it 'furry'. I consider it Anthropomorphic fiction which is an
entirely different animal so far as I'm concerned. So am I wrong to
want my work to be considered what I think it is? If so, why don't I
just hand over all the rights to the world at large so they can label
and make my story whatever they want? Oh, wait.. I don't do that
because as a writer it's mine.
Just because you want to call something what you think it should be
labeled as doesn’t mean the writher can't turn right around and say
your wrong. Because in this case you are. Catgirls are an absolute
staple of the anime spectrum. So what the main character is carries
only a slight parallel. It's not furry. It's anime/manga/whatever.
Charles Melville
Dave Huang wrote:
> In article <9525cg$dv4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Dark Ren <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >So it matters not at all if the author doesn't want a label? That's
> >rather callous of you, considering.
>
> Well, I just think it's rather strange for the author to complain about
> a fact. If you paint your house olive green, you shouldn't go "I don't
> like olive green! My house is _not_ olive green!" when people mention
> the fact. If you don't want people commenting on your olive green house,
> perhaps you should paint it a different color. And if you don't want
> people to call your comic furry, perhaps not having an anthropomorphic
> catgirl as the main character would do the trick.
Hardly a fact; who calls it a furry book -other- than a furry fan? (For that
matter, most non-furries call a furry book a 'funny-animal book'. From their
point of view the book was something else altogether and calling it 'furry'
pigeonholes it into a completely different category. Not very helpful when
you're trying to market to a specific and altogether different audience.
Frankly, much as I liked the book, I never really thought of it as furry all
that much. Sure, it had Catrece, but the emphasis was much more Anime-styled
fantasy. Having a furry character doesn't really make a furry title.
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
Skytech
> myself. There are anthro critters in it as the main characters. I DON'T
> consider it 'furry'. I consider it Anthropomorphic fiction which is an
> entirely different animal so far as I'm concerned. So am I wrong to
> want my work to be considered what I think it is? If so, why don't I
> just hand over all the rights to the world at large so they can label
> and make my story whatever they want? Oh, wait.. I don't do that
> because as a writer it's mine.
>
Steven Spielberg tried the same thing with E.T.. He emphatically said it was
a 'speculative fiction' and no way was it science fiction. The rest of the
world still consitered it science fiction.
You can call your work whatever you want but others see it as something
else, they will call it that. If something fits the definition of 'furry'
then it will get called furry by those who enjoy such.
> Just because you want to call something what you think it should be
> labeled as doesn't mean the writher can't turn right around and say
> your wrong. Because in this case you are. Catgirls are an absolute
> staple of the anime spectrum. So what the main character is carries
> only a slight parallel. It's not furry. It's anime/manga/whatever.
>
It fit the definition of furry so for fur fans it is furry. Get used to it.
--
Skytech
Dark Ren
"Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Fan interpretation is not a fact. Here's a fact. I'm writing a story
> > myself. There are anthro critters in it as the main characters. I
DON'T
> > consider it 'furry'. I consider it Anthropomorphic fiction which is
an
> > entirely different animal so far as I'm concerned. So am I wrong
to
> > want my work to be considered what I think it is? If so, why
don't I
> > just hand over all the rights to the world at large so they can
label
> > and make my story whatever they want? Oh, wait.. I don't do
that
> > because as a writer it's mine.
> >
>
> Steven Spielberg tried the same thing with E.T.. He emphatically
said it was
> a 'speculative fiction' and no way was it science fiction. The rest
of the
> world still consitered it science fiction.
>
> You can call your work whatever you want but others see it as
something
> else, they will call it that. If something fits the definition of 'furry'
> then it will get called furry by those who enjoy such.
Note you said on there 'the rest of the world'. Fur Fans are not the
rest of the world. Just a rather small part of it.
> > Just because you want to call something what you think it
should be
> > labeled as doesn't mean the writher can't turn right around and
say
> > your wrong. Because in this case you are. Catgirls are an
absolute
> > staple of the anime spectrum. So what the main character is
carries
> > only a slight parallel. It's not furry. It's anime/manga/whatever.
> >
>
> It fit the definition of furry so for fur fans it is furry. Get used to it.
It fit your definition. So you called it furry. Then got pissy when the
authors tried to call it what they wanted to.
Dave Huang
Dark Ren <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <952pon$1r6$1...@raccoon.fur.com>,
>Fan interpretation is not a fact. Here's a fact. I'm writing a story
It's not an interpretation. "Furry" may be a term primarily used by
furry fans, but it means "anthropomorphic animal."
>myself. There are anthro critters in it as the main characters. I DON'T
>consider it 'furry'. I consider it Anthropomorphic fiction which is an
That's nice, but like I said, just because you don't consider it furry
doesn't mean that it isn't.
>entirely different animal so far as I'm concerned. So am I wrong to
>want my work to be considered what I think it is? If so, why don't I
>just hand over all the rights to the world at large so they can label
>and make my story whatever they want? Oh, wait.. I don't do that
>because as a writer it's mine.
And just how are you going to stop the world at large from thinking
whatever they want about your story? Call in the thought police?
I don't get why this is so hard to understand... In this context,
"furry" is slang for "anthropomorphic animal". I see no point in
wanting your story to be "anthropomorphic fiction" rather than "furry
fiction"--they're the same. Except "anthropomorphic" is kinda long :)
>Just because you want to call something what you think it should be
>labeled as doesn’t mean the writher can't turn right around and say
>your wrong. Because in this case you are. Catgirls are an absolute
>staple of the anime spectrum. So what the main character is carries
>only a slight parallel. It's not furry. It's anime/manga/whatever.
Sure, the writer can say I'm wrong, but that doesn't make me wrong.
And in this case, I'm not wrong. Catgirls are a staple of anime, but
they're also furry. (Although there are degrees of furriness--the ones
that are just human girls with cat ears and a tail are on the low end
of the furriness scale). Why do you have this illusion that once
something is labelled "furry", it can't be labelled anything else?
Reality Check is furry. It is also anime/manga/whatever. There is no
contradiction between those two statements. Someone even maintains a
furry anime list, containing dozens of movies that manage to be BOTH
furry AND anime at the same time. Incroyable!
Dark Ren
kh...@bga.com (Dave Huang) wrote:
> In article <953opt$kn1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Dark Ren <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <952pon$1r6$1...@raccoon.fur.com>,
> And just how are you going to stop the world at large from thinking
> whatever they want about your story? Call in the thought police?
> I don't get why this is so hard to understand... In this context,
> "furry" is slang for "anthropomorphic animal". I see no point in
> wanting your story to be "anthropomorphic fiction" rather than "furry
> fiction"--they're the same. Except "anthropomorphic" is kinda long :)
Well, I suppose all I can do is say I don't want it to be called that..
no, wait. That'll just get those associated with it pissy.
The reason I don't like furry personally is the image associated with
it. I don't want that image associated with my work. Unfortunately,
some things I like to do online won't allow me to get away from it, but
where I feel I should have the right to choose for myself is where it
involves my own work. Only I guess I have to be careful since my
thoughts about my own work might offend someone.
> >Just because you want to call something what you think it should be
> >labeled as doesn’t mean the writher can't turn right around and say
> >your wrong. Because in this case you are. Catgirls are an absolute
> >staple of the anime spectrum. So what the main character is carries
> >only a slight parallel. It's not furry. It's anime/manga/whatever.
>
> Sure, the writer can say I'm wrong, but that doesn't make me wrong.
> And in this case, I'm not wrong. Catgirls are a staple of anime, but
> they're also furry. (Although there are degrees of furriness--the
ones
> that are just human girls with cat ears and a tail are on the low end
> of the furriness scale). Why do you have this illusion that once
> something is labelled "furry", it can't be labelled anything else?
> Reality Check is furry. It is also anime/manga/whatever. There is no
> contradiction between those two statements. Someone even maintains a
> furry anime list, containing dozens of movies that manage to be BOTH
> furry AND anime at the same time. Incroyable!
I don't have the image that things can't have multiple labels. What I
don't understand is why an artists saying that their work isn't
something seems able to piss off some people. And I really don't get
why things have to be branded anyway. Honestly, in my perfect world
there would be two labels. 'I like this' and 'I don't like this'. Does
it really matter what genre it's in? Not really, save for those who
cling to old stereotypes.
Just say no to labels.
Dave Huang
Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
> Hardly a fact; who calls it a furry book -other- than a furry fan?
>(For that
>matter, most non-furries call a furry book a 'funny-animal book'. From their
I don't see how what non-furries call it changes whether it's a furry
book or not. Very few people call aspirin "acetylsalicylic acid", but
that in no way changes that it is, in fact, acetylsalicylic acid.
Reminds me of an Animaniacs episode... "Do you want the marinara or the
red sauce? " "Marinara _is_ red sauce!" "Do you want the calamari or the
squid?" "Calamari _is_ squid!" There are different terms for the same
thing, with some terms only in use by a small segment of the population.
Doesn't make the term invalid though.
>point of view the book was something else altogether and calling it 'furry'
>pigeonholes it into a completely different category. Not very helpful when
>you're trying to market to a specific and altogether different audience.
Well, I suspect that's why Tavicat didn't call it a furry comic in their
marketing literature... few people would know what that meant. But that's
not the issue...
> Frankly, much as I liked the book, I never really thought of it as furry all
>that much. Sure, it had Catrece, but the emphasis was much more Anime-styled
>fantasy. Having a furry character doesn't really make a furry title.
Well what does then? Catreece isn't just a supporting character that
appears in one panel in one issue; she's one of the main characters.
Sure, RC is very anime-styled, and the authors weren't targetting furry
fans. Doesn't change that it's a furry comic though.
Dave Huang
Dark Ren <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I don't have the image that things can't have multiple labels. What I
>don't understand is why an artists saying that their work isn't
>something seems able to piss off some people. And I really don't get
But their work is [something] :) An artist has control over his work,
but that control doesn't extend to altering reality :) Say a painter
paints an oil painting... after he's done, he can't say "I created this
with my own hands... but I don't really like oil paintings--they smell
kinda funny. I now decree it to be a watercolor!"
I dunno about other people, but what annoyed me about the Reality Check
editorial was that they felt that they needed to announce to all their
readers that they didn't like the furry genre and that their comic wasn't
furry, especially in a way that implied that all furry fans/furry artists
were shallow. I don't care that they're not furry fans themselves, and
it's fine with me that they don't call their comic furry (and it's fine
with me that you don't call your story furry). But when they/you hear
others calling their/your work furry, don't go rush out and deny it as
if it were some Bad Thing. (Especially since chances are a significant
percentage of your audience are/will be furry fans).
>why things have to be branded anyway. Honestly, in my perfect world
>there would be two labels. 'I like this' and 'I don't like this'. Does
>it really matter what genre it's in? Not really, save for those who
>cling to old stereotypes.
No, it doesn't matter. So no need to label your own story as "anthropo-
morphic fiction", and no need to deny it if someone calls your story
a "furry story"... if it's got 'morphic animals in it, just post it
here, submit it to a 'zine, or whatever, and enjoy the comments that you
get :)
Ebony Leopard
I'd agree with you on that point. I shouldn't matter what the subject
matter of the book is so long as it's good.
However, I also agree with the other gentalmen's point as well. As an
artist and writer of a comic I don't necessarily consider the book
itself to be "furry", to the point that all the creatures I draw aren't
technically furry (after all Phenix's a big bird). However, it'd be
silly of me to not recognize the fact that my book has anthropomorphic
characters in it that I knowingly know those associated with or collect
such work would call it furry.
Now what I think the guys of RC did really was to somewhat alienate a
large portion of the people that was supporting their book by saying
ruffly they didn't want to be associated with furry. It's not like
they didn't know what furry was or what for the most part the term
meant, otherwise they wouldn't have used it as part of there reply.
Now wheither they consider the book itself to be furry, okay, if they
said something on the lines of, we really don't consider it to be a
furry or anthropomorphic book (which is basically the same thing just a
broadening and more inclusive extention of the word), but more of a
Anime/manga genre, then cool. They still keep in tack those of the
furry collecters in the fold as well as their true target audience the
anime genre.
I think it would be silly of me to say, while my book is more armed at
a broader, superhero/fantasy audience, I don't want it to be associated
with furry. Hey, furries are clients too with money so why would I
want to totally disassociate myself from them? So they aren't as big
as anime, but in business the bottom line are those dead presidents and
comics are a business.
Plus, RC's "catgirl" doesn't exactly fit the standard anime catgirl
mold, after all she is the virtual representation of a real cat, or
basically a morphed humanoid version of the real cat. Therefore, the
catgirl is really an anthropomorphic character no ifs ands or buts
about it.
Personally, I never really considered RC an anthro/furry title either,
but I do remember buying the issue that had the quote in it and going
Whoa, did they just throw down a gaunlet that's going to tick some of
their fan base off. I stopped buying it then, not cause of the
statement, but because in the story they seemed to be intentionally (at
the time I stopped) stirring the story to back up that statement.
Tamar (2 cents)
--
Ebony Leopard
http://www.geocities.com/xenif/extinctioners.html
http://www.yerf.com/howashaw
http://www.redpanda.com/howart
Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
>The reason I don't like furry personally is the image associated with
>it. I don't want that image associated with my work.
Hmmmmmmm.
Y'know... if you really don't want your work to be associated with furry,
there's a very simple solution...
Don't use anthropomorphic animals in your work.
-:)
I think it's funny, after hearing this argument for years now, that it took me
that long to come up with a solution that benefits everyone.[1]
>What I don't understand is why an artists saying that their
>work isn't something seems able to piss off some people.
Probably because it's usually said with a sneer. Just a guess.
It reminds me of the time I was in biology class and one student blurted out
that a tree wasn't a plant.[2]
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen, anthrofurry fan
What's That Blue Thing Doing Here?
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry
[1] Maybe now we can argue about something else,
like why there isn't more anthropomorphic
jellyfish erotica in this fandom, or if the
giant moles under the Disputed Terminology
Squabbling Territory should work a 35-hour
week instead of a 40-hour week.
[2] Later that week, she learned there were bug
fragments in chocolate. Mmmmmmmmmmmm. -:)
Dark Ren
As I read the bit, it had nothing to do with fans. and it stated what
they saw in terms of artist motivations. Was it a
misunderstanding? I don't know. Personally, I don't invest in too
many 'furry' comics. But you know what the right reaction would
have been? Contacting them politely if you though their comment
was in err.
But no, some just said 'Well screw you too' and boycotted or
whatever. Doesn't seem a very sensible reaction to me. And right
now, the majority of my audience for my story are personal friends
as they are the ones I point it out to. Right now, I don't tend to
advertise it much to anyone else.
> >why things have to be branded anyway. Honestly, in my perfect
world
> >there would be two labels. 'I like this' and 'I don't like this'. Does
> >it really matter what genre it's in? Not really, save for those who
> >cling to old stereotypes.
>
> No, it doesn't matter. So no need to label your own story as
"anthropo-
> morphic fiction", and no need to deny it if someone calls your
story
> a "furry story"... if it's got 'morphic animals in it, just post it
> here, submit it to a 'zine, or whatever, and enjoy the comments
that you
> get :)
I don't plan to submit it to anyone. Right now it's a personal project.
I the quality is that good in comparison to most things and it is
something that is going to last through innumerable chapters. It
won't be finished this year.. or the year after. That wouldn't be a
problem if my writing time were regular, but it doesn't conform to a
scheduled release period. And of course, I'm not very inclined to
release in general due to perceived climate.
Charles Melville
Dave Huang wrote:
> In article <3A76243B...@zipcon.com>,
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
> > Hardly a fact; who calls it a furry book -other- than a furry fan?
> >(For that
> >matter, most non-furries call a furry book a 'funny-animal book'. From their
>
> I don't see how what non-furries call it changes whether it's a furry
> book or not. Very few people call aspirin "acetylsalicylic acid", but
> that in no way changes that it is, in fact, acetylsalicylic acid.
Apples and oranges. Aspirin was better marketed and everybody knows it as
aspirin. A funny-animal book is called a furry book -only- by furries. And we still
have the debate over whether or not RC -is- a furry book or not.
>
> >point of view the book was something else altogether and calling it 'furry'
> >pigeonholes it into a completely different category. Not very helpful when
> >you're trying to market to a specific and altogether different audience.
>
> Well, I suspect that's why Tavicat didn't call it a furry comic in their
> marketing literature... few people would know what that meant. But that's
> not the issue...
I think it is -exactly- the issue. They didn't consider it to be furry, they
didn't market it as such because they didn't want their target audience to get the
wrong impression, and they're probably a bit put-out at having to to keep maintaining
damage control over the matter.
> > Frankly, much as I liked the book, I never really thought of it as furry all
> >that much. Sure, it had Catrece, but the emphasis was much more Anime-styled
> >fantasy. Having a furry character doesn't really make a furry title.
>
> Well what does then? Catreece isn't just a supporting character that
> appears in one panel in one issue; she's one of the main characters.
> Sure, RC is very anime-styled, and the authors weren't targetting furry
> fans. Doesn't change that it's a furry comic though.
Doesn't necessarily make it one either. A single anthropomorphic character
doesn't automatically make the book or story a furry book or furry story; not when
the rest of the material firmly plants it in other territory. Not on my scorecard,
and apparently not on theirs. I'd say that intent -does- have a lot to do with it.
Charles Melville
Dave Huang wrote:
> In article <9578u2$noc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Dark Ren <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >I don't have the image that things can't have multiple labels. What I
> >don't understand is why an artists saying that their work isn't
> >something seems able to piss off some people. And I really don't get
>
> But their work is [something] :) An artist has control over his work,
> but that control doesn't extend to altering reality :) Say a painter
> paints an oil painting... after he's done, he can't say "I created this
> with my own hands... but I don't really like oil paintings--they smell
> kinda funny. I now decree it to be a watercolor!"
Not a particularly good argument, since he'd obviously be foolish to make a
decree that was essentially ineffective; no matter how sincere he was, he could
never change a watercolor into an oil by merely saying so. Doesn't equate with
the furry/non-furry debate. What, though, if you were convinced his painting was
Surrealist but he claimed it was Cubist... even though it might have elements of
both?
>
> I dunno about other people, but what annoyed me about the Reality Check
> editorial was that they felt that they needed to announce to all their
> readers that they didn't like the furry genre and that their comic wasn't
> furry, especially in a way that implied that all furry fans/furry artists
> were shallow. I don't care that they're not furry fans themselves, and
> it's fine with me that they don't call their comic furry (and it's fine
> with me that you don't call your story furry). But when they/you hear
> others calling their/your work furry, don't go rush out and deny it as
> if it were some Bad Thing. (Especially since chances are a significant
> percentage of your audience are/will be furry fans).
On the other hand, we don't know the full story behind it, what sort of
aggravations, annoyances, or headaches they might have had to deal with over the
matter before deciding to deal with it directly through their letters page. As
to whether or not being considered Furry is a Bad Thing -- well, that's been a
long standing debate for a long time, hasn't it? Perhaps this is another example
that there are some out there who -do- perceive it that way, and the Tavicats
encountered it and felt they had to take steps to rectify the matter somehow.
(Short of ceasing publication.)
Skytech
> > Steven Spielberg tried the same thing with E.T.. He emphatically
> > said it was a 'speculative fiction' and no way was it science fiction.
The rest
> > of the world still consitered it science fiction.
> >
>
> rest of the world. Just a rather small part of it.
>
Relatively speaking, scifi fans are pretty insignificant too.
> >
> > It fit the definition of furry so for fur fans it is furry. Get used to
it.
>
> It fit your definition. So you called it furry. Then got pissy when the
> authors tried to call it what they wanted to.
>
*My* definition? *I* created and am the only one using the term furry?
Hardly. I never said a work couldn't have a classification other than furry.
Very few could ever be so tightly categorized.
I got 'pissy' because these people targeted furry fandom as if the fans were
purposely trying to ruin their works merely by loose association. Anywhere
else, anyone else, it would be a compliment when a group likes someone's
work so much they want to identify with it. Publically demanding
disassociation goes beyond mere 'neutrality'. They showed a nasty dislike
and wanted everyone to know it. Polite or not, it still translates to "We
don't like your kind and we don't want you stinking up out works!" I'm
amazed these same people haven't banned their works from furry conventions..
or have they?
--
Skytech
Skytech
> I see no point in wanting your story to be "anthropomorphic fiction"
rather than
> "furry fiction"--they're the same. Except "anthropomorphic" is kinda long
:)
>
Plus it also encompasses toasters, tugboats and trains.
--
Skytech
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
deja.com> writes:
> Personally, I never really considered RC an anthro/furry title either,
> but I do remember buying the issue that had the quote in it and going
> Whoa, did they just throw down a gaunlet that's going to tick some
> of their fan base off. I stopped buying it then, not cause of
> the statement, but because in the story they seemed to be
> intentionally (at the time I stopped) stirring the story to back up
> that statement.
I have to wonder if the number of Furry Fans who stopped buying RC after that
editorial had something to do with the comic not making its sales Quota that
Sirius wanted in order to keep running it in Color?
(Oh, and by the way folks, if you're using some Microsoft product as an editor
for your newsreader (Like Word) remember to turn OFF smart quotes. They don't
work on anyone else's system.)
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> they're probably a bit put-out at having to to keep maintaining
> damage control over the matter.
And the furries are a bit put out that calling something a Furry Book is
something that NEEDS to be damage controlled.
(Of course, there seem to be a good percentage who don't seem to mind that,
but they tend to be the reason WHY.)
Dave Huang
Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
> Not a particularly good argument, since he'd obviously be foolish
>to make a decree that was essentially ineffective; no matter how
>sincere he was, he could never change a watercolor into an oil by
>merely saying so. Doesn't equate with the furry/non-furry debate.
Ah, but that's exactly why I'm picking these analogies... (red ball,
olive green house, aspirin, oil paints). You and Dark Ren are making
the criteria for a furry work much more subjective that it should be.
With my definition of furry (which is, of course, the definition I
think everyone should use :), someone saying that his picture of
dogs playing poker is non-furry is just as effective as someone
saying his oil painting is really a watercolor.
In this context, "furry" means "anthropomorphic animal". Hopefully we
can agree on that much. A "furry artwork" (picture, comic, story,
whatever) is then one that prominently features a furry or furries.
Now "prominent" can be subjective, but I think that's as much
subjective as should be in the definition.
In response to your statement in your other article that "I'd say that
intent -does- have a lot to do with it," that'd make the term pretty
useless... The term would only be applicable to things created by the
fandom, for the fandom (which is a view held by some... notably Random).
Are Bugs Bunny cartoons furry? We'd have to find out what Chuck Jones,
Friz Freling, et al... thought. But furry fandom didn't exist when they
made those cartoons. So that's why I say that no--intent does not
matter; artist denials do not matter. What matters is the presence of
anthropomorphic animals.
>What, though, if you were convinced his painting was Surrealist but he
>claimed it was Cubist... even though it might have elements of both?
Are there a set of objective tests for whether a painting is surrealist
or cubist? If it does have elements of both, then I'd say that it has
elements of both. If he tried to deny that it had any surrealism in it,
I'd point out the elements that I saw.
> On the other hand, we don't know the full story behind it, what sort of
>aggravations, annoyances, or headaches they might have had to deal with over the
>matter before deciding to deal with it directly through their letters page. As
I've seen them at a few cons (including a ConFurence)... I went to
their panel about Tavicat Studios at A-Kon a few years ago, and I don't
remember them mentioning any problems they had from people thinking
their comic was a furry comic. They did mention that some people had
asked for sexually explicit pictures of Catreece, and pictures of her
and Colin... getting intimate. But while it may have been furry fans
asking for that sort of thing (or it may not have been... there are
anime fans who like that sort of stuff too... cf. "fan service"), I
don't think attempting to disassociate themselves from the fandom will
help that.
Dark Ren
"Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Steven Spielberg tried the same thing with E.T.. He
emphatically
> > > said it was a 'speculative fiction' and no way was it science
fiction.
> The rest
> > > of the world still consitered it science fiction.
> > >
> >
> > Note you said on there 'the rest of the world'. Fur Fans are not
the
> > rest of the world. Just a rather small part of it.
> >
>
> Relatively speaking, scifi fans are pretty insignificant too.
Not in reguard to the slim slice of Furry Fans. Sic-Fi is much more
mainstream.
Well, techy, if you'll read my other posts, I find it just as 'evil' that you
reacted poorly at first to their words. No attempt to try and forge an
understanding.. just a nice 'Fuck you too'.
Dark Ren
kh...@bga.com (Dave Huang) wrote:
> In article <3A777ECE...@zipcon.com>,
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
> > Not a particularly good argument, since he'd obviously be
foolish
> >to make a decree that was essentially ineffective; no matter how
> >sincere he was, he could never change a watercolor into an oil by
> >merely saying so. Doesn't equate with the furry/non-furry debate.
>
> Ah, but that's exactly why I'm picking these analogies... (red ball,
> olive green house, aspirin, oil paints). You and Dark Ren are making
> the criteria for a furry work much more subjective that it should be.
> With my definition of furry (which is, of course, the definition I
> think everyone should use :), someone saying that his picture of
> dogs playing poker is non-furry is just as effective as someone
> saying his oil painting is really a watercolor.
That's the point. It is subjective as there is no cut and dry
definition that is wholly accepted on what it is.
> In this context, "furry" means "anthropomorphic animal". Hopefully we
> can agree on that much. A "furry artwork" (picture, comic, story,
> whatever) is then one that prominently features a furry or furries.
> Now "prominent" can be subjective, but I think that's as much
> subjective as should be in the definition.
I think furry is more than just 'anthro animal'. Furry is a subset of
that which is different than the larger definition. So I guess we can't
agree on that. For example, Tellos which is a comic with a tigerman as
a main character is something I don't consider furry. Disney
productions with animals that are given human aspects, be it form or
simply speech, which I have seen a few of, are things I don't think of
as furry.
So obviously my definition of furry is vastly different from yours. Of
course, I'm sure my definition means little as I don't have that much
respect for the fandom at large to begin with.
> In response to your statement in your other article that "I'd say that
> intent -does- have a lot to do with it," that'd make the term pretty
> useless... The term would only be applicable to things created by the
> fandom, for the fandom (which is a view held by some... notably
Random).
> Are Bugs Bunny cartoons furry? We'd have to find out what Chuck
Jones,
> Friz Freling, et al... thought. But furry fandom didn't exist when
they
> made those cartoons. So that's why I say that no--intent does not
> matter; artist denials do not matter. What matters is the presence of
> anthropomorphic animals.
Personally, I don't like the thought that the opinions of the artists
themselves make no difference. They do in my opinion, but there again
is another place where we differ. And as has been said in another post
elsewhere.. I forget where, just a public association with furry is a
disadvantage and I happen to agree with that.
Don't act shocked if you are.. this subset hobby has a poor reputation
that is quite long running. And when those immersed in the hobby react
to any slight defamation like rabid dogs, it doesn’t help matters.
Reacting in a reasonable, informative way seems beyond some. I won't
mention names since I don't know too many here that well, but I've seen
examples of it and they are much more prevalent in this hobby than any
other.
So perhaps instead of trying to push the label of furry on those that
don't want it, despite the very simplistic ways that some define it,
perhaps more effort should be put into image improvement. That way, you
won't have to argue with people if something is furry because the tag
wouldn't be seen as a 'Bad Thing' like it tends to be now.
Then tell them that. You see, when it comes to those who are on the
outside looking in, misunderstanding and misrepresentation is easy. If
most of the people who come up to you to ask for art ask for porn and
you don't like drawing porn, most would think that whatever subset
those individuals are a part of is undesirable. Of course, when those
of the same group react poorly to the artists honest, experience driven
opinion, that helps matters not at all.
I would think that, instead of their thoughts and opinions being
ignored or disputed, they should be understood from the basis of where
they came from. Of course as it doesn’t seem anyone has opened a
dialogue with them, the true motivations behind their statements
remains the stuff of unreliable conjecture.
And of course, the lack of funds from the offended may have been a
factor in the end of their comics.. or perhaps not. But I do know that
any form of exodus from the fans can seriously hurt any commercial
venture. And in the case of misunderstandings, that's not always the
way it has to be.
So why don't we try to take the creators opinions seriously? Instead of
disregarding, try asking the creator why he/she doesn’t think something
is what you do. I think it would be a good step toward image
improvement and spreading of understanding that could only be
beneficial to all involved.
Dark Ren
xyd...@BEsmartDONTSPAM.net (Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC) wrote:
> Dark Ren wrote:
> >The reason I don't like furry personally is the image associated with
> >it. I don't want that image associated with my work.
>
> Hmmmmmmm.
>
> Y'know... if you really don't want your work to be associated with
furry,
> there's a very simple solution...
>
> Don't use anthropomorphic animals in your work.
>
> -:)
No, it's not that simple. I like anthro animals. I've enjoyed them
before I've even heard of anything 'furry'. The first character I
played online was a humanoid tiger, picked within two seconds of being
asked what I wanted to be. I went on to develop and truly feel a
kinship with his personality. All before I came into contact with this
thing called furry.
I then got introduced to Tapestries. IT was a different place than what
I was used to. But I persevered in trying to alter my thinking on how a
game should be set up. And I've gone on to meet many interesting
individuals as well as find some very good RPers, all without
compromising on my own play style. Afterward, I started to learn more
and more about the hobby. I'm here because there are occasional tidbits
that I like to look into. It's helped me find more things that I'm
interested in.
So let it be clear that I like anthropomorphics.
But I don't like the image of furry at large. I'm not going to let an
image I didn't make or have a hand in generating effect what I like to
do. I'm not going to cease writing a story well into it's run because
of the actions of others beside myself. I'm going to do what I want to
do and do all I can to throw off the typical image of furry. I may have
similar interests to some of you, but when it comes to some, we're not
the same, you and I.
> I think it's funny, after hearing this argument for years now, that
it took me
> that long to come up with a solution that benefits everyone.[1]
>
> >What I don't understand is why an artists saying that their
> >work isn't something seems able to piss off some people.
>
> Probably because it's usually said with a sneer. Just a guess.
Or a perceived sneer. Take a moment to try and get an idea for the
artists viewpoint before you condemn them.
Dark Ren
an暗hro搆o搶or搆hism
n.
Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to
inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.
Straight definition. Anthropomorphism is something that encompasses
more than just this fandom. This fandom is a subset of a larger genre.
Not its own genre.
Ebony Leopard
> I have to wonder if the number of Furry Fans who stopped buying RC
after that
> editorial had something to do with the comic not making its sales
Quota that
> Sirius wanted in order to keep running it in Color?
>
Not a bad question to wonder. Who knows. All I know is, I'm just
happy if anyone buys the books I'm working on and gives anytype of feed
back on it regardless of what they feel it fits the category of. A lot
of folks that fall under the furry title won't buy one of my books
cause it has a superhero theme to it, regardless of how I handle the
story, so it works both ways I guess. Interperation is a funny thing
when people with different view points look at the same thing.
Skytech
> > Relatively speaking, scifi fans are pretty insignificant too.
>
> Not in reguard to the slim slice of Furry Fans. Sic-Fi is much more
mainstream.
>
It is today and even now it tends to take undeserved hits.
If 'Titanic' was done with a spaceship and an asteroid but *everything* from
direction to the actors and to the diction (with obvious necessary changes)
remained the same, it would be snubbed and would never see an oscar. Bias
can get very ugly.
--
Skytech
Skytech
> > Relatively speaking, scifi fans are pretty insignificant too.
>
> Not in reguard to the slim slice of Furry Fans. Sic-Fi is much more
mainstream.
>
It is today and even now it tends to take undeserved hits.
Dark Ren
You assume, but you don't know that.
Tell me of a 'furry' film that has been publicly advertised of that and
has had public, critical acclaims of any caliber.
Now start naming of science fiction films that have.
Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
>Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC wrote:
>> Y'know... if you really don't want your work to be associated
>> with furry, there's a very simple solution...
>>
>> Don't use anthropomorphic animals in your work.
>>
>> -:)
>
>No, it's not that simple.
Actually, it is. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animals. If you don't
want people to call your work furry, don't use anthropomorphic animals. You
can try to pretend you're doing something different by saying "funny animal" or
"anthro" or whatnot, but no matter how you slice it, it's still furry fandom.
Ergo, the only way to prevent your work from being associated with furry is to
stop using anthropomorphic animals.
>But I don't like the image of furry at large. I'm not going to let an
>image I didn't make or have a hand in generating effect what I like to
>do. I'm not going to cease writing a story well into it's run because
>of the actions of others beside myself. I'm going to do what I want to
>do and do all I can to throw off the typical image of furry.
That's good to hear. I do what I can by setting a good example, and I must be
doing something right because in the seven years I've been involved in the
fandom I've told my friends, family, and co-workers about it and have never had
a problem.
There was a movie called Pi a few years back. You should rent it if you get a
chance, it's pretty good. It was about a mathematician named Max, who was
searching for patterns in the stock market numbers and ended up finding more
than he bargained for.
At one point, Max's computer spits out a 216-digit number before it fries
itself, and Max thinks he's found the answer to Life, the Universe, and
Everything, so he runs to ask his old professor what the number means. The
professor tells him it's a dead end, that once Max starts obsessing over the
number 216 he will find it everywhere, to the point of excluding everything
else.
I offer this as a bit of perspective, because I've found furry fandom's "image
problem" is similar. There's people who rant and scream when a negative
article about furry fandom comes out, and try to dupe folks into thinking
that's what mainstream society thinks of us. More often than not, it's the
result of an unsupervised tabloid reporter at a convention looking to write a
sensational article. We've been seeing less of that since conventions have
been adopting media liaisons and stricter guidelines for dealing with the
press. We've even gotten some positive press as a result.
The positive press generally doesn't get noticed, though, because as mentioned
elsewhere, some people just like to complain. They focus on what's wrong to
the point of excluding everything else; they lose perspective and think that's
all there is. It's no wonder they're unhappy.
It's a shame, but it's also not my problem.
"Most people are about as happy as they make up their minds to be."
>I may have similar interests to some of you, but when it
>comes to some, we're not the same, you and I.
We both share an interest in anthropomorphic animals. That's what this
fandom is about, and that's all that really matters as far as I'm concerned.
>> >What I don't understand is why an artists saying that their
>> >work isn't something seems able to piss off some people.
>>
>> Probably because it's usually said with a sneer. Just a guess.
>
>Or a perceived sneer. Take a moment to try and get an idea for the
>artists viewpoint before you condemn them.
I think people who think there's an image problem should do something that
actually solves the problem. IMHO, blanket generalizations saying how awful
furry fandom is are no better than the article in Loaded.
Furry fandom. Love it or change it. -:)
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Flamewars: The only winning move is not to play.
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry
Dark Ren
xyd...@BEsmartDONTSPAM.net (Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC)
wrote:
> >Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC wrote:
> >> Y'know... if you really don't want your work to be associated
> >> with furry, there's a very simple solution...
> >>
> >> Don't use anthropomorphic animals in your work.
> >>
> >> -:)
> >
> >No, it's not that simple.
>
> Actually, it is. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animals.
If you don't
> want people to call your work furry, don't use anthropomorphic
animals. You
> can try to pretend you're doing something different by saying
"funny animal" or
> "anthro" or whatnot, but no matter how you slice it, it's still furry
fandom.
>
> Ergo, the only way to prevent your work from being associated
with furry is to
> stop using anthropomorphic animals.
I don't feel like being forced out.
> I offer this as a bit of perspective, because I've found furry
fandom's "image
> problem" is similar. There's people who rant and scream when
a negative
> article about furry fandom comes out, and try to dupe folks into
thinking
> that's what mainstream society thinks of us. More often than not,
it's the
> result of an unsupervised tabloid reporter at a convention looking
to write a
> sensational article. We've been seeing less of that since
conventions have
> been adopting media liaisons and stricter guidelines for dealing
with the
> press. We've even gotten some positive press as a result.
I have heard the conventions are cleaning up. Which, of course, is
a good thing. But I don't have to look outside to see that there are
undesirable elements in this fandom. At least from my
prospective.
But most times I'm the type who just leaves them to their own. I
don't really have the time or inclination to directly try and effect
change. It's a slow, tedious, annoying type of project.
> The positive press generally doesn't get noticed, though,
because as mentioned
> elsewhere, some people just like to complain. They focus on
what's wrong to
> the point of excluding everything else; they lose perspective and
think that's
> all there is. It's no wonder they're unhappy.
I rarely complain. But yes, I do at times. Of course, I always set an
example besides with anything I do related to my hobby. No matter
if I'm writing a story or RPing on a MU*, I hold myself to a personal
standard that I don't waver from. If something doesn't fit into it, no
dice.
> It's a shame, but it's also not my problem.
>
> "Most people are about as happy as they make up their minds to
be."
Very true. Personally, I'm a very happy person.
> >I may have similar interests to some of you, but when it
> >comes to some, we're not the same, you and I.
>
> We both share an interest in anthropomorphic animals. That's
what this
> fandom is about, and that's all that really matters as far as I'm
concerned.
True enough.
> >> >What I don't understand is why an artists saying that their
> >> >work isn't something seems able to piss off some people.
> >>
> >> Probably because it's usually said with a sneer. Just a
guess.
> >
> >Or a perceived sneer. Take a moment to try and get an idea for
the
> >artists viewpoint before you condemn them.
>
> I think people who think there's an image problem should do
something that
> actually solves the problem. IMHO, blanket generalizations
saying how awful
> furry fandom is are no better than the article in Loaded.
I'm creating a MUX. It has anthropomorphic elements and will
likely be vastly dissimilar from the experience in many MUCKs. If
not all of them. The history for it has been posted as a link here, if
you want to help me by critiquing it.
> Furry fandom. Love it or change it. -:)
Or remain on the fringe as I do.
PeterCat
> So let it be clear that I like anthropomorphics.
>
> But I don't like the image of furry at large. I'm not going to let an
> image I didn't make or have a hand in generating effect what I like
> to do. I'm not going to cease writing a story well into it's run
> because of the actions of others beside myself. I'm going to do what
> I want to do and do all I can to throw off the typical image of
> furry. I may have similar interests to some of you, but when it comes
> to some, we're not the same, you and I.
Please describe what you see as the "typical image of furry." I think
that may be the sticking point in this discussion: your perception of
the situation, which likely differs from that of others, and who knows
how close any of them are to reality.
Here's my perception: Furry fandom encompasses people who admire
anthropomorphic animals (creatures with both animal and human
characteristics) who express this interest via art, literature,
costuming, roleplaying, or various social activities such conventions,
regional "meets" and online discussion forums, chats, and MU*s.
Does it include "undesirable elements"? Depends on what you find
undesirable. But _any_ collection of people associated by a specific
interest is likely to include some with unrelated interests which others
find not to their liking -- and even more so if there happens to be a
fair number of people with the "undesirable" unrelated interest who form
a subgroup.
Do these "undesirable elements" predominate furry fandom? Likely not.
Yet as Xydexx pointed out in his analogy to the movie "Pi," if one is
obsessed with seeing a particular pattern, it seems to show up
everywhere.
Does it make sense to say "I like anthropomorphic animals, but I'm not a
furry fan"? Well, does it make sense to say "I like Star Trek, but I'm
not a Star Trek fan"? Only if one has merely a mild interest, since
"fan" is defined as "an ardent admirer." One may not like some
particular aspects of how others express their interest in the fandom (I
don't care for Klingons, for example, and it's outrageous that some
people prefer to learn the made-up Klingon language instead of a real
human language used in real human cultures), but the only way _not_ to
be a fan of something is _not_ to admire it.
--
The Furry InfoPage! http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/
pete...@Furry.fan.org (PeterCat) Rhal on FurryMUCK (come cuddle!)
--
"I can't believe what he's doing with those shiitake mushrooms!"
Watch "Iron Chef," Fridays and Saturdays at 10pm (EDT) on Food Network!
Dean L. Norton
"M. white" <mfw...@recorder.ca> wrote:
> It kinda disappeared from the market and was a wonderful comic.
>
> Just was wondering......it was put out by Sirus comics.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> M White
Well..for starters... Rik n Tavi's Reality Check will not be published
anymore. The sales didn't hit the mark from later issues and Sirius
dropped it. Rik n Tavi wanted to take it up themselves and publish it
but Sirius, in their overblown whatever...held up the contract Tavicat
signed, and said "Sorry, we own it now..." So needless to say, Rik n
Tavi got screwed out of Catreec.. (A little character whom I've seen
start as a fun sketch by Tavi) ..So Sirius owns RC, Rik n Tav get
nada.. >;-( I know this...I've talk to Rik n Tavi over the phone and
Sirius f*cked them out of RC...(IMHO)
However...I recently called them (Rik and Tavi) on Monday 1-29-2001 and
spoke with Tavi. Rikki was at work. He works for Nickelodeon now
doing voice overs, etc. They hav a new comicbook series out soon
called "Ranklechek" (I forgot how to spell it, sorry Tavi) and this
book should be out soon...so that's all I can divulge right now.
Perhaps some of you know more than I on a time and date standpoint.
Till next time..
-Dean L. Norton
--
http://deanleenorton.com
Link to BLATANT PLUGS v1.1 and v2k.5 ..!!
http://rubyredboutique.com
To see some of my pin-up canvas works..and for sale too!!
Also..come join my discussion forum at:
http://www.delphi.com/deanleenorton
Charles Melville
Dave Huang wrote:
> In article <3A777ECE...@zipcon.com>,
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
> > Not a particularly good argument, since he'd obviously be foolish
> >to make a decree that was essentially ineffective; no matter how
> >sincere he was, he could never change a watercolor into an oil by
> >merely saying so. Doesn't equate with the furry/non-furry debate.
>
> Ah, but that's exactly why I'm picking these analogies... (red ball,
> olive green house, aspirin, oil paints). You and Dark Ren are making
> the criteria for a furry work much more subjective that it should be.
A creative work is -always- subjective; ask any writer or artist.
>
> With my definition of furry (which is, of course, the definition I
> think everyone should use :), someone saying that his picture of
> dogs playing poker is non-furry is just as effective as someone
> saying his oil painting is really a watercolor.
>
> In this context, "furry" means "anthropomorphic animal". Hopefully we
> can agree on that much.
Now you really hit on a sore point. I've been complaining for years here that
noone has ever been able to agree conclusively on what precisely 'furry' means.
In this context, I certainly do not agree. I take Furry to mean a specific body
of work utilizing anthropomorphic animals, in a specifically designed worldsetting,
with a unique depiction of life's experiences.
> A "furry artwork" (picture, comic, story,
> whatever) is then one that prominently features a furry or furries.
> Now "prominent" can be subjective, but I think that's as much
> subjective as should be in the definition.
-But- ...the term 'furry' is -only- used by furry fans. Outside the fandom,
no one else knows it or what it means (beyond the obvious 'having fur'). Outside the
fandom it means nothing, or worse has a perjorative definition.
It also tends to define (in general) an overall genre theme or approach to the
work, just as Anime does.
>
>
> In response to your statement in your other article that "I'd say that
> intent -does- have a lot to do with it," that'd make the term pretty
> useless... The term would only be applicable to things created by the
> fandom, for the fandom (which is a view held by some... notably Random).
> Are Bugs Bunny cartoons furry? We'd have to find out what Chuck Jones,
> Friz Freling, et al... thought. But furry fandom didn't exist when they
> made those cartoons. So that's why I say that no--intent does not
> matter; artist denials do not matter. What matters is the presence of
> anthropomorphic animals.
>
And I do not agree. A film or a book might have a furry character or two, but
that does not, per se, make it a furry film or a furry book. I can readily accept
the likes of CAPTAIN JACK, MIGHTY MOUSE or FANGS OF K'AATH as being furry lit, but I
do not consider CEREBUS, STEWART THE RAT or HOWARD THE DUCK to be furry lit, even
though they have at least one furry character in them.
Charles Melville
PeterCat wrote:
> Does it make sense to say "I like anthropomorphic animals, but I'm not a
> furry fan"? Well, does it make sense to say "I like Star Trek, but I'm
> not a Star Trek fan"?
Yes, it does. It describes me exactly, in fact. I like Star Trek, always
have, watch the shows, read the books, see the films, know the history, etc.
But I don't attend Trek conventions, read the fan lit, know how to speak
Romulan, or wear a Starfleet uniform while on jury duty.
I mean, I -used- to consider myself a Trek fan... but then I saw -real-
Trek fans, and I knew I was nowhere as near as serious about the show as -they-
were!
Dark Ren
PeterCat <pete...@furry.fan.org> wrote:
> Does it make sense to say "I like anthropomorphic animals, but I'm not a
> furry fan"? Well, does it make sense to say "I like Star Trek, but I'm
> not a Star Trek fan"? Only if one has merely a mild interest, since
> "fan" is defined as "an ardent admirer." One may not like some
> particular aspects of how others express their interest in the fandom (I
> don't care for Klingons, for example, and it's outrageous that some
> people prefer to learn the made-up Klingon language instead of a real
> human language used in real human cultures), but the only way _not_ to
> be a fan of something is _not_ to admire it.
I don't consider myself a furry fan in any typical sense by choice. My
hobby is not quite the same is focus as most that are involved in the
fandom. I know that the undesirables are not all there is to it, but I
choose to not associate myself in label with them at all. Interests may
parallel, but I'm not a furry fan per se for the above reasons.
It may not make sense to you, but it makes perfect sense to me, which is
what counts in the end.
Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
>Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC wrote:
>> Ergo, the only way to prevent your work from being associated
>> with furry is to stop using anthropomorphic animals.
>
>I don't feel like being forced out.
Nobody would be forcing you out, though. It would be your choice. Stop using
anthropomorphic animals in your work, and I guarantee you'll never have to
worry about those awful furry fans ever again.
Ha ha, only serious. -:)
>I have heard the conventions are cleaning up. Which, of course, is
>a good thing. But I don't have to look outside to see that there are
>undesirable elements in this fandom.
Undesirable is a relative term. What's undesirable to you may not be
undesirable to others. You can't expect everyone to like the same things you
do. (Actually, I'd advise against it... the folks who expect everyone to like
the same things they do seem to be the Unhappiest Of Them All.)
>But most times I'm the type who just leaves them to their own. I
>don't really have the time or inclination to directly try and effect
>change. It's a slow, tedious, annoying type of project.
It's your decision to make, of course. My time is pretty valuable, which is
why having fun takes priority for me these days. I'm enjoying myself a lot
more.
>I'm creating a MUX. It has anthropomorphic elements and will
>likely be vastly dissimilar from the experience in many MUCKs. If
>not all of them. The history for it has been posted as a link here, if
>you want to help me by critiquing it.
HEY! I thought you didn't wanna be associated with us furry fandom types... -
:)
I like the genetic engineering aspect, especially with the ethical questions it
raises (I used to work at the Human Genome Project, way back when I was doing
wild and crazy things like that.) The aftereffects of the Chimera Wars are
interesting too, as I'm a big fan of modern ruins and all. The mutations to
plant life as a result don't make a lot of sense to me, though. It seems to me
you could get the same effect with a few decades of abandonment---I've seen
paved roads nearly obliterated by bushes and trees sprouting up in the cracks.
>> Furry fandom. Love it or change it. -:)
>
>Or remain on the fringe as I do.
Your choice, of course. Not that I'm saying it's a Bad Thing; it's a decision
you have to make for yourself anyway.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> In article <3A57FA3C...@recorder.ca>,
> "M. white" <mfw...@recorder.ca> wrote:
> > It kinda disappeared from the market and was a wonderful comic.
> >
> > Just was wondering......it was put out by Sirus comics.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > M White
>
> Well..for starters... Rik n Tavi's Reality Check will not be published
> anymore. The sales didn't hit the mark from later issues and Sirius
> dropped it. Rik n Tavi wanted to take it up themselves and publish it
> but Sirius, in their overblown whatever...held up the contract Tavicat
> signed, and said "Sorry, we own it now..." So needless to say, Rik n
> Tavi got screwed out of Catreec.. (A little character whom I've seen
> start as a fun sketch by Tavi) ..So Sirius owns RC, Rik n Tav get
> nada.. >;-( I know this...I've talk to Rik n Tavi over the phone and
> Sirius f*cked them out of RC...(IMHO)
Let this be a lesson to everyone : READ THE CONTRACT!!!!!!
Worked long and hard on your story? READ THE CONTRACT!!!
Want to produce your work later on? READ THE CONTRACT!!!
I can't say enough. My heart goes out to those guys, it sucks when
someone does you wrong, but just like crocodile hunting, take the proper
precautions before you set foot in the water.
TT
Dark Ren
xyd...@BEsmartDONTSPAM.net (Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC)
wrote:
> >Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC wrote:
> >I have heard the conventions are cleaning up. Which, of course,
is
> >a good thing. But I don't have to look outside to see that there
are
> >undesirable elements in this fandom.
>
> Undesirable is a relative term. What's undesirable to you may
not be
> undesirable to others. You can't expect everyone to like the
same things you
> do. (Actually, I'd advise against it... the folks who expect everyone
to like
> the same things they do seem to be the Unhappiest Of Them
All.)
Yes, yes. I know that. Just like morality can be entirely subjective.
But in my own line, jus like everyone else, lines are drawn as to
who is considered undesirable or not. I just tend to leave thoughts
thoughts in mind and don't rail on about them every chance I get.
> >But most times I'm the type who just leaves them to their own. I
> >don't really have the time or inclination to directly try and effect
> >change. It's a slow, tedious, annoying type of project.
>
> It's your decision to make, of course. My time is pretty valuable,
which is
> why having fun takes priority for me these days. I'm enjoying
myself a lot
> more.
Ditto. Hence the above statement.
> >I'm creating a MUX. It has anthropomorphic elements and will
> >likely be vastly dissimilar from the experience in many MUCKs.
If
> >not all of them. The history for it has been posted as a link here,
if
> >you want to help me by critiquing it.
>
> HEY! I thought you didn't wanna be associated with us furry
fandom types... -
> :)
Its me being fair since its entirely possible that 'furs' will want to
play there. I don't expect too many to dig in, though. The only
reason I posted that request for critique, as of yet untouched and
unanswered, here is to make sure I have a wide variety of opinions
on it from various sources. I've posted it on several newsgroups
and forums.
> I like the genetic engineering aspect, especially with the ethical
questions it
> raises (I used to work at the Human Genome Project, way back
when I was doing
> wild and crazy things like that.) The aftereffects of the Chimera
Wars are
> interesting too, as I'm a big fan of modern ruins and all. The
mutations to
> plant life as a result don't make a lot of sense to me, though. It
seems to me
> you could get the same effect with a few decades of
abandonment---I've seen
> paved roads nearly obliterated by bushes and trees sprouting up
in the cracks.
The effect on plants is because this serum that was created is
more than just a genetic manipulator. The mix in it was something
primal that has a profound effect on anything natural that it
touches. I've been thinking of further after effects to apply to the
world due to the nature of the serum.
> >> Furry fandom. Love it or change it. -:)
> >
> >Or remain on the fringe as I do.
>
> Your choice, of course. Not that I'm saying it's a Bad Thing; it's a
decision
> you have to make for yourself anyway.
Oh, no worries. I'm a very happy person so obviously it works for
me. Your milage may vary.
Michael Urban
Dennis Lee Bieber <wulf...@dm.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:34:37 -0500, PeterCat <pete...@furry.fan.org>
>(PeterCat) left the following spoor in alt.fan.furry:
>
>> don't care for Klingons, for example, and it's outrageous that some
>> people prefer to learn the made-up Klingon language instead of a real
>> human language used in real human cultures), but the only way _not_ to
>> be a fan of something is _not_ to admire it.
>>
>viable than other languages created in the past centuries -- esperanto, for
>example.
>
>
> Though I will concede that translating Hamlet into Klingon was
>probably overkill (yes, it does exist in print form). On par with the Latin
>"Winnie the Pooh".
There is also an Esperanto Winnie-the-Pooh -- an excellent translation,
actually. And Latin and Esperanto "Wizards of Oz", too. There
_are_ very young Esperanto speakers who might appreciate these
translations, but both the Latin and Esperanto versions of these
works are more usually of interest as text material for individuals
studying the languages. I suspect that the Klingon Hamlet, in contrast,
is primarily purchased as a novelty/gift item, and is actually deciphered
by a very small percentage of those owning copies. Dr. Lawrence Schoen,
head of the Klingon Language Institute, has privately indicated that
the number of people who can actually speak Klingon spontaneously
is very small, especially compared to some of the claims made
in the popular press (which are based on book sales).
The creation and study of created languages, whether Klingon,
Esperanto, Elvish, or anything else (siflay hraka!!), is a rewarding
hobby for many individuals. J.R.R. Tolkien wrote on this at some
length in "A Secret Vice", so I will not repeat his discussion
here. It always seems outrageous to _me_ that some people find
the way other people spend time on harmless hobbies "outrageous".
I imagine that if someone constructed a set of languages as elaborate
as Tolkien's in a "furry" context (for example, in a very popular
novel set in a world in which the Lupine language were depicted in
some detail, along with the related but very different Canine and
Vulpine languages, all descended from Old High Canid), with extensive
treatments of vocabulary, phonology, writing systems, and grammar,
that a fair number of fans who disdain Klingon would spend a fair
bit of time learning to write it, and that you would see a lot of
artwork inscribed with Lupine lettering (and the equally cunning
Ferret-Runes?) in convention art shows before long.