The 'humanity' of furries
Dave Peyton
It's been a long time since there's been any kind of philosophical
discussion in this newsgroup, hasn't it?
Well, if you'd like to help me change all that, read on...
One issue that I never recall having seen discussed around here is
how to deal with the non-humanity of furry characters in terms of
how they behave. In other words, how "human" should furries be?
Clearly, they have to have at least some human traits in a work of
fiction, because the audience will quickly become bored with any
story about characters that have no human traits at all, if only
because there's no common ground. So what are the alternatives?
As far as I can tell, writers (of both comics and text) take one
of two approaches to this problem. The first is to make their
furry characters completely human in every way except for physical
appearance (of which Hepcats and Usagi Yojimbo are just two of many
examples). Very often, one of the points of these works is that people
should be judged not by their appearance but by the content of
their character. (Sometimes this is even the central message of
the story.)
The other approach is to make the behavior of each character at
least partially a function of the character's species. Aesop's
fables fall into this category, as does Albedo. Many of these
stories simply use the animal species as a shorthand (and often
stereotypical) personality definition, such as with noble lions
and big bad wolves. A few, however, are much more subtle than
that. But in all cases, the stories work because the characters
are given human problems, and must struggle to solve those
problems -- therefore, they must act at least somewhat human.
Now it's your turn: as a fan, which type of story do you prefer,
or do you have a preference? Which do you believe is more effective
in being entertaining? And how "human" are the furries in your
favorite stories?
This is, after all, a *discussion* group -- I'd like to discuss
this issue.
The-one-who-will-SOON-get-a-real-job-and-be-able-to-go-to-
every-con-and-ultimately-become-more-famous-than-Sim,
^Dave^
(Dave Peyton)
hep...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Affurmative Action! | Misc. quotes (can you identify them?):
P.O. Box 10144 |
Austin, TX 78766-1144 USA | "What do you think, sirs?"
Messages (tel.): +1 512 346-8293 | "Shave my tongue?"
| "No, dear. I'm *implying* that you
| can't take care of yourself."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(How much moss would a MOSFET fete if a MOSFET could fete moss?)
Greywolf
> how they behave. In other words, how "human" should furries be?
Well, basically, I don't really care how human they "should" be. It varies
with the story. If you're writing about a bunch of genetic constructs that
serve humans ala Bladerunner, maybe they are virtually humans in animal suits.
If you're writing about a fantasy world where you think it'd be more
*interesting* to have characters share traits associated with their particular
animal types, so be it.
IMHO, whatever works for your story. When I hear people griping about furries
being humans in animal suits or that there are too many of or too few of some
particular type of animal, I don't really care much about it -- As far as I see
furrydom, it covers a lot of ground. If someone wants to define stories with
furries as requiring acceptance of certain values or inherently portraying
characters with particular personality characteristics, I think they're
unfairly trying to redefine "furrydom" to exclude a bunch of people.
I doodle a lot. I happen to like *drawing* characters that look like
animal-people. As for the stories that I may put them in, I'm not necessarily
concerned with making them *behave* like animals in any way, shape or form.
I'll write whatever story I'm able to come up with.
Anyway, let me clarify that my response is not meant to be a "rebuttal" to
Peyton or to suggest that he might be championing any sort of ideas that
furries "should" be animal-like or human-like or what-have-you. Just throwing
in my two-bits' worth in the spirit of continuing a discussion, eh? =)
--
-Jordan .. PEACO...@iscsvax.uni.edu
.OO. Jordan Peacock (Jordan Greywolf)
O/\O (New Address): 1610 Parker
-- Cedar Falls, IA 50613
Fuzzy Fox
>The first is to make their
>furry characters completely human in every way except for physical
>appearance (of which Hepcats and Usagi Yojimbo are just two of many
>examples).
When an author does this, I often wonder why the author chose to place
his characters in a furry universe. Humans would have worked just as
well, and probably might have expanded the readership as well, since not
everyone likes furries. I used to lump Albedo in this category, because
for the longest time the characters acted just like humans would -- they
just didn't look like humans. In the later issues, Gallacci has changed
his tone and now the characters occasionally acknowledge that they are
not human.
--
#ifdef TRUE | Fuzzy Fox fu...@netcom.com
#define TRUE 0 | a.k.a. David DeSimone an...@cleveland.freenet.edu
#define FALSE 1 | "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."
#endif | -- Mark Twain
Richard Chandler
> >The first is to make their
> >furry characters completely human in every way except for physical
> >appearance (of which Hepcats and Usagi Yojimbo are just two of many
> >examples).
>
> When an author does this, I often wonder why the author chose to place
> his characters in a furry universe. Humans would have worked just as
> well, and probably might have expanded the readership as well, since not
> everyone likes furries.
Maybe the creator just happens to like furries? Perhaps they're more
visually interesting? Also, it's easier to differentiate animal characters
from one another. Just look at a Marvel comic and see how exactly the same
all the characters are (Minus the accessories, like different costumes and
hair color).
This simulated .signature is to beat the quote limiter at UCBVAX, which
appears to be far too sensitive.
Booga Booga Booga Booga
Booga Booga Booga Booga
Booga Booga Booga Booga
Simon Raboczi
>hep...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Peyton) writes:
>>The first is to make their
>>furry characters completely human in every way except for physical
>>appearance (of which Hepcats and Usagi Yojimbo are just two of many
>>examples).
>When an author does this, I often wonder why the author chose to place
>his characters in a furry universe. Humans would have worked just as
>well...
One good reason to do this is for making a general statement about
human nature or society. Fables in which animals are substituted for
people (la Fontaine, Aesop, Luther, Orwell, etc.) are the most obvious
example. Not only does this sneak past whatever prejudices the reader
might have were real people used, but it makes the underlying truth of
the story independent of time and place. Aesop is again a particular
case in point. Because the function of the nonhuman characters in
these stories *is* to say something about human behavior, it seems
necessary that they should act substantially like humans.
Returning to Hepfox's initial question about how human we prefer our
furries:
The aspect which attracts me to the idea of anthropomorphs *is* their
differences from humans, particularly in the ways it shapes their
social behavior. A simple conversation can be a fascinating thing if
the reader is presented with a whole suite of nonverbal, nonhuman
cues. Humans use smiles and eyebrow movements; 'morphs have ear,
whisker and tail gestures to express themselves. This contrast can
provide interest for the reader, whilst remaining easy to relate to
due to the reader's familiarity with real animals. This familiarity
is an advantage furries have over realistic aliens. Others have noted
this as an advantage mammals have over birds or reptiles, as well.
--
,-_|\ Simon Raboczi (rab...@s1.elec.uq.oz.au)
/ * Department of Electrical Engineering
\_.--_/ University of Queensland, St Lucia
v Brisbane, Australia
Timothy Fay
>Maybe the creator just happens to like furries? Perhaps they're more
>visually interesting?
Maybe they're just easier to draw.
>...Also, it's easier to differentiate animal characters
>from one another. Just look at a Marvel comic and see how exactly the same
>all the characters are (Minus the accessories, like different costumes and
>hair color).
I think the same could be said for a lot of 'furry' material. Take away
their accessories and most of them look the same, too. And 'furry' stories
are often the same trite, uninteresting melodramas one finds in a lot
of mainstream comics (worse, in many cases). Any decent writer/artist
should be able to tell a story with an entire cast of, say, foxes, and have
each character clearly differentiated from the other. That this is not
often the case says something about the quality of most 'furry' material.
--
Reply to: ava...@pnet51.orb.mn.org
"Bowl a strike, not a spare; Revolution everywhere!" -RABL credo
Greywolf
> hep...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Peyton) writes:
>
>>The first is to make their
>>furry characters completely human in every way except for physical
>>appearance (of which Hepcats and Usagi Yojimbo are just two of many
>>examples).
>
> When an author does this, I often wonder why the author chose to place
> his characters in a furry universe. Humans would have worked just as
For me, there are a couple of reasons:
a) I like to draw furries. I don't like to feel forced to write about
characters that *have* to be totally alien from human behavior. Most of my
situations that I've been writing about (a ton of half-finished texts, some of
which I hope I can eventually get fixed up for Zoomorphica or Yarf, once I
solve the problem of Totally Inane Plots) have characters whose origins would
make human-like behavior desireable. i.e. "Replicants" created to serve humans
would probably work better if they behaved like (good, subserviant) humans
rather than uncivilized, quirky animals.
b) Furries' *physical* characteristics can be interesting. Winged dragons.
Spiky porcupines. Wolves with big gnashy teeth and sharp claws (Grrr!). Cats
with night vision and superhuman dexterity. You know, superhero stuff. The
stuff that powergamers thrive on. =) Never said my stories were any *good*,
just trying to provide some answers at least from my perspective.
Greywolf
> Subject: Re: The 'humanity' of furries
>
>> >The first is to make their
>> >furry characters completely human in every way except for physical
>> >appearance (of which Hepcats and Usagi Yojimbo are just two of many
>> >examples).
> from one another. Just look at a Marvel comic and see how exactly the same
That's a really good point, and one I'd hate to admit. =) Okay, so maybe not.
Anyway, one thing I've found is that, yah, it's easier to differentiate between
animal characters. Now, I *do* run into some problems when I have multiple
characters of the same "species", but that's just my own shortcoming as an
artist as I haven't gotten quite good enough yet to be able to draw the same
character over and over and over again for a comic and make him, her or it
distinct and consistent.
Another thing is that, for my political cartoons (which none of you get to see,
since that's just for a couple of local campus papers), I find it often more
convenient to throw in a few animals for characters. It automatically signals
that this is somewhat of an allegory or somesuch. Another thing is that when
drawing animals, the problem of ethnic backgrounds is something I don't have to
concern myself with. Am I drawing all of my characters to be anglo-saxons?
Most of my characters do stuff that is somewhat silly, so if I try to stick to
putting in every once in a while a character of a different ethnic background
and he happens to be in the cartoon as a not-so-serious character, would that
be taken the wrong way? If I go the *other* direction and insure that all
occurrences of ethnic minorities will place them as the "serious" characters in
my political cartoons, then will somebody thing I'm going to far? Okay, okay,
so I'm overreacting. I do that a lot. =) It's just another little thing in
that by drawing animal characters, it doesn't really matter as much. I can't
really draw a "generic human". For animals, just pick an animal I like to
draw, and that's that.
(Incidentally, most of my political cartoon characters *are* human, mainly
because most of the people involved in politics, to my knowledge, are not
furries. =) )
August Paul Yang
> Now it's your turn: as a fan, which type of story do you prefer,
>or do you have a preference? Which do you believe is more effective
>in being entertaining? And how "human" are the furries in your
>favorite stories?
Well, I like to think of the social differences in a mordern-day furry
world. In Captain Carrot and His Amazing Zoo Crew (blatant plug!),
the writer tired to determine how furry life would differ in a furry
world as opposed to our own. They started with the names of various
cities which were renamed to better suit the animal world in general
(and get alot of groans from pun-haters) like New Yak and Califurnia.
Then they tried to determine other major differences, like what
do the inhabitants of Earth-C eat? They can't eat "meat" in our sense
since eating one's neighbors tends to upset the community (as Jeffery
Dahmer learned). So they substituted a vegiterian diet for ALL the
people of Earth-C. Other things, like pets and non-senstiant (sp?)
animals, could not be covered due to the cancellation of the series.
August Paul Yang knows he's gonna get flamed for cross-posting to so many
groups but he thinks it's worth it if the Zoo Crew get their comic back.
wntr...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
john s nunnemacher
Let me just start with a blanket statement: I really dislike the fact
that there is a need to catagorize and define everything ... what
proportion of 'human' to 'animal' the characters in a given story are
does not make the story inherently any more or less legitimate than any
other story. These days there seems to be a prolific concentration
within 'furry fandom' of a few specific 'types' of furry characters,
leading in many ways to the discouragement and/or alienation of many
other types. Sigh. Anyway ...
In <1992Oct14.0...@netcom.com> fu...@netcom.com (Fuzzy Fox) writes:
>hep...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Peyton) writes:
>>The first is to make their
>>furry characters completely human in every way except for physical
>>appearance (of which Hepcats and Usagi Yojimbo are just two of many
>>examples).
>When an author does this, I often wonder why the author chose to place
>his characters in a furry universe.
Any number of reasons. (Back off, man, I did a research project on
this. ;) ) A few have been mentioned by some other folks already.
There's the potential for allegory or metaphor. There's the draw of
having something different to work with, something alien, something
non-human. There's the potential to use somewhat stereotyped
characters .. which is not necessarily a bad thing at all, if used
properly: it can help create a recognizable character in the
short-term without spending lots of time defining the character; or,
more interestingly, one can create a character that seems to be
stereotypical, then introduce some aspects of his/her personality that
seem to contradict the original stereotype, and thereby (if it's done
properly) give that character a great potential for depth ...
The list goes on ...
>Humans would have worked just as
>well, and probably might have expanded the readership as well, since not
>everyone likes furries.
Ooh, this one gets me too ... The fact that a story uses animal
characters should not, and does not, have a very heavy influence on its
readership. I do not write 'furry' stories, I write stories that use
animal characters for a variety of reasons. Basically, practically
ANY type of story can be done with animal characters and, if done
properly, it can appeal to a wide audience. (Just a few examples ..
Bugs Bunny and friends, Disney's 'Robin Hood' and, more recently and
successfully, Beast from 'Beauty and the Beast', as well as a
multitude of science fiction paperbacks in the bookstores all have
characters that are zoomorphic ('furry,' if you will) in nature, yet
none of these are restricted in appeal to a specific segment of scifi
fandom known as 'furry fandom.' Another prime example: Art
Spiegelman's 'Maus' is a powerful document that has brought much
praise from the literary and artistic elite alike ... and I hardly
ever hear mention of it in the fandom circles.
Simply, I contend that in spite of the existance of a scifi fandom
sect and a miriad of mid- to low-quality specialty publications, the
medium of animal stories *in general* should not be written off so
easily.
Just my twentytwo cents,
john
A
--
---------------------[ "Of all the luck, my parents had to be humans." ]
John Nunnemacher [ "Don't take it too hard. Humans provide ]
2426 Ivan Street [ some very important protein." -C&H ]
Bethlehem, PA 18017 E-mail: nunn...@moravian.edu
john s nunnemacher
>In <921015022...@intercon.com> mau...@INTERCON.COM (Richard Chandler) writes:
>>Maybe the creator just happens to like furries? Perhaps they're more
>>visually interesting?
>Maybe they're just easier to draw.
Argh ..
Yes, in many cases I will say this is true .. BUT .. there is also a
certain mastery that can be achieved.
It is 'easy' to draw animals as opposed to people, simply because
they're more recognizable at a glance ... It's got pointed ears and
black 'socks' and a white tuft on its tail, it must be a fox ... as
opposed to people, which are difficult to draw and to get a specific
likeness for (whether it be the likeness of a real person, or the
likeness of a single character drawn over and over.)
That, and the fact that since most readers see many more people in a
day than they see of any specific animal, it is much easier to see any
flaws in a drawing of a person than in an animal.
However, to draw animals *well* ... THAT is another matter entirely,
and it introduces many problems, some identical to the ones involved
in drawing people, and some entirely new.
>>[comparing similarities of Marvel characters, minus costume and hair
>> color]
>I think the same could be said for a lot of 'furry' material. Take away
>their accessories and most of them look the same, too.
Again, this is highly dependant on the talent of the artist in
question ...
>And 'furry' stories
>are often the same trite, uninteresting melodramas one finds in a lot
>of mainstream comics (worse, in many cases). Any decent writer/artist
>should be able to tell a story with an entire cast of, say, foxes, and have
>each character clearly differentiated from the other. That this is not
>often the case says something about the quality of most 'furry' material.
(Thank you for the second sentence in that paragraph ...)
Yes, thank you ... there IS a lot of 'furry' trite out there, but I
believe that is more a problem with the comic book and science fiction
mediums (that is, high percentage of trite) than it is a problem with
animal stories per se.
Anyway, I've rambled enough for now ...
Another two cents,
john
Peter da Silva
to their species, other than by gross physical skills. The main differences
are social (compare Dea with Hitzok's second: both foxes, but Dea is from
Dornthant and has quite a different attitude from the colonial colonel
and his aide), rather than genetic.
--
Peter da Silva. <pe...@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' "Megulegetted ma mar a farkasodat ?"
'U`
Dette kan umulig vaere mitt rom, eftersom jeg ikke puster ammoniakk.
Jason McIntosh
Woo, interesting li'l duscussion. Wish I knew how to quote on this old clunker
of a system, though...
Anyways... Being quite the omnivorous funnybook reader, I was pondering this
question myself just the other day...
It seems to me that, to some writers, funny animal characters are a useful tool
for when the story in question would simply be more "comfortable" with them
than it would would humans. I have a little trouble imagining Usagi Yojimbo
with an all human cast... that would add a big amount of "realism" to the
stories by itself, and it would be tough to pull of all the cartoony body
movements, facial expressions, and people saying "Yow yow!" all the time.
It could still be DONE, of course, and it might still work well... but furries
just seem natural for a semi-serious sort of role like this.
Surreal or extremely unnatural things like Sam & Max or even Looney Tunes also
apply just the same here, methinks...
With humans, the reader naturally expects some "standardness," but when ya
bring in the walkin' talkin' animals, well, that sort of tears down the stand-
ards just enough so that the writer can run with whatever he wants in the void
that's left over.
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
_ _
:\\_-_--/: Jason McIntosh
(c\\ \ /) io1...@maine.maine.edu
/ g g gar...@delphi.com
| _ __ __
\/ \\v\_\/)
\\_/ Oog, I'ze a wolf o' broken character...
-- or characters...
Worgfunk Need some Wheaties...
Greywolf
>
> Let me just start with a blanket statement: I really dislike the fact
> that there is a need to catagorize and define everything ... what
Well, I won't condemn the need to put labels on things, as I would say that
there are probably indeed a lot of different "types" of furry characters and
stories, and many "furry fans" may have preferences that lean toward one of
those more-or-less recognizeable categories. For instance, I do not
particularly care for "furotica". Also, I don't really consider myself in the
"Disney" camp (or Disney Afternoon) since I never watch the stuff -- I'm more
for "furry militech" stuff, like Chris Grant's *Empires* ... If there were a
series that had mecha, cybernetics, furries and humans in it, I'd probably be a
fan of that, too. =)
What irks me is when there is some sort of insinuation when something that
*does* have anthropomorphized animal characters might not be "truly furry", due
to various reasons. Maybe all "true furries" have to be built like humans,
maybe all "true furries" have to have animal-like quirks to their personalities
so they aren't "too human". But I don't think so. I had been of the
impression that "furry" is a rather broad term, covering everything from Bambi
to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to Bugs Bunny to the Kzinti to Maus to Empires
to Xanadu to the EDF to Omaha the Cat Dancer... and loads of other "categories"
I've failed to touch on. Non-human animal-like characters given human or
human-like (to some degree) personalities is how I thought it went.
> Any number of reasons. (Back off, man, I did a research project on
> this. ;) )
Research project? Cool! Tell more! =)
>>Humans would have worked just as
>>well, and probably might have expanded the readership as well, since not
>>everyone likes furries.
>
> Ooh, this one gets me too ... The fact that a story uses animal
> characters should not, and does not, have a very heavy influence on its
> readership. I do not write 'furry' stories, I write stories that use
Ditto here, insofar as views. As for my stories, they're too half-finished to
be worth classifying let alone considering anyway. The folks that I know who
don't like "furry stories" tend to be those who classify "furry" in a much
narrower term, and one which I think a lot of people use it for: Animal-like
characters with human-like anatomy, usually in very erotic situations.
A very exclusive definition, IMHO, but it's one that a lot of folks seem to
have (including the "definition" I got a long time back from R. Talsorian Games
about "Furry T** Fandom").
> fandom known as 'furry fandom.' Another prime example: Art
> Spiegelman's 'Maus' is a powerful document that has brought much
> praise from the literary and artistic elite alike ... and I hardly
> ever hear mention of it in the fandom circles.
Yeah, and I HOPE to get around to reading that. The campus library has it in
the Browsing section ... I just haven't been able to find the time to be able
to "browse" much of anything. Maybe with Furry down (and with the prospect of
continuing building ruled out) I'll have more time for such things...
> medium of animal stories *in general* should not be written off so
> easily.
Yeah, that *was* a bit of a painful generalization.
Richard Chandler
> are often the same trite, uninteresting melodramas one finds in a lot
> of mainstream comics (worse, in many cases). Any decent writer/artist
> should be able to tell a story with an entire cast of, say, foxes, and have
> each character clearly differentiated from the other. That this is not
> often the case says something about the quality of most 'furry' material.
Ow, GOOD SHOT Tim. I think part of the problem is that a lot of furry
artists learn one way to draw furries and stick to it. Even the luminaries
in the field, like Ken Sample have only one style. Can you picture him doing
a cartoon style? The only person I've seen attempt multiple styles so far
has been Joe Rosales who went from very realistic to straight cartoon with a
stop or two in between in the last Gallery. Well, no, Taral Wayne works in a
number of different styles too. I think the best artists are the ones who
draw furries by choice, rather than because they can't manage humans.
On the other hand, look at Stan Sakai. He has found one style that works,
but he also makes the characters individuals, who don't look the same even if
they're the same species. Sometimes the species in important, as in the
Neko, Mole and Bat ninjas, and other times it's not important, like Usagi's
relationship with Tomoe.
Hmmm, I think I'm blurring the distinction between the writing and the art
here. Is that distinction important in this discussion?