You're ALL full of it - Daphne's CF 10 report.

53 views
Skip to first unread message

Daphne Lage

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
Well, here's the cut and dry of ConFURence 10. I'm sure that there will be
others who will post more detailed versions of the convention.

The Hotel: One of the worst hotels I have encountered. Everything was impossible
to find, was a distance to walk to, and the food was *expensive* to boot. The
mall would have turned out all right if it was just open on *Sunday* (note to
new CF staff - get the show *away* from holidays!)

The Dealer's Room: Extremely spacious. CF could actually be mistaken for a
professional convention. Very well organized.

The Adult rules: The beauty of hypocrisy - The hotel was busted selling
Penthouse in its Gift Shop and could not hold the porn ban over our heads. The
only rule was that everything had to be covered and marked as ADULT, but other
than that, there was no problem with selling adult stuff in the dealer's room.
(Sorry anti-spoogers. You lose. Try again.)

Coolest moment: The guards checking on everyone were actually looking through
books and enjoying the art! They giggled while looking through my adult stuff
and told me to keep on "drawing money" as I sketched away in someone's
blackbook. Guys after my own heart. If *they* didn't care about the adult stuff,
why should I?

Beauty of hypocrisy part 2: Despite the last minute adult policy - guess what
the best seller was - Yes, that's right - ADULT ART! NOTHING CHANGED! There was
no upswing in non-erotica sales - in fact, my stats show they did *worse* than
years before. So there's your answer - if forced to not buy erotic art, people
would rather BUY NOTHING AT ALL than spend their money on non-erotica they don't
want. And those who did buy the non-erotica, they were so few and far in
between, they barely made a dent. It was the Erotica that saved me and made me
decide to come back next year. Sorry again, anti-spoogers. Come back when
there's more than THREE of you and maybe I'll take your rants more seriously!

Most Glaring Omission: Weirdos! Everyone was *extremely* well behaved. It was
obvious that the more "flamboyant" members of fandom decided to stay home and it
showed. Yes - you *can* have erotica and have a family show at the same time!

Most outstanding personal moment: Watching Pete Stoller put on the Jack Salem
costume while we hung out in his hotel room. It was utterly surreal and we took
turns helping him out. I got to see the costume close up for the first time and
I was *amazed* at the quality and the detail! It was strange - once he put the
head on, he *literally* stopped being Pete and turned into Jack. He became a
*real* furry! It was weird and I loved every minute of it!

Best new policy: PRESS LIAISONS! All the dealers and congoers were warned not
talk to any press members not accompanied
by con staff. This made it difficult for the few camera crews to get anyone to
cooperate with them, and when they did, they were well supervised. I still have
no hope that the final programs will be positive but at least we can honestly
say that we made the effort!

Most annoying moment: One of those film crews tried to "sneak footage" of myself
and a group of friends as we were trying to decide where to go to dinner. I saw
the microphone slowly getting closer and the camera aimed at us so I promptly
warned everyone. Some of the group decided to act up for the camera but just
basic goofiness. The fishing on part of the camera crew was obvious.

Most Glaring Omission part 2: Con Attendance was obviously lower and sales
noticeably declined for almost everyone. Again - if it wasn't for the Adult
stuff, I would have been a sitting duck! Also, it seemed there was less money
being tossed around in general. People were being *extremely* conservative with
their purchases.

Funniest Ironic story: The *guards* were actually complaining about the no
nudity policy because of the way it affected the Cabaret!

Most Glaring Omission part 3: you would think with all the online BS about the
"burned furs" that would have been the topic of the con. In fact, not only did
no one even mention "burned fur" once - no one CARED. Maybe there really are
just 3 people on the newsgroups...

Most surprising question: "Do you have any vixens? I can't find prints of vixens
anywhere!" There goes the stereotype!

Most requested animal: RABBITS! (kinda obvious, eh?)

Most surprising encounter: Meeting James Hardiman. I was expecting some
"uberfreak" ala Steve Martin judging from the artwork I've seen. James was the
most soft-spoken, polite, and sweetest person at the show. His adult stuff is
still *nasty* but he took that as a compliment. :)

Overall Feel: A good show despite the low sales. I was surprised by the level of
professionalism from both the staff and the congoers and the whole experience
has shed a new light on my erotica. I've gained a new appreciativeness for my
dirty work and decided that if anyone is going to judge me negatively because of
them then f*ck 'em. If they don't like it, it's all covered anyway and they
don't have to look. And if the stuff bothered you enough that its presence kept
you away, well here's some news for you - NO ONE NOTICED.

Getting ready for the next show...

--Daphne Lage
****************************************************************
The EgoWorks - Free catalog available -
http://www.advanix.net/~egoraven/
****************************************************************
TALL TAILS - The Official Homepage
http://www.advanix.net/~egoraven/ttmain.htm
****************************************************************
"The only thing you can change is yourself,
but sometimes that changes everything." - Anonymous
****************************************************************


Sparkplug

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
In article <7ecaid$d50$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>, "Daphne Lage"
<egor...@advanix.net> wrote:

> Beauty of hypocrisy part 2: Despite the last minute adult policy - guess what
> the best seller was - Yes, that's right - ADULT ART! NOTHING CHANGED!
There was
> no upswing in non-erotica sales - in fact, my stats show they did *worse* than
> years before. So there's your answer - if forced to not buy erotic art, people
> would rather BUY NOTHING AT ALL than spend their money on non-erotica
they don't
> want. And those who did buy the non-erotica, they were so few and far in
> between, they barely made a dent. It was the Erotica that saved me and made me
> decide to come back next year.


So, "furry" -IS- all about adult art and spooge and Confurence is nothing
but the Naughty Crafts Faire of furry fandom. Thanks for clearing THAT up
for us!


Keith W

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
In article <7ecaid$d50$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>,
"Daphne Lage" <egor...@advanix.net> wrote:

[Most Glaring Omission: Weirdos! Everyone was *extremely* well behaved. It was


[obvious that the more "flamboyant" members of fandom decided to stay home and it
[showed. Yes - you *can* have erotica and have a family show at the same time!

The wierdos are the real problem with erotica.

[Best new policy: PRESS LIAISONS! All the dealers and congoers were warned not


[talk to any press members not accompanied
[by con staff. This made it difficult for the few camera crews to get anyone to
[cooperate with them, and when they did, they were well supervised. I still have
[no hope that the final programs will be positive but at least we can honestly
[say that we made the effort!

As a member of the Hated News Media, let me say that at any function
like this, I for one PREFER having a press liason program in
operation. Not only does it help me get my tape in the most
efficient manner, it also means that if anyone gripes about what we
put on the air, we can say that EVERYTHING was done with the liason
looking over our shoulders.

Liasons also help us understand details that we need to write a good
story -- especially in the SF / Fantasy fandom world, where the EASY
story is "look at the oddballs." Media handlers on a con staff can
help a reporter find the positive story.

[Most annoying moment: One of those film crews tried to "sneak footage" of myself


[and a group of friends as we were trying to decide where to go to dinner. I saw
[the microphone slowly getting closer and the camera aimed at us so I promptly
[warned everyone. Some of the group decided to act up for the camera but just
[basic goofiness. The fishing on part of the camera crew was obvious.

Why was this annoying?

Not having been there, but being in this position daily, my guess is
that the photojournalist was trying for what we call "B-roll" --
something to be put behind a voice-over report. When we shoot
B-roll, we try to get "natural sound" -- in this case, you and the
others discussing dinner -- to run at a low level just to provide a
connection to what's on the screen.

Trust me, your dietary choices are NOT big news. Usually. ;)

BTW, acting up for the camera is not a good idea, if you are
generally trying to show maturity OR if the reporter is trying to
show IMmaturity.

While I would never run the 3 seconds of a defense attorney in a
murder case giving me the "Calvin face," (she did!), if I were
looking to poke fun at the "SF crazies" I would be looking for people
who ham up for the camera.

It's best to just IGNORE the camera, do what you are doing that
attracted the unblinking eye in the first place.

Graf

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to

Sparkplug wrote in message ...

>So, "furry" -IS- all about adult art and spooge and Confurence is >nothing
but the Naughty Crafts Faire of furry fandom. Thanks for >clearing THAT up
for us!

Now this is the odd thing: some artists sold like hot cakes, others didn't.
As for myself, I was honestly surprised at what I sold.

Here's the quick break down:

Total images available: 19 nonsexual images, 19 pin up/nude studies
Total images sold: 60 45% sexual, 55% nonsexual.
The set of Chinese tigers (seen up on Yerf) were the most popular nonsexual
print, Skinwalker: Tiger (weretiger shifting from human to tiger) was the
most popular sexual print. This wasn't spoogey or sexual, it's a study in
male anatomy and sensual if anything. I've been smirking in amusement
because it had three dots over the naughty area because of the angle, not
because he was hung hugely.

I didn't get as much info as I would have liked (I found myself being the
business liason for Limelight most of the con O_o) but what I did find out
was it seemed to be a 50/50 thing almost. Some artists sold more because of
the masking especially if the piece had many stickers on it, some sold
nothing at all. Daphne and I wound up speaking with two arists Friday night
and comparing notes (I'm not sure if mentioning who they are is kosher).
One who has nothing but nonsexual pieces (really beautiful ones too) was
having problems selling anything, while her SO who had more cheesecake
pieces (think Alberto Varga and the actual pin up girls of WW2) had things
moving fast. He told us people would either look or ask for one of
everything, all 21 prints, and not blink an eye to pay for originals which
were $160 or more.

Personally, I think the economics were really weird this con mainly due to
the rules change. Some customers came to the con not expecting to find ANY
sexual materials and didn't bring as much money as they usually did to CF.
Many just weren't sure what to expect so were rather wary, this is just an
impression I and several others I spoke with had throughout the con.

Any other artists there care to give their impressions?


--Tygger L. Graf

Doodles

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 02:44:38 -0400, "Daphne Lage"
<egor...@advanix.net> wrote:

>The Hotel: One of the worst hotels I have encountered. Everything was impossible
>to find, was a distance to walk to, and the food was *expensive* to boot. The
>mall would have turned out all right if it was just open on *Sunday* (note to
>new CF staff - get the show *away* from holidays!)

$85 a night and no coffeemakers in the rooms. And my room had this
horrible faux Hawaiian motif on the drapes and beadspreads. Looked
like one of Scott Shaw!'s rejects. Egad.

Loved the soap, though. Stole about 20 bars of each. =};-3

>The Dealer's Room: Extremely spacious. CF could actually be mistaken for a
>professional convention. Very well organized.

If It hadn't been for all the other problems, the conspace at the main
building would have been just what we needed. No more.

>The Adult rules: The beauty of hypocrisy - The hotel was busted selling
>Penthouse in its Gift Shop and could not hold the porn ban over our heads.

Unca Spooge strikes again! =};-3

>Most Glaring Omission: Weirdos! Everyone was *extremely* well behaved. It was
>obvious that the more "flamboyant" members of fandom decided to stay home and it
>showed. Yes - you *can* have erotica and have a family show at the same time!

I suspect the weather had a lot to do with it. It's not easy wearing
nothing but a thong bikini when the temperature is in the 40's. =};-3

>Most outstanding personal moment: Watching Pete Stoller put on the Jack Salem
>costume while we hung out in his hotel room. It was utterly surreal and we took
>turns helping him out. I got to see the costume close up for the first time and
>I was *amazed* at the quality and the detail! It was strange - once he put the
>head on, he *literally* stopped being Pete and turned into Jack. He became a
>*real* furry! It was weird and I loved every minute of it!

That costume ofd Pete's is simply amazing. And for those of us
familiar with Mr. Salem, more than a tad scary. =};-3

>Most requested animal: RABBITS! (kinda obvious, eh?)

Yes, but were any more of them harem bunnies? =};-3

>Most surprising encounter: Meeting James Hardiman. I was expecting some
>"uberfreak" ala Steve Martin judging from the artwork I've seen. James was the
>most soft-spoken, polite, and sweetest person at the show. His adult stuff is
>still *nasty* but he took that as a compliment. :)

I literally had the same reaction when I met him at CF9. Jim is one
of the nicest guys I've met in the fandom. And he doesn't have enough
ego to fill a teaspoon. What floored me was finding out that his
_mom_ was with him! They're both very personable and very nice
people.

Unca Spooge, pleased as punch. =};-3

Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
>
>The Hotel: One of the worst hotels I have encountered. Everything was impossible
>to find, was a distance to walk to, and the food was *expensive* to boot. The

"Too expensive"? It seemed pretty-much par for con hotels of my experiance.

>
>Beauty of hypocrisy part 2: Despite the last minute adult policy - guess what
>the best seller was - Yes, that's right - ADULT ART! NOTHING CHANGED! There was
>no upswing in non-erotica sales - in fact, my stats show they did *worse* than
>years before. So there's your answer - if forced to not buy erotic art, people
>would rather BUY NOTHING AT ALL than spend their money on non-erotica they don't
>want. And those who did buy the non-erotica, they were so few and far in
>between, they barely made a dent. It was the Erotica that saved me and made me

>being tossed around in general. People were being *extremely* conservative with
>their purchases.

A false conclusion. many of the usual suspects amoung fans who buy were
those who had shot their wad at the bay area con about two months
earlier, or they didn't show up at all. My art sales are almost entierely
"clean" and were way down, largely because the buyers were sitting on
their lean wallets.

Tehrasha Darkon

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
In article <370abe88...@206.165.3.70>, doo...@cheezies.primenet.com
(Doodles) wrote:

>$85 a night and no coffeemakers in the rooms. And my room had this
>horrible faux Hawaiian motif on the drapes and beadspreads. Looked
>like one of Scott Shaw!'s rejects. Egad.
>
>Loved the soap, though. Stole about 20 bars of each. =};-3

And now rooms are $95 per night. :)

--Teh
--
Tehrasha Darkon / The Relaxed Dragon ------Spam Kill Ratio------
TINLC-1372 / dar...@netins.net Month of February --- 62.9%
My mailbox is NOT an advertisement medium. 12 Month Average --- 48.3%
My address is NOT for sale, lease or rent. ---------------------------
Send me spam, lose your account. Get it? Apparently many don`t.

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Daphne Lage wrote:
>
> Well, here's the cut and dry of ConFURence 10. I'm sure that there will be
> others who will post more detailed versions of the convention.
>
> The Hotel: One of the worst hotels I have encountered. Everything was impossible
> to find, was a distance to walk to, and the food was *expensive* to boot. The
> mall would have turned out all right if it was just open on *Sunday* (note to
> new CF staff - get the show *away* from holidays!)

Rest assured... We are NOT going back to the T&C, and since Easter is so late
next year, we will NOT be held on that weekend. (Give me till the end of the
month for details, though... I've got a *lot* of research to do.)

> The Dealer's Room: Extremely spacious. CF could actually be mistaken for a
> professional convention. Very well organized.

Expect more of the same.

> The Adult rules: The beauty of hypocrisy - The hotel was busted selling
> Penthouse in its Gift Shop and could not hold the porn ban over our heads. The
> only rule was that everything had to be covered and marked as ADULT, but other
> than that, there was no problem with selling adult stuff in the dealer's room.

As we expected, the Hotel gave us their most extreme rules up front, knowing
well that we would push it to the extremes. They've hosted a LOT of fandom and
sex-based cons, and were simply handlng us professionally. Finding the Playboy
and Penthouse in their bookshop was indeed a relief, but as it turns out, we
didn't have to use that as "ammunition" when negotiating with them.

> Coolest moment: The guards checking on everyone were actually looking through
> books and enjoying the art! They giggled while looking through my adult stuff
> and told me to keep on "drawing money" as I sketched away in someone's
> blackbook. Guys after my own heart. If *they* didn't care about the adult stuff,
> why should I?

The Hotel security *really* wanted to see the show... :) Even Mr. Lenier (older
gentleman who was with the hotel and floating around all weekend) was having fun
Saturday night with an uproaring Nazi Badge routine. His "I don't need no
steenking badge!" with a hungarian accent had our security team and Michael
Underwood rolling on the floor.

> Beauty of hypocrisy part 2: Despite the last minute adult policy - guess what
> the best seller was - Yes, that's right - ADULT ART! NOTHING CHANGED! There was
> no upswing in non-erotica sales - in fact, my stats show they did *worse* than

I didn't get to see the art show (stuck behind info table and catering to my new
girlfriend's needs the whole weekend) but I was told that the more pasties, the
better the bidding was! :)

> Most Glaring Omission: Weirdos! Everyone was *extremely* well behaved. It was
> obvious that the more "flamboyant" members of fandom decided to stay home and it
> showed. Yes - you *can* have erotica and have a family show at the same time!

Good point. I guess the fandom is maturing. I fully plan to organize CF11 so
that you could bring your parents if you wanted to. CF10 proved that it's
possible, since Ken Neilson brought his mother, and she had a good time.

> Best new policy: PRESS LIAISONS! All the dealers and congoers were warned not
> talk to any press members not accompanied
> by con staff. This made it difficult for the few camera crews to get anyone to
> cooperate with them, and when they did, they were well supervised. I still have
> no hope that the final programs will be positive but at least we can honestly
> say that we made the effort!

Next year, we will try to solicit our own press instead of being subject to
those who want to attend just so that they can exploit us. Having an official
Press Liason on staff helped tame things, but allowing a show called "EuroTrash"
to even come to the con wasn't the best of ideas. I guess we'll all find out
how bad an idea it was when they finally go to air in about 3 or 4 months.

> Most annoying moment: One of those film crews tried to "sneak footage" of myself
> and a group of friends as we were trying to decide where to go to dinner. I saw
> the microphone slowly getting closer and the camera aimed at us so I promptly
> warned everyone. Some of the group decided to act up for the camera but just
> basic goofiness. The fishing on part of the camera crew was obvious.

They were also "caught" setting up someone at the FurDance to be "groped" by
their fursuiter while on camera. I didn't see the details of the groping (it
was described as being somewhat tame, not reaching for any genitals), but my
understanding is that since that person didn't sign a press release, we can ask
that Eurotrash doesn't use that footage. I don't think this will be a problem,
but again, we'll see what happens in 4 months.

> Most Glaring Omission part 2: Con Attendance was obviously lower and sales
> noticeably declined for almost everyone. Again - if it wasn't for the Adult
> stuff, I would have been a sitting duck! Also, it seemed there was less money
> being tossed around in general. People were being *extremely* conservative with
> their purchases.

We're still adding things up, but overall sales were low. In particular, I
heard that we took a bath on the Pizza Feed and not many pieces went to auction
as expected. Attendance was down to CF8's numbers.

> Most Glaring Omission part 3: you would think with all the online BS about the
> "burned furs" that would have been the topic of the con. In fact, not only did
> no one even mention "burned fur" once - no one CARED. Maybe there really are
> just 3 people on the newsgroups...

The Burned Furs for themost part are not actively vocal. That would go against
some of what they believe in. The most common misconception of the Burned Furs
is that they are a flame group. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. the Burned furs are
simply tired of *being* flamed, hence the name.

I did see a LOT of "Soaked Fur" buttons, which goes to show you that the Anti
Burned Fur movement is actually the vocal activist group. Of course, the
"Soaked Fur" button was mostly mis-read as having to do with the rain. :)

> Most surprising encounter: Meeting James Hardiman. I was expecting some
> "uberfreak" ala Steve Martin judging from the artwork I've seen. James was the
> most soft-spoken, polite, and sweetest person at the show. His adult stuff is
> still *nasty* but he took that as a compliment. :)

It's all about meeting others... that's what the Convention is really for.

> Overall Feel: A good show despite the low sales. I was surprised by the level of
> professionalism from both the staff and the congoers and the whole experience
> has shed a new light on my erotica. I've gained a new appreciativeness for my
> dirty work and decided that if anyone is going to judge me negatively because of
> them then f*ck 'em. If they don't like it, it's all covered anyway and they
> don't have to look. And if the stuff bothered you enough that its presence kept
> you away, well here's some news for you - NO ONE NOTICED.

I hope that the fandom can realize how much panicking about nothing went on.
Those of you who pulled out at the last minute and didn't show (which was less
than 30 people judging by unclaimed pre-reg badges) understand that they missed
out on an overall good convention.

--
Darrel L. Exline, darrelx(a)home.com, http://www.polarden.org
a.k.a. Jym_Chago, "Your friendly neighborhood Polar Bear"
--> "ConFurence 11" Director and Co-chair, Spring 2000 <--
"The operative word for CF11 will be "Discretion". This is *not* to be
mistaken for censorship or oppression."

Kyle Webb

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Darrel L. Exline wrote:

> The Burned Furs for themost part are not actively vocal. That would go against
> some of what they believe in. The most common misconception of the Burned Furs
> is that they are a flame group. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. the Burned furs are
> simply tired of *being* flamed, hence the name.

You can write this, Darrel, but it goes against the history of several
months of flame wars on AFF. You may mean well, but this is an
outright rewrite of history. I could agree if you said that both sides
were at fault for starting the flame wars, but the above is not
accurate.

Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet

Graf

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to

<tamar_...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7egvih$5hi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...

> Not necessarily. It just proves that that's what people in the >majority
will acturally put down money to buy. Don't blame the >artist blame the
customers. Afterall, they're the one's making the >demand. If you want more
"clean" art, I guess more people will >have to start requesting more clean
art. Artist have to make >money too, though that seems like a great evil
for some reason.
> Not all artists are supposed to bo starving ya know. That went >out with
the Modern art movement.

Nono, Tamar, it's the customers have to be willing to put their money where
their words are and BUY more clean art. However, that one little thing is
very hard for some to even understand or even accept. They have to blame
the income artists, either on a whole or singly, for the problem out there.
Nothing much is said about the buying habits of the fans, oh no, it's always
dumped on the artists, especially the ones who are income artists. Yeah,
okay, we made the choice and some of us actually do like doing the sexual
art (be it pin ups or racier), but it's not fair (not that some of you out
there care about that) to put all the blame on us. It takes two for a
situation.

I agree with Daphne, you're all full of it.

To those artists who do sexual art to supplement your incomes: best of luck
to you! Remember, what is said online is NOT the voice of the fandom no
matter how much it seems like it. Stick with your friends for support when
you need it. The ones who kick you and give you hassle have NO interest at
all in understanding.

For the record: my rather badgery comments are aimed at those who give
artists hassle, who don't care to understand what it is they go thru, who
take what is said and twist and/or misinterpret deliberately, deliberately
go out of their way to push buttons, etc etc ad nauseum.


--Tygger L. Graf

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
[DISCLAIMER: Y'know, I'm aware most everyone is tired of hearing about
Burned Fur on this newsgroup, and yeah, it would be nice if that
discussion moved to alt.fan.furry.politics instead of cropping up here,
but c'est la vie... if other folks are gonna talk about it on AFF, I've
got just as much right to be heard there as well.]

Darrel L. Exline wrote:
> The Burned Furs for themost part are not actively vocal. That would go against
> some of what they believe in. The most common misconception of the Burned Furs
> is that they are a flame group. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

It isn't?

"If I ever run into [Xydexx] at a con, I'll put his fucking
head through a wall."
---Clint Forrester

"Shutup, Xydexx... Shut up, Xydexx... You sir, yes YOU, Xydexx
Squeakypony, are a troll, a coward, a hypocrite, and most of
all, a complete FUCKHEAD... You make me sick. Shut the fuck
up, Xydexx."
---Clint Forrester

"Xydexx, shut your goddamn patronizing mouth and go back
to fucking your pool toys."
---Hangdog

I think that's enough examples for the moment.

Darrel Exline has said what he wants most from the Burned Fur Movement
is for everyone to enjoy being furry, however they define it. That's a
nice thought, but since Burned Fur has a longstanding history of being
(and continues to be) downright hostile towards even a modicum of
tolerance or compromise, it'll be a cold day in hell before that
changes.

"'Can't we all just get along?' No. No, we can't."
---Squee Rat, author of the Burned Fur Manifesto

I think I'll leave off with this quote regarding the whole CF10 mess
from someone who, despite his claims that "a friend" was using his
account when he posted as Sir Yiffnot a few days before CF10, posted
something surprisingly similar to the Burned Fur newsgroup only days
earlier:

"I must say when I heard the news, I almost died laughing.
Finally! Someone is smart enough to say "No way!" to porn!
Man of man, it's funny watching all these over-sexed freaks
of nature bitch about the loss of "Pornferance". Artists
will have to acutally USE THEIR IMAGINATIONS for a change!"
---Ottergame

____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, not a Burned Fur [ICQ: 7569393]
"The only problem with not participating in flamewars is
that nobody notices you're not participating in them." -Me

tamar_...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/8/99
to
In article <ssmith-ya02408000...@news.supernews.com>,

ssm...@att.world.net (Sparkplug) wrote:
> In article <7ecaid$d50$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>, "Daphne Lage"
> <egor...@advanix.net> wrote:
>
> > Beauty of hypocrisy part 2: Despite the last minute adult policy - guess what
> > the best seller was - Yes, that's right - ADULT ART! NOTHING CHANGED!
> There was
> > no upswing in non-erotica sales - in fact, my stats show they did *worse* than
> > years before. So there's your answer - if forced to not buy erotic art, people
> > would rather BUY NOTHING AT ALL than spend their money on non-erotica
> they don't
> > want. And those who did buy the non-erotica, they were so few and far in
> > between, they barely made a dent. It was the Erotica that saved me and made me
> > decide to come back next year.
>
> So, "furry" -IS- all about adult art and spooge and Confurence is nothing
> but the Naughty Crafts Faire of furry fandom. Thanks for clearing THAT up
> for us!
>
>

Not necessarily. It just proves that that's what people in the majority will


acturally put down money to buy. Don't blame the artist blame the customers.
Afterall, they're the one's making the demand. If you want more "clean" art,
I guess more people will have to start requesting more clean art. Artist
have to make money too, though that seems like a great evil for some reason.
Not all artists are supposed to bo starving ya know. That went out with the

Modern art movement. Ebony Leopard

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Keith W

unread,
Apr 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/8/99
to
In article <darkon-0704...@192.168.0.1>,
dar...@netins.net (Tehrasha Darkon) wrote:
[In article <370abe88...@206.165.3.70>, doo...@cheezies.primenet.com

[(Doodles) wrote:
[
[>$85 a night and no coffeemakers in the rooms. And my room had this
[>horrible faux Hawaiian motif on the drapes and beadspreads. Looked
[>like one of Scott Shaw!'s rejects. Egad.
[>
[>Loved the soap, though. Stole about 20 bars of each. =};-3
[
[And now rooms are $95 per night. :)

Hey, SOMEONE has to pay for all that soap . . .

Farlo

unread,
Apr 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/8/99
to
"Darrel L. Exline" dar...@home.com wrote in <370BC99A...@home.com>:

>In particular, I
>heard that we took a bath on the Pizza Feed

The pizza deal that went on about 5pm in the dealer's den?
It was so nasty, that I told the Hotel man in charge,
"the pizza ... never do this again".

If the money went to CF, I am happy to eat it, but you guys were robbed.
Their chef should be deeply embarrassed. Calling him a "cook" would be
too much - "food handler" is more accurate.

Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon
http://www.dejanews.com/~furculture

Alan TriGem

unread,
Apr 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/8/99
to
(BTW like the title, hehe) ((BTW, BTW, I am not all with it, but was writting
this in an attempt to lighten my own mood before I go in for a drug test,
eventhough it is clean, the test that is, I am still pretty nervous, bare
with me.))

> The Hotel: One of the worst hotels I have encountered.

No, the holtel in Oklahoma near the New Mexico border is the worst, should
have figured for $24 for a double :P

...


> than that, there was no problem with selling adult stuff in the dealer's room.
> (Sorry anti-spoogers. You lose. Try again.)

Go directly to jail, do not pass go, and do not collet $200 (sorry, just had
to do it.)

> Coolest moment: The guards checking on everyone were actually looking through
> books and enjoying the art! They giggled while looking through my adult stuff
> and told me to keep on "drawing money" as I sketched away in someone's
> blackbook. Guys after my own heart. If *they* didn't care about the adult
> stuff, why should I?

Wonders if anyone remembers 'Tiny' from AAC 98?

> Most Glaring Omission: Weirdos! Everyone was *extremely* well behaved. It was
> obvious that the more "flamboyant" members of fandom decided to stay home and
> it showed. Yes - you *can* have erotica and have a family show at the same >
time!

Nah.. I couldn't get ride out their :) hehe. (ducks for the fly by insults)

> Most outstanding personal moment: Watching Pete Stoller put on the Jack Salem
> costume while we hung out in his hotel room. It was utterly surreal and we
> took turns helping him out.

Believe it or not, at AAC 98 (after some talking and checking logs) I
remember the time Jack Salem came to the room I was in. Me and three other
furs were sitting around, then there was a knock on the door, I answered it
and there was a big black wolf costume staring at me. The guy took of the
mask, and was our roommate. Freaked the crap out of us, he was also the same
guy who miracously pulled out a sweaty cold iced tea, and a steamy cup of
noodles next to a chair out of a duffle bag. (you know who you are) That
was also very surrealistic, or just plain weird. Speaking of weird,
http://www.whatisthematrix.com ;)

Figures it would be nearly a year or so later till realization had set in.
*blah*

> Most annoying moment: One of those film crews tried to "sneak footage" of

*snip*
> obvious.

Nah, just start talking about Technobabble, Thermonuclear war, Politcs,
and/or Sex in some form or fashion. They will either join in, or go away
mad. Works, try it at a diner sometime ;) hehe.

> Funniest Ironic story: The *guards* were actually complaining about the no
> nudity policy because of the way it affected the Cabaret!

*smirks* Men in uniforms... What do you expect? :Þ

> Most Glaring Omission part 3: you would think with all the online BS about the
> "burned furs" that would have been the topic of the con. In fact, not only did
> no one even mention "burned fur" once - no one CARED. Maybe there really are
> just 3 people on the newsgroups...

No there are more then 3, sorry Ms. Lage. Just ALOT of them don't tend to be
as vocal as others. Suprsingly enough I have a few friends who are BF's and
have been corresponding with a few more. *shrug* Imagine that.

> Most requested animal: RABBITS! (kinda obvious, eh?)

SHOCK HORROR! (CHUCKLE!)

> Overall Feel: A good show despite the low sales. I was surprised by the level
> of professionalism from both the staff and the congoers and the whole >

experience has shed a new light on my erotica. I've gained a new >
appreciativeness for my dirty work and decided that if anyone is going to >
judge me negatively because of them then f*ck 'em. If they don't like it,
it's > all covered anyway and they don't have to look. And if the stuff
bothered you > enough that its presence kept you away, well here's some news
for you - NO ONE > NOTICED.

WTG! Although, he who voices loudest about not wanting to see something, is
usually the first with the binoculars.

> Getting ready for the next show...
>
> --Daphne Lage

Heh.. hopefully this wolf can make it to the next con, but probbly not.

*(THIS WAS A TEST, A TEST OF THE EMERGENCY BRAINCAST SYSTEM, AS THIS TEST WAS
CONDUCTED AT 6:45AM AFTER 18 HOURS OF WAKEFULLNESS, SOME COMMENTS OR CONTENT
MAY HAVE BEEN AN ATTEMPT AT HUMOR. IF THIS TEST OF HUMOR WASN'T REAL, I
WOULDN'T BE HONKING YOUR NOSE)*

---
Alan "TriGem" Kennedy

http://www.furnation.com/trigem

*A wolf dreading having to go have a drug test for a new job in about 1 hour*

Farlo

unread,
Apr 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/8/99
to
"Alan "TriGem" Kennedy" tri...@hotmail.com wrote in
<7ei1hk$10o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:

>*A wolf dreading having to go have a drug test for a new job in about 1
hour*

Good luck on the new job! :)

Hollie

unread,
Apr 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/8/99
to
On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 10:48:22 GMT, Alan "TriGem" Kennedy
<tri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> The Hotel: One of the worst hotels I have encountered.
>

>No, the holtel in Oklahoma near the New Mexico border is the worst, should
>have figured for $24 for a double :P

Try the Ramada Inn in "beautiful downtown" Beaumont, TX. My mother
referred to it as a "roach-infested hell-hole."
.


>> than that, there was no problem with selling adult stuff in the dealer's room.
>> (Sorry anti-spoogers. You lose. Try again.)

I saw people get really creative with the post-it notes and covering
up the naughty bits. You oughta see what we did to our badges. :)

>> Coolest moment: The guards checking on everyone were actually looking through
>> books and enjoying the art! They giggled while looking through my adult stuff
>> and told me to keep on "drawing money" as I sketched away in someone's
>> blackbook. Guys after my own heart. If *they* didn't care about the adult
>> stuff, why should I?
>

>Wonders if anyone remembers 'Tiny' from AAC 98?

Wasn't there, I'm afraid.

>> Most Glaring Omission: Weirdos! Everyone was *extremely* well behaved. It was
>> obvious that the more "flamboyant" members of fandom decided to stay home and
>> it showed. Yes - you *can* have erotica and have a family show at the same >
>time!

Oh, there was a very misbehaved young man at the cabaret planning
meeting. He was the exception rather than the rule, though. More on
him in my own con report.


>> Funniest Ironic story: The *guards* were actually complaining about the no
>> nudity policy because of the way it affected the Cabaret!
>

>*smirks* Men in uniforms... What do you expect? :Ş

We lucked out there, having our "censors" actually enjoy the show.
Our security liaison had a very good sense of humor, though I didn't
care for having hotel staff around the back stage area while I was
changing. I took my costumes and changed down the hall in the
bathroom.

>*A wolf dreading having to go have a drug test for a new job in about 1 hour*

Hope you studied. I'm making an appointment to give blood for a
critically ill neighbor of mine. Good luck with the new job!

Aki.


Ostrich! <)

unread,
Apr 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/8/99
to
Darrel L. Exline <dar...@home.com> wrote:
>
> The Burned Furs for themost part are not actively vocal. That would go against
> some of what they believe in. The most common misconception of the Burned Furs
> is that they are a flame group. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. the Burned furs are
> simply tired of *being* flamed, hence the name.
>
Gee, you coulda fooled me. I've been involved in Furry for better than
five years, and I don't recall *ever* seeing any group that flames people
so viciously and with such little cause as the BFs. I've no doubt that
there are some well-meaning folx who're involved with that group, but
if the 'movement' as a whole posesses any purpose other than flaming
and disruption, it's been obscured by the antics of the members.

-Ostrich! <")

Dr. Cat

unread,
Apr 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/8/99
to
Darrel L. Exline (dar...@home.com) wrote:
: They've hosted a LOT of fandom and sex-based cons, and were simply
: handlng us professionally.

Do you mean like those small adults-only sex-based sf/fantasy cons I've
heard of? Or are you talking about cons that are based solely on sex or
something? (I heard of those too, once.)

: I fully plan to organize CF11 so that you could bring your parents if
: you wanted to.

I think that old cliche is purrhaps not the clearest way to express a
given sentiment, given the HUGE variation in parents and what they would
or wouldn't be offended by. I certainly could have brought my parents to
any of the Confurences that've been held yet. And I suppose there's
other folks that couldn't or wouldn't bring their parents to any con
where there was art of a fully clothed vixen who clearly had an
attractive figure. Or even one that was clearly about "kid stuff like
talking animals and tv cartoons and comic books, how could you still be
looking at this now that you're a full-grown adult"?

Something you "could bring your parents to" is really a vaguely defined
target. I am curious whether there'll be any nekkid zebras or cats in
the Cabaret again next year, though I'll certainly go whether there are
or not. Shame I hadda miss CF two years in a row.

*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*

(Disclaimer: Just because my parents are very open-minded and don't mind
the existence of kinky weird stuff in the world doesn't mean they're bad
people or that they raised me poorly. They are in fact both retired
college professors, and they taught me how to read and do math before I
even went to nursery school, for which I will forever be grateful.)

(Disclaimer disclaimers: Unless you're that wacky Burned Fur dude who
told me in email that I have not neither published works that have been
bought by millions of people, and am clearly delusional. If you're him,
then my parents aren't retired college professors and probably don't have
PhD's neither. (Dad doesn't have a PhD in History, whereas the PhD my
mom doesn't have is in English Literature, which she didn't get for the
thesis on death in Shakespeare's plays which she never wrote.) Mind you,
that fellows disbelief isn't a policy of the entired Burned Fur movement,
but only his personal opinion. And he might not even really disbelieve
me, but only said so in a weak attempt to try to make me unhappy by
insulting me. Oh and my other disclaimer is, I won't necessarily be
grateful forever, if there isn't life after death or some method of
immortality invented by our technology within my lifetime. Or even if we
do invent immortality technology, but it turns out that our universe will
only exist for a finite length of time & no method is possible for
getting out of it into some other universe.)

(Disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer: Don't be thinking the heat death of
the universe or the collapse back into a point are necessarily still the
main alternatives for the future of our universe though. The basic
underpinnings of the model of the universe astronomers were using got
shaken up by a major new discovery last year. I think it was that we
undergo periods where the rate of expansion of the universe *increases*,
but I forget. There was an article in Scientific American last year that
anybody interested in this should read, it really is an enormous change
in the field of astronomy and I think most people still don't know about
it. Oh unless you're that guy who thinks I'm delusional, in which case
Scientific American probably has never published any such article and
it's not even worth checking. :X)

(Alternative disclaimer: The *real* reason most people wouldn't want to
bring their parents to Confurence is 'cause they had to spend 20 years or
more around them ALREADY, and they want to spend their time socializing
with other people now, thank you! Preferably folks somewhat closer to
their own age, too, y'know-what-I-mean? Plus Kibo forbid the parents
might take a LIKING to one's hobby, and then they'd be around ALL the
time, and act embarassing in front of ever single last friend made in the
last five years! Like you know how they'll say "I remember when you were
still in diapers, and I had to change you"? Who wants to take someone to
Confurence if they're going to talk like THAT?)


Kay Shapero

unread,
Apr 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/8/99
to
On <Apr 06 19:20>, doo...@cheezies.primenet.com (Doodles) wrote;

D>$85 a night and no coffeemakers in the rooms. And my room had
D>this horrible faux Hawaiian motif on the drapes and beadspreads.
D>Looked like one of Scott Shaw!'s rejects. Egad.

And let's not forget the haunted painting (that girl has GOT to be a
ghost)... :-> Vicky brought along a hanging of Lina Inverse & co from The
Slayers, which fit quite neatly over ours.

D>Loved the soap, though. Stole about 20 bars of each. =};-3

I found myself wondering if they were a) expecting people to bathe
constantly or b) expecting them to stay for a month. I will say those are
the biggest hotel soap bars I've seen in awhile. I didn't swipe any
myself, but I *did* bring home the ones I'd been using.

D>That costume ofd Pete's is simply amazing. And for those of us
D>familiar with Mr. Salem, more than a tad scary. =};-3

I'll go along with that. :-> I always get shivers up my spine when I see
him in that thing.


David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Apr 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/10/99
to
On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 12:42:04 +0100, Keith W <k...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com> wrote:
>In article <7ecaid$d50$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>,
>"Daphne Lage" <egor...@advanix.net> wrote:
>
>[Most Glaring Omission: Weirdos! Everyone was *extremely* well behaved. It was

>[obvious that the more "flamboyant" members of fandom decided to stay home and it
>[showed. Yes - you *can* have erotica and have a family show at the same time!
>
>The wierdos are the real problem with erotica.

Thats a stament that needs some backup.

--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.

Swiftfoot

unread,
Apr 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/11/99
to
Graf wrote:

> Nono, Tamar, it's the customers have to be willing to put their money where
> their words are and BUY more clean art.

*clears throat* Ahem. At this point, I feel obliged to speak. While I agree
that production follows demand, we should perhaps step back and examine
something for a moment. Most of the "clean art" being produced today is by
up-and-coming artists who, unlike you, have not had time to hone their talents.
These works (and I applaud all the artists out there who are drawing clean and
working to improve themselves! Keep it up!)... let us be honest: these works
are of substantially lower quality a vast majority of the time. One might
wonder why this would be so. The answer is because the higher-end artists like
yourself and Daphne have found spooge to be too lucrative a field to pass up, so
you produce that almost exclusively.

I would point out that if few artists can produce quality on the equal of your
non-erotic works, then naturally their material is not going to sell well.
Consumers aren't just driven by an all-consuming need for spooge, no matter what
Daphne may say. She's far from the expert on me, anyways. They are driven by a
need for quality and originality. And, being humans and thus opportunists, most
will go where the talent is. If they cannot get satisfaction in one quarter of
the arena, they'll move to the other where they can get some. The same for
artists.

> I agree with Daphne, you're all full of it.

Thank you, Tygger, for holding the silent portion of the fandom -and we are a
majority, believe it or not- in such high esteem. I'm honored you think I'm a
hypocrit. Be warned: if you hold your customers in contempt, be ready for them
to do the same in return.

> To those artists who do sexual art to supplement your incomes: best of luck
> to you! Remember, what is said online is NOT the voice of the fandom no
> matter how much it seems like it. Stick with your friends for support when
> you need it. The ones who kick you and give you hassle have NO interest at
> all in understanding.

What a neat way to dismiss the voices that speak things you don't wish to hear.

No, I suppose we aren't the voice of the fandom to you, because we're the silent
portion for the most part, and you don't see our dollars at the cons. Praise
the almighty dollar! Maybe we don't buy anything because we don't see anything
worth purchasing amongst all the erotic works. We come for clean art and go
home dissapointed for the most part.

I *will* blame the artists. Because if you and others presented the fandom with
something other than erotic works, I might have a wider choice of art worth
buying. You choose to draw the erotic art and make it a majority of what you
put out. I never asked you to, and I certainly didn't put a gun to your head to
make you do so. I like your style, as I like the styles of many other artists
such as Lage and Light. But erotic works don't do it for me, ever. So I don't
buy any of them. I'm sorry, my buck is not going to purchase stuff that I am
not looking for - no matter how good the artist that drew it. I may peer at it
and say, "That's really neat! Look at the shading and realistic patterning!"
But I'm still not going to buy it, because I don't need a vagina hanging on my
wall, no matter how well the fur that surrounds it is colored.

Sure, you knock out a nonerotic piece once in a while. Then you cry about it
not selling as well as your erotic works. Well guess what? It sold, so you
must be doing something right! Put out more! They'll sell too. But then,
income artists who do erotics for the most part won't do clean pieces, because
*gasp* that would require taking a chance and maybe doing something that won't
sell 50 copies within one week of release. The full profit won't be realized!
Valuable time was wasted, time that could have been used to draw large breasted
vixens and had guaranteed money in the pocket!

I suppose that Guardian Knights doesn't sell at all, does it? What? It does?
Well, it isn't along the lines of Omaha, now is it? You know why it's selling;
we all do. People are impressed with your ability to put plot and quality
drawings together to produce a product that is something enjoyable to read and
look at. It doesn't need giant breasts and exposed genitals, it can support
itself on its own merits. That's something that can't be said for a lot of the
art out there. But that's the problem: clean art has to support itself. It
needs to have merit. Erotic art doesn't, it just has to tantalize the buyer
enough to make him decide it's worth the money.

It comes down to this: We, the buying public, will put down our money for what
we think deserves it. A great deal of us don't think erotic art deserves it,
but we're ostracized because the income artists, by and large, go for the quick
and easy sell: erotic art. It takes little creativity to come up with spooge
that will sell, because the portion of the fandom that wants that sort of
material will snap up nearly anything. Admit it: a pinup is much easier to do
than a clean work. Just look at a Penthouse if you need inspiration. The clean
work requires originality, something that the buyer hasn't seen before.

So, ultimately, the rest of us are left with precious little to choose from.
More's the pity.


Charles Groark

unread,
Apr 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/11/99
to

Swiftfoot wrote:

> Graf wrote:
>
> > Nono, Tamar, it's the customers have to be willing to put their money where
> > their words are and BUY more clean art.
>
> *clears throat* Ahem. At this point, I feel obliged to speak. While I agree
> that production follows demand, we should perhaps step back and examine
> something for a moment. Most of the "clean art" being produced today is by
> up-and-coming artists who, unlike you, have not had time to hone their talents.
> These works (and I applaud all the artists out there who are drawing clean and
> working to improve themselves! Keep it up!)... let us be honest: these works
> are of substantially lower quality a vast majority of the time. One might
> wonder why this would be so. The answer is because the higher-end artists like
> yourself and Daphne have found spooge to be too lucrative a field to pass up, so
> you produce that almost exclusively.

Incorrect. I'm looking at Daphne's most recent EGOWORKS catalog and checking out
the available prints. There are 72 'erotic' prints (exposed nipples or genetalia,
or overt sexual contact). There are (surprise, surprise!) 72 'non-erotic' prints,
that is, all so-called 'naughty bits' covered. 72 of one kind, 72 of the other.
How does this equate to almost exclusively producing spooge? Tygger has stopped
accepting comissions in general and has dropped back to producing pin-ups (perhaps
nudity, but no explicit sexual contact). Don't merely go by what you see at a con.
It costs *money* to bring artwork to a con, whether its the extra gas to move your
car or the UPS shipping costs. The artists bring what sells.

> I would point out that if few artists can produce quality on the equal of your
> non-erotic works, then naturally their material is not going to sell well.
> Consumers aren't just driven by an all-consuming need for spooge, no matter what
> Daphne may say. She's far from the expert on me, anyways. They are driven by a
> need for quality and originality. And, being humans and thus opportunists, most
> will go where the talent is. If they cannot get satisfaction in one quarter of
> the arena, they'll move to the other where they can get some. The same for
> artists.

I doubt that Daphne intended to set herself up as an expert on you, personally or
collectively. I believe that she merely wanted to point out that, even at a
supposedly spoogeless Confurence, spooge still outsold her 'clean' stuff by a
sizable margin.

> > To those artists who do sexual art to supplement your incomes: best of luck
> > to you! Remember, what is said online is NOT the voice of the fandom no
> > matter how much it seems like it. Stick with your friends for support when
> > you need it. The ones who kick you and give you hassle have NO interest at
> > all in understanding.
>
> What a neat way to dismiss the voices that speak things you don't wish to hear.
>
> No, I suppose we aren't the voice of the fandom to you, because we're the silent
> portion for the most part, and you don't see our dollars at the cons. Praise
> the almighty dollar! Maybe we don't buy anything because we don't see anything
> worth purchasing amongst all the erotic works. We come for clean art and go
> home dissapointed for the most part.

Then perhaps you should stop going to cons looking for things you *know* you won't
find there and look for them elsewhere. Check out Daphne's web site at
http://www.advanix.com/~egoraven/ All she has posted there are the 'clean' prints
you can't find at the cons, and there's not even any adult material to possibly
offend you. Here's a suggestion: why not *commission* an artist to do a non-spooge
piece? Commissions cost more but you, as the buyer, can specify what you want.

> I *will* blame the artists. Because if you and others presented the fandom with
> something other than erotic works, I might have a wider choice of art worth
> buying. You choose to draw the erotic art and make it a majority of what you
> put out. I never asked you to, and I certainly didn't put a gun to your head to
> make you do so. I like your style, as I like the styles of many other artists
> such as Lage and Light. But erotic works don't do it for me, ever. So I don't
> buy any of them. I'm sorry, my buck is not going to purchase stuff that I am
> not looking for - no matter how good the artist that drew it. I may peer at it
> and say, "That's really neat! Look at the shading and realistic patterning!"
> But I'm still not going to buy it, because I don't need a vagina hanging on my
> wall, no matter how well the fur that surrounds it is colored.

I *won't* blame the artists. As pointed out above, they *do* present non-erotic
works and, often, they don't sell well. You have a right to purchase whatever you
wish: it's a free country. However, you are one person, as are we all. Spooge art
dominates in Furry Fandom for a number of reasons. One of these is that non-erotic
furry art is easily found outside the fandom. Just go into a Warner Brothers or
Disney Store. The other is the law of Supply and Demand.

> Sure, you knock out a nonerotic piece once in a while. Then you cry about it
> not selling as well as your erotic works. Well guess what? It sold, so you
> must be doing something right! Put out more! They'll sell too. But then,
> income artists who do erotics for the most part won't do clean pieces, because
> *gasp* that would require taking a chance and maybe doing something that won't
> sell 50 copies within one week of release. The full profit won't be realized!
> Valuable time was wasted, time that could have been used to draw large breasted
> vixens and had guaranteed money in the pocket!

It's not the 50 copies in a week that's the problem. Which is more successful, the
piece that sells 50 copies in a week or the one that sells 50 copies in a year? I
think the answer's obvious. This *is* a business for the artists and they *are* in
it to make money. Despite what you may think, selling 50 copies of a piece in a
year may not be very profitable for the artist, not when you consider storage and
printing costs.

> It comes down to this: We, the buying public, will put down our money for what
> we think deserves it. A great deal of us don't think erotic art deserves it,
> but we're ostracized because the income artists, by and large, go for the quick
> and easy sell: erotic art. It takes little creativity to come up with spooge
> that will sell, because the portion of the fandom that wants that sort of
> material will snap up nearly anything. Admit it: a pinup is much easier to do
> than a clean work. Just look at a Penthouse if you need inspiration. The clean
> work requires originality, something that the buyer hasn't seen before.
>
> So, ultimately, the rest of us are left with precious little to choose from.
> More's the pity.

And a large section of the buying public thinks that erotic work *does* deserve it.
That group seems to have more clout with the artists than you do, possibly because
they spend more money, or there may be more of them.

You know, you're also describing a Pavlovian-style training and a feedback loop
here. You seem to be saying that you won't buy clean art from the beginning artists
because they're not good enough. The beginner then sees that the erotic work is
selling and stats doing it, eventually becoming better at their artwork to the point
that their clean artwork would sell. They won't do clean artwork, however, because
their clean artwork didn't sell... which the *next* wave of beginning artists
sees... and the cycle continues.

Charlie


Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci

unread,
Apr 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/11/99
to
The debate is missing more important factors than spooge.
There was simply less money and fewer people at this con. My artshow
sales were down, not for lack of spooge, but simply because there were
fewer people, and amoung those how could even find the artshow, many were
still chash low due to Further Confusion.

M. Naschatya

unread,
Apr 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/11/99
to
In article <3710A273...@ibm.net>,
Charles Groark <cgr...@ibm.net> wrote:

> And a large section of the buying public thinks that erotic work *does*
deserve it.
> That group seems to have more clout with the artists than you do, possibly
because
> they spend more money, or there may be more of them.

One might also suggest that the buying habits of con-goers aren't the same
as the buying habits of the quiet folk who don't go to cons, but buy artwork
through mail-order or the web. There are a lot of people who don't speak up
who do indeed commission artists for non-erotic work, or buy the non-erotic
portfolios.


-- M. Naschatya

Charles Groark

unread,
Apr 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/11/99
to

"M. Naschatya" wrote:

> In article <3710A273...@ibm.net>,
> Charles Groark <cgr...@ibm.net> wrote:
>

> > And a large section of the buying public thinks that erotic work *does*
> deserve it.
> > That group seems to have more clout with the artists than you do, possibly
> because
> > they spend more money, or there may be more of them.
>

> One might also suggest that the buying habits of con-goers aren't the same
> as the buying habits of the quiet folk who don't go to cons, but buy artwork
> through mail-order or the web. There are a lot of people who don't speak up
> who do indeed commission artists for non-erotic work, or buy the non-erotic
> portfolios.

Indeed, that may well be (and probably is) the case. I did not mean that my
list of possible reasons was all-inclusive: there are as many reasons as there
are fans. I have commissioned both types from Daphne Lage. The most expensive
single piece I had Daphne do was of a specific character doing whatever Daphne
wanted; in whatever pose she cared to illustrate her; and in whatever clothing
(or lack of) that Daphne felt appropriate. The piece ended up being totally
clothed and I was perfectly satisified with it.

We buy that which appeals to us, whoever we are, and I've bought artwork across
the board as far as ratings go. As I tried to suggest to the original poster:
positive reinforcement can work. If you (group you, not you personally, M.)
want more G-rated artwork, tell the artists that. Then turn around and back it
up with commissions and purchases. Were this to happen consistantly, the amount
of G-rated work would increase. I doubt that it would *decrease* the amount of
X-rated work, though.

Finally, I would like to offer an honest 'thanks' to you. You read the posting,
understood it, and replied in a rational way. That doesn't happen around here
all the time...

Charlie


Hangdog

unread,
Apr 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/11/99
to
<Various snippages ensue. Hope I didn't change the context
of anything thereby--I certainly didn't mean to>

Swiftfoot wrote:

> Most of the "clean art" being produced today is by
> up-and-coming artists who, unlike you, have not had time to hone their talents.

Uh...huh? I've heard *exactly* the same arguments made about spooge:
"They can't draw well, so they draw dirty stuff to make it sell."

> the higher-end artists like
> yourself and Daphne have found spooge to be too lucrative a field to pass up, so
> you produce that almost exclusively.

Again...huh? I never knew Daphne or Tygger did erotic stuff 'til they mentioned
it. And I've never seen their erotic stuff anywhere except at 'cons.

ISTM more like D & T, at least, do erotica as a sideline to sell at cons. Their
non-erotic stuff sells all the time, through comic book shops, travelling dealers,
and the internet, whereas (correct me if I'm wrong) the erotic stuff sells mainly
at conventions the artist attends. So if you look *only* at their convention
appearances, you will get the incorrect impression that the majority of their
work is erotica.

> Consumers aren't just driven by an all-consuming need for spooge, no matter what
> Daphne may say.

I don't recall her saying that. Quotes, please?

> They are driven by a need for quality and originality.

Um, again, the most valid criticism of spooge *I've* heard is that it's
a) badly drawn, and b) horribly derivative

> > I agree with Daphne, you're all full of it.
>

> Thank you, <snipped>, for holding the silent portion of the fandom -and we are a


> majority, believe it or not- in such high esteem. I'm honored you think I'm a
> hypocrit.

OK--a fair cop. But don't make too much of it. People pop off all
the time on UseNet. Besides, she may have just been referring to the
regular crowd here on aff--not you.

> > To those artists who do sexual art to supplement your incomes: best of luck
> > to you! Remember, what is said online is NOT the voice of the fandom no
> > matter how much it seems like it. Stick with your friends for support when
> > you need it. The ones who kick you and give you hassle have NO interest at
> > all in understanding.
>
> What a neat way to dismiss the voices that speak things you don't wish to hear.

Again, fair enough...

> No, I suppose we aren't the voice of the fandom to you, because we're the silent
> portion for the most part, and you don't see our dollars at the cons. Praise
> the almighty dollar!

Indeed. It defeated Imperialism, Fascism and Communism in the course
of a single century, put men on the Moon, invented UseNet and the Web
as well as the hardware and software you use to browse them, and, oh
yes, created and distributed all those furry movies, cartoons and books that
got you into this fandom.

It ain't perfect, it ain't the meaning of life, but I say the people following it
have done more good for more people and less evil to fewer people
than the followers of any god, philosophy or political system in history.

(Sorry for the John Galt speech there, but casual condemnation of the
profit motive strikes me as so much pseudo-intellectual self-righteousness)

> Maybe we don't buy anything because we don't see anything
> worth purchasing amongst all the erotic works. We come for clean art and go
> home dissapointed for the most part.

Yeah, I left CF 10 disappointed---disappointed that I'd over-spent my budget!
I bought several hundred dollars worth of "furry" art, books and comics! No
knick-knacks, no t-shirts--just creative stuff! ALL OF IT CLEAN!
All of it top-quality! All of it stuff I'd be happy to show to my parents or
my friends outside the fandom! And I didn't buy EVERYTHING I wanted to!

> I *will* blame the artists. Because if you and others presented the fandom with
> something other than erotic works, I might have a wider choice of art worth
> buying.

I spent plenty of money at Daphne's table without buying any of her
erotica. Same goes for several other dealers who sold a mix of regular
and "adult" titles. That, to me, indicates they offer a wide enough choice
of material to satisy a non-spooger.

> You choose to draw the erotic art and make it a majority of what you
> put out.

Correct on the former--wrong on the latter.

> I never asked you to, and I certainly didn't put a gun to your head to
> make you do so. I like your style, as I like the styles of many other artists
> such as Lage and Light. But erotic works don't do it for me, ever. So I don't
> buy any of them. I'm sorry, my buck is not going to purchase stuff that I am
> not looking for - no matter how good the artist that drew it. I may peer at it
> and say, "That's really neat! Look at the shading and realistic patterning!"

Again, fair enough.,

> But I'm still not going to buy it, because I don't need a vagina hanging on my
> wall,

*Ewwwwwww!!!!!!!* ;o)

> Sure, you knock out a nonerotic piece once in a while.

Huh? Look, both Tygger and Daphne have non-erotic comic book
series that take up most of their time. Perhaps you get this "once-in-
while" thang from the fact that new issues don't come out every
month, like Spider-Man. Of course, that's because while Marvel
has a whole team of full-time writers, artists and inkers cranking
these things out, Daphne and Tygger do virtually everything in their
books themselves, in addition to raising kids, holding down jobs,
and generally having lives.

You aren't seeing the whole picture, here. Their non-erotic stuff
is their *main* effort. It's the *erotica* they do as a sideline.

> Then you cry about it
> not selling as well as your erotic works. Well guess what? It sold, so you
> must be doing something right! Put out more! They'll sell too. But then,
> income artists who do erotics for the most part won't do clean pieces, because
> *gasp* that would require taking a chance and maybe doing something that won't
> sell 50 copies within one week of release. The full profit won't be realized!
> Valuable time was wasted, time that could have been used to draw large breasted
> vixens and had guaranteed money in the pocket!

This may be a fair criticism of other artists, but not of Daphne and Tygger.

> I suppose that Guardian Knights doesn't sell at all, does it? What? It does?
> Well, it isn't along the lines of Omaha, now is it?

Omaha's been around a lot longer. Wait ten, twenty years and
see which is selling more.

> You know why it's selling;
> we all do. People are impressed with your ability to put plot and quality
> drawings together to produce a product that is something enjoyable to read and
> look at. It doesn't need giant breasts and exposed genitals, it can support
> itself on its own merits. That's something that can't be said for a lot of the
> art out there. But that's the problem: clean art has to support itself. It
> needs to have merit. Erotic art doesn't, it just has to tantalize the buyer
> enough to make him decide it's worth the money.

I'd never thought of it this way, but this seems to be a valid point.

> It comes down to this: We, the buying public, will put down our money for what
> we think deserves it. A great deal of us don't think erotic art deserves it,
> but we're ostracized because the income artists, by and large, go for the quick
> and easy sell: erotic art.

Huh? I didn't feel ostracized at CF 10, and I knew hardly anybody there.

> It takes little creativity to come up with spooge
> that will sell, because the portion of the fandom that wants that sort of
> material will snap up nearly anything. Admit it: a pinup is much easier to do
> than a clean work. Just look at a Penthouse if you need inspiration. The clean
> work requires originality, something that the buyer hasn't seen before.

Actually, there's a lot of conventionality in "clean" furry art, too: see my
article "Tool Time!" in the latest issue of Fuzzy Logic at:
http://fuzzylogic.betterbox.net/ <--SHAMELESS PLUG!!!

> So, ultimately, the rest of us are left with precious little to choose from.
> More's the pity.

No, the problem's not THAT bad. And while ignoring it won't make it
go away, exaggerating it won't help fix it either.

--Hangdog

Swiftfoot Cheetah

unread,
Apr 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/11/99
to
Charles Groark wrote:

> nudity, but no explicit sexual contact). Don't merely go by what you see at a con.
> It costs *money* to bring artwork to a con, whether its the extra gas to move your
> car or the UPS shipping costs. The artists bring what sells.

This just confirms one portion of what I said earlier. Go for that quick, guaranteed
sale. Don't go out on the limb to give me, the non-erotic purchaser, a chance to buy
something, as my tiny dollars will never contribute enough to matter towards your
pocketbook. Your statement of "don't merely go by what you see at a con"? Isn't the
con a chance to solicit all the different types of works you produce, in an attempt to
boost sales of those various pieces (especially the ones that aren't selling well since
they don't get much exposure)? If a stationstore only advertises diesel fuel, I'm going
to assume that's all they have and drive my gasoline-fueled pickup right past it until I
find one that sells gasoline. If a dealer only has adult material out for display, I'll
make the same assumption and walk right past. If you don't want to be stereotyped as
being an "Adult-only" producer, bring something with you to prove the stereotype wrong!
That's what Daphne did, and I give her full credit for it.

> Then perhaps you should stop going to cons looking for things you *know* you won't
> find there and look for them elsewhere.

I shouldn't go to cons at all then, since I "know" there's nothing I want there. What
an interesting answer. So what you're telling me is this: I shouldn't go to a public
function that is supposed to cater to the wants and needs of the fandom, because I'm a
smaller demograpic of the fandom and nothing that I'm looking for will be there, because
the quick buck rules all. My wants won't be addressed. That's interesting, and sad.

I'll also note that when I do go to cons (and I frequent various ones), and I find
something that I like amongst the portions of what I "know I won't find there", it often
goes to auction. I've driven quite a few non-erotic pieces up hundres of dollars. And
I've won those bidding wars. If I think it's worth it, I *will* get it. The fact that
somebody was bidding against me to such amazing amounts indicates that same willingness
to put down money for quality, non-erotic art.

> you can't find at the cons, and there's not even any adult material to possibly
> offend you. Here's a suggestion: why not *commission* an artist to do a non-spooge
> piece? Commissions cost more but you, as the buyer, can specify what you want.

I'm not offended by it. I'm just not interested in it at all. For your information, I
do commission artists. I've spent a few hundred dollars on those, too. I just don't
scream and shout about it. I also don't see why I can't go to a con and find the same
sort of material I'm commissioning for sale in the public. Are income artists really
that afraid of the extra five dollars in shipping, when they could make it up with just
a sale or two? I don't believe that it's more economical to leave a potential sale on
the shelf at home because of the "might not sell it and have to pay shipping on it"
mentality. If you're already brining that much erotic art to the con, adding in some
nonerotics will have minimum effect on the margin. You have to weigh the possibility of
a sale (with a small cost) against a guaranteed NO SALE on that piece, with no cost.
Hey, if it's sitting at home and never sees the light of day, it's not making you any
money anyways. Take a chance! No, it's easier to take the guaranteed sale and neglect
the other half of the fandom...

> Despite what you may think, selling 50 copies of a piece in a
> year may not be very profitable for the artist, not when you consider storage and
> printing costs.

I've worked inventory, you don't need to preach it to me. Storing a quarter ream of
print is not that expensive. Stuff it on top of your fridge, for crying out loud. It's
still greed, saying that "50 sales in a year" just isn't worth it when you can have "50
sales in a week". A sale is a sale is a sale, especially if you're complaining about
being type-cast as a "spooge artist".

> And a large section of the buying public thinks that erotic work *does* deserve it.
> That group seems to have more clout with the artists than you do, possibly because
> they spend more money, or there may be more of them.

So I'm to be utterly ignored, because I have more refined tastes. Thank you for
clearing that up. Let me tell you this, I have and will continue to pay over the asking
price for non-erotic works that I wish to purchase. It's my small way of saying "thank
you."

> You know, you're also describing a Pavlovian-style training and a feedback loop
> here. You seem to be saying that you won't buy clean art from the beginning artists
> because they're not good enough. The beginner then sees that the erotic work is
> selling and stats doing it, eventually becoming better at their artwork to the point
> that their clean artwork would sell. They won't do clean artwork, however, because
> their clean artwork didn't sell... which the *next* wave of beginning artists
> sees... and the cycle continues.

I don't argue that at all. It's sad to watch, but I can't help but think if the
professionals would give the beginners a role model other than what they're presenting
now (Remember, by your admittance they only bring what sells the most), maybe the cycle
could be broken.

-Swiftfoot

Hangdog

unread,
Apr 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/11/99
to
Swiftfoot Cheetah wrote:

> I shouldn't go to cons at all then, since I "know" there's nothing I want there. What

> an interesting answer...<snip>... My wants won't be addressed. That's interesting, and
> sad.

<snip>

> So I'm to be utterly ignored, because I have more refined tastes. Thank you for
> clearing that up.

Yannow, Swifty, you argue eloquently, and you make some good points, but you'd
be better off without that standard-issue fannish victimology: "I'm discriminated
against because I'm different (and therefore better!) I'm ostracized! My wants
wont be addressed! I'm to be utterly ignored!" Yadda yadda. Sheesh.

Give it up. You seem a little too mature for it.

--Hangdog


Graf

unread,
Apr 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/11/99
to

Swiftfoot <swiftfoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37103645...@hotmail.com...

> *clears throat* Ahem. At this point, I feel obliged to speak. >While I
agree that production follows demand, we should perhaps >step back and
examine something for a moment. Most of the >"clean art" being produced
today is by up-and-coming artists >who, unlike you, have not had time to
hone their talents. These >works (and I applaud all the artists out there

who are drawing >lean and working to improve themselves! Keep it up!)...


let us be >honest: these works are of substantially lower quality a vast
>majority of the time. One might wonder why this would be so. >The answer
is because the higher-end artists like yourself and >Daphne have found
spooge to be too lucrative a field to pass up, >so you produce that almost
exclusively.

You have a point, yes, but I offer this point: I've often stated that I
don't offer much in the way of nonsexual art due to the proven fact that it
sits and gathers dust for the most part. Looking in my current print
display book, exactly an even 19 of nonsexual and sexual material (for the
record, no spooge, just pin ups and nude studies), the oldest nonsexual
piece is dated 8/95. Perhaps it's not my best, but it's a bit hard to
produce that when it's pretty much ignored. I've done a water colour
painting of Saraenae from GK, the small scan appeared in Previews for the
art in the solicitation. I have fully rendered colour pencil pieces, some
of which you can find up on Yerf, which haven't sold at all or just minorly.
I have done the nonsexual art. I have listened to what is supposedly
wanted, done the themes only to have the ones who told me that if I did do
them not follow thru. Ask Daphne Lage, she's had the same thing happen to
her. It should be little wonder why she and I have a tendency to take any
requests with such cynicalness. Yes, there have been and will be those who
will follow thru, but these seem to be few and far between. It's more than
just the money, it's the being lied to factor.

As far as doing spooge exclusively, that's not true in my case. Yes, in the
beginning I did do a large amount of it but I also had nonsexual pieces
available. I still have bw copies of the line art in my files which support
and back this up. If you ever get a chance to see James Birdsall's The
Collected Fantasy Art of Tygger digest gallery zine, you'll see that I did a
fair amount of it over the ten years. Enough to do two of these, possibly
even three. There is also The Collected Tyggerotica volume 1 and 2, and
each of them together are equal the one of the fantasy nonsexual art in
size. It's also not only just anthro art but nonanthro from humans to elves
to other things. When it was offered, it was most often snubbed in favour
of the sexual material.

Another factor: I stopped doing spooge, defined as fluid shots, sex acts,
bondage, several years ago. My sales plummeted when I did. I went utterly
over to nonsexual pieces and that was a huge disaster so I started the pin
ups again. No excessive spooge, little in the way of sales. I barely made
much with the pin ups I did. I've had more than a few comment that I make a
lot of money on my art, farthest from the truth.

> I would point out that if few artists can produce quality on the >equal of
your non-erotic works, then naturally their material is not >going to sell
well.

You make it sound as tho the artists didn't try hard enough. Not attacking
here, just saying what impression I'm getting. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
One factor, Swiftfoot, to please consider: if an artist doesn't get
feedback, doesn't know that what they do is wanted, if they get the clear
impression that it's not wanted, they won't continue to offer works. Or
they'll just not offer the pieces to anyone. I've several pieces that I've
never shown anyone.

> Consumers aren't just driven by an all-consuming need for >spooge, no
matter what Daphne may say. She's far from the >expert on me, anyways.
They are driven by a need for quality >and originality. And, being humans
and thus opportunists, most
> will go where the talent is. If they cannot get satisfaction in one
>quarter of the arena, they'll move to the other where they can get >some.
The same for artists.

Based on the sharing of info she and I have done over the years, and added
in with the info from other artists who also sell their work, it is a good
proven fact that most will pass over the nonsexual art for the sexual art,
the spoogier the better. Witness the now infamous piece of Chester Ringtail
going down on himself. You, Swiftfoot, may be driven by originality and
quality, but it's not true for what seems to be a good majority. As for the
satisfaction, it's hard to give that when we 1) are not given the feedback,
2) do the nonsexual, and it's passed over or barely touched in favour of the
sexual art.

I'm not rationalizing, I'm giving what I've seen in my years of selling,
what Daphne has as well, and others I've spoken to such as Sara
Palmer/Caribou, Terrie Smith, Richard Bartrop to name a few.

> Thank you, Tygger, for holding the silent portion of the fandom ->and we


are a majority, believe it or not- in such high esteem. I'm >honored you
think I'm a hypocrit. Be warned: if you hold your >customers in contempt,
be ready for them to do the same in >return.

*wry grin* S'what I get for posting when in a mood and just finally tired of
not being heard (or so it seemed) and having potshots taken at me on
FurryMuck, on a.f.f., and in email. My honest apologies for that, it was a
shot I should not have done and knew better than to do. I DO know that
there are those out there who do back up their words with action, who do
give support, etc, and I have been and still am extremely thankful and
grateful for. I have thanked them personally, have thanked them by giving
them artwork. I've done sketches and commissions for them without payment,
cut prices of my prints when they honestly didn't have the money for what
they wanted, given them prints and folios when I knew they weren't able to
purchase, bought them meals, and so on and so forth.

The "full of it" comment was aimed at those who keep arguing that it's the
artists fault for doing the sexual material, that it's the artists to blame
for the general atmosphere, that it's the artists to blame for the lack of
nonsexual materials out there etc. What I wish would be seen that it is a
two way road, that there are actions and reactions at work here. But it
seemed as tho I was just dropping my words into the black hole of the net
and wasn't heard. The interesting thing was at CF when I brought up the
whole Demand and Supply theory to those who purchased and those who
supplied, they agreed to a one: when the Demand doesn't meet the Supply,
it's good business sense to take it to where the Demand is. It's not to
keep continuing in Supplying that which is not selling. Sure, on the side I
can see, and I do that myelf with pieces up on Yerf that I'll not ever offer
prints of, but that's not business.

*sighs* Anyhow, enough on that tangent.

> What a neat way to dismiss the voices that speak things you >don't wish to
hear.

You are not understanding. Artists do receive hassle for not doing
something that a customer wants them to do print wise. Artists will receive
hassle for simply changing their style to keep from becoming stagnant.
Artists will receive hassle for simply changing themes to keep from
stagnating. Those who hassle an artist for what they do are the ones I'm
saying to ignore.

> No, I suppose we aren't the voice of the fandom to you, because >we're the
silent portion for the most part, and you don't see our >dollars at the
cons. Praise the almighty dollar! Maybe we don't >buy anything because we
don't see anything worth purchasing >amongst all the erotic works. We come
for clean art and go
> home dissapointed for the most part.

Yes, silent. How can we artists give you what you want when you are silent?
We aren't mind readers. We have to guess what to do. It's not lack of
imagination, it's lack of feedback on what would like to be seen and/or
purchased. You can't leave that all on us.

A friend of mine had nothing BUT nonsexual works. Beautifully done pieces.
She sold extremely little while her SO sold left and right. He had no
spooge pieces, but his work did have a noticable and wonderfully executed
sex appeal while hers had a wonderfully executed sweetness to them. And
there is why her pieces sold so little or not at all: the sex appeal. I do
have an addendum to this: some are lucky such as the Carspeckens who have a
good appeal to a particular market. These seem to be the exceptions.

> I *will* blame the artists. Because if you and others presented >the
fandom with something other than erotic works, I might have >a wider choice
of art worth buying. You choose to draw the >erotic art and make it a
majority of what you put out. I never >asked you to, and I certainly didn't
put a gun to your head to
> make you do so. I like your style, as I like the styles of many >other
artists such as Lage and Light. But erotic works don't do it >for me, ever.
So I don't buy any of them. I'm sorry, my buck is >not going to purchase
stuff that I am not looking for - no matter >how good the artist that drew
it. I may peer at it and say, "That's >really neat! Look at the shading
and realistic patterning!"
> But I'm still not going to buy it, because I don't need a vagina >hanging
on my wall, no matter how well the fur that surrounds it >is colored.

I honestly understand your frustration and words. You aren't the firs to
speak them and you prolly won't be the last. But do you see what it is that
I and others are staying, Swiftfoot? How can WE give YOU and OTHERS what
you all WANT when WE have no FEEDBACK and know WHAT to DO? Not shouting
there, just emphasizing words. I've been asked for slice of life, I've done
them, nothing comes of it. I've been asked for drama, romance, sword and
sorcery, action and still little to nothing.

Okay, let's run with your blaming the artists. Yes, we do have the blame in
that we for the most part do more erotic works than non. But do you see
WHY? You yourself said you were of the silent majority who look at the
display book, find nothing they want, and just leave. If you are silent and
don't speak up, do you see how the cycle is continued? You and the other
silents are to blame in that you do not speak up and let us know what you
want. If you want something to buy, then please PLEASE let us KNOW. How
can we help you if you don't help us? Now I will admit that I may be wrong,
that you may actually say something as do others. If so, great, wonderful,
thank you for it. If not, then perhaps if you did things could change.

> Sure, you knock out a nonerotic piece once in a while. Then >you cry
about it not selling as well as your erotic works. Well >guess what? It
sold, so you must be doing something right! Put >out more! They'll sell
too. But then, income artists who do >erotics for the most part won't do
clean pieces, because
> *gasp* that would require taking a chance and maybe doing >something that
won't sell 50 copies within one week of release. >The full profit won't be
realized! Valuable time was wasted, time >that could have been used to draw
large breasted
> vixens and had guaranteed money in the pocket!

Sometimes, Swiftfoot, the fast buck must be made to catch a bill before it
hits. I've done it several times, as much as I honestly hated to (and still
do) pander. Sometimes the ability isn't there due to Life trying to bite us
in the butt. Yeah, I know, get a day job etc. But many times that's even
WITH the day job.

About your comment on the "nonerotic piece once in a while". No, not quite.
Look on Yerf and look at the dates on my pieces. Looking in the current
display book, out of 19 nonerotic pieces I have 16 pieces which are dated in
98, one dated in 95, one in 96, one in 99. Out of 19 erotica, 2 in 99, 5 in
98, 9 in 97, 1 in 95, 1 in 94, and 1 in 93. Add to the ones up on Yerf and
I have done more nonerotica than erotica within the recent 4 years. Count
in the commissions I've done and had in the queue, the erotica is still out
numbered. So I don't do erotica in the majority, however, yes I do offer
that in the majority to sell mainly because of lack of feedback and
followthru. Too much in lip service. Not rationalizing, just giving you
what is true to the best of my knowledge on my side of things. Again, do
you understand the WHYS of what was offered for sale?

About the risk factor, I do take them, and I have left things for sale for
lengths of time. Look at some of the dates I gave for the age of the piece.
Some of them are images I made 20 plus copies of back before Captain started
to print them for me on his colour printer. I've left them for sale in
hopes of someone who may want them finds them at a con I go to. I've had to
toss out several hundred dollars of stock simply because it didn't move and
the majority of it was nonsexual. Perhaps if feedback and follow thru were
different that would not have happened, who knows. Bottom line: I have
taken risks, many of them too costly to continue to make. I didn't have the
money then to waste like that and I sure don't now (still catching up on
bills with Dean's salary). All I can do is hope that you understand that
it's not always the artist not doing the nonsexual art out of a preference,
sometimes it is a necessity.

> I suppose that Guardian Knights doesn't sell at all, does it? >What? It
does? Well, it isn't along the lines of Omaha, now is >it? You know why
it's selling; we all do. People are impressed >with your ability to put
plot and quality drawings together to >produce a product that is something
enjoyable to read and
> look at. It doesn't need giant breasts and exposed genitals, it >can
support itself on its own merits. That's something that can't >be said for
a lot of the art out there. But that's the problem: >clean art has to
support itself. It needs to have merit. Erotic art >doesn't, it just has
to tantalize the buyer enough to make him >decide it's worth the money.

My numbers are very low in comparison. Okay, I'll be blunt: 645 is the
number I was given by Limelight Publishing Inc. for issue five. A 20%
increase from 516 with issue four. There are several factors, lack of
advertising being one of them which is being taken care of, fortunately.
Back when I first spoke of GK it was assumed to be a sex book by those I
talked to. When it got out that I wasn't going to make it that I had hassle
and in cases threats if I didn't make it sexual. I may have a sexual theme
(tantric mages, incubus, succubus, etc), but I won't show the parts in
action. There is something to be said for panning discretely away and
leaving it up to the imagination of the reader as to what nice or horrid
thing happened. I did that in GK 3 when Saraenae remembered her wedding
night with K'andales. I've been asked if he did or told by those who
assumed that he raped her viciously and that is why she's after him, for
revenge. *rolls eyes* Even when I say that he didn't I'm given the
nudgenudge winkwink.

I can't and won't take the credit for GK's small success. That belongs
squarely on my husband, D.A. Graf (Ian & Morgan stories and a couple of
others for MU), for his writing. That is what I feel has saved the book
time and time again. I'm no writer, I'm a plot person. He takes the mess
and makes sense out of it.

I've been asked to make GK more sexy by Limelight Publishing Inc. A
reasonable request, after all they're in it for the money and what sells?
Sex appeal. I refuse to do anything gratuitous and I've gotten into
arguments with them over it, but in the end it's up to me what I will and
won't do. Didja notice Tanndi in issue four? Short shirt tucked under to
show off her belly, short shorts, buxom? Only two noticed her who even said
anything, most of the comments are about Artika, the living vampire
Kynae-fox in issues 1 and 2. I've been laffing about the shower scene in
issue four, that sorta scene being a commonality in seemingly most anime and
manga (not all, I know). I dropped hints about, had some going "ohboy!" and
these same were so disappointed they couldn't see the boobyfruit and other
goodies. I'll do some sex appeal, yes, but only if it works for the
character. I have more requests for Saraenae done in pin up up to spoogey
pics but I won't do it. Neither will I make her sexy in the book, it's not
in her character.

You are very correct in the statement that nonerotic art must stand on its
own merits. Unfortunately, if the artist doesn't know what sort of things
are wanted, we can't put them in there and the piece won't stand on its
merits. Again, we aren't mind readers. We know what we like, but that may
not be what YOU are looking for. Yes, erotica has a very low common
demoniator which is easy to reach. Yes, some are lucky to hit it each time,
others are lucky every now and then. I'm utterly surprised still over how
well the Chinese tigers are selling since I released them. I did those for
me, a personal project, nothing more. I got extremely lucky.

Sorry for the tangents there, but I wanted to comment on each of the good
points you brought up.

> It comes down to this: We, the buying public, will put down our >money
for what we think deserves it. A great deal of us don't >think erotic art
deserves it, but we're ostracized because the >income artists, by and large,
go for the quick and easy sell: >erotic art.

Okay, true. But to again bring up: we income artists can't give you what
you want if we have little to no feedback or have been shown in our years of
selling that actual follow thru isn't really true here. I'm certainly wary
about releasing anything nonerotic for sale. I can't say how many times
I've stared at a blank piece of paper and fighting with myself over what to
do. A romance piece? Nah, no sex, who'd want it? Sword and sorcery? Only
if she's topless or has skimpy armour. And so on. It's not lack of
imagination, it's lack of knowing there is an actual certainty that the
piece will at least make back its expenses to produce as a print.

>It takes little creativity to come up with spooge that will sell, >because
the portion of the fandom that wants that sort of
> material will snap up nearly anything. Admit it: a pinup is much >easier
to do than a clean work. Just look at a Penthouse if you >need inspiration.
The clean work requires originality, something >that the buyer hasn't seen
before.

Yes and no. Yes in that it's fairly easy to find inspiration and references
for the sexual pieces. Yes, a pin up is easy to do to a point. I don't
know about other artists, but I keep in mind several things when I do one:
what is the favourite species currently, making the breasts, large or not
(IF I do the large ones, I tend NOT to actually), hang with gravity
properly, is she/he posed gratuitously, is it too blatant, is it enough for
me to go "ooo, she/he looks nice", how many nudes have I done recently, how
many scantily clad in lingerie or clothing, do I want to do a sexual act,
make his/her eyes large or small or narrow, what sort of attitude to I want
to show...so on and so forth etc. Much goes into a piece, for me anyhow, to
appeal. I skip over many Playboy photos because they're plastic to me. I
tend to go for the hentai references because they seem livlier to me.

Each artist is different, Swiftfoot, in how they approach the sexual works.

As for "something the buyer hasn't seen before" that is true and not. A
good many collect themes. Carousels, sword and sorcery, dark fantasy such
as vampires and demons, romance, cuteness, wildlife studies to name a few.
If one finds something for their collection, they'll snap it up. Others only
buy what "calls" to them. I have a piece, Remembering You, that I've done
in full colour pencils. The bw inverted scan of just the line work is up on
Yerf. It's a white fox holding his dead mate's red pelt as he mourns. I
did this pretty much out of the experimental factor: curious how it would be
received. I've not sold many, and prolly because it is a bit morbid, but
the emotional intensity I put into has always gained some comment even if
it's just "...ooh...it's so sad...". I'm satisfied with that one even tho
it doesn't sell much. I got the feedback. I may not do another, then again
the whim may take me and I just may. Oh, the inspiration for that piece was
actually from something Caribou had sent me of an anthro with a fur wrap,
beautifully rendered. That got me to thinking about fur clothing in general
as I meandered thru one of my Alberto Varga book. Then it all clicked when
I found this painting: a woman holding a mink stole in similar pose but not
crying of course. Interesting how it all works sometimes.

> So, ultimately, the rest of us are left with precious little to >choose
from. More's the pity.

I can honestly understand where you are standing in all of this. You and the
others who feel as you do. Hopefully what I've said will give you
understanding on the whys of myself and a few others. My apologies again
for that "full of it" remark in the other post.

Here's to breaking the cycle...


--Tygger L. Graf

John F. Martin

unread,
Apr 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/12/99
to
Graf <gr...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<7erht6$9bd$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...

>
> Swiftfoot <swiftfoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:37103645...@hotmail.com...

<Giant Snip {TM}>

> > I suppose that Guardian Knights doesn't sell at all, does it? >What?
It
> does? Well, it isn't along the lines of Omaha, now is >it? You know why
> it's selling; we all do. People are impressed >with your ability to put
> plot and quality drawings together to >produce a product that is
something
> enjoyable to read and
> > look at. It doesn't need giant breasts and exposed genitals, it >can
> support itself on its own merits. That's something that can't >be said
for
> a lot of the art out there. But that's the problem: >clean art has to
> support itself. It needs to have merit. Erotic art >doesn't, it just
has
> to tantalize the buyer enough to make him >decide it's worth the money.
>
> My numbers are very low in comparison. Okay, I'll be blunt: 645 is the
> number I was given by Limelight Publishing Inc. for issue five. A 20%
> increase from 516 with issue four.

Ouch! At least the numbers are going up...

HEY, EVERYBODY! Buy and read GUARDIAN KNIGHTS!! It kicks ass! (There.
Think that'll help? ^_^)

>There are several factors, lack of
> advertising being one of them which is being taken care of, fortunately.
> Back when I first spoke of GK it was assumed to be a sex book by those I
> talked to. When it got out that I wasn't going to make it that I had
hassle
> and in cases threats if I didn't make it sexual.

There are some damn weird people out there. *I'm* one of them, but I'm not
*that* weird! "Draw spooge, or else"? Get real!

>I may have a sexual theme
> (tantric mages, incubus, succubus, etc), but I won't show the parts in
> action.

Tantric mages...? Ooooohhhh, *kinky*! ^_-

>There is something to be said for panning discretely away and
> leaving it up to the imagination of the reader as to what nice or horrid
> thing happened. I did that in GK 3 when Saraenae remembered her wedding
> night with K'andales. I've been asked if he did or told by those who
> assumed that he raped her viciously and that is why she's after him, for
> revenge. *rolls eyes* Even when I say that he didn't I'm given the
> nudgenudge winkwink.

<blink, blink>

Quote time!

"...[T]hey couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season if they stood
in the middle of a field of horny clues, smeared their body with clue musk
and did the clue mating dance."
--The Judge

>
> I can't and won't take the credit for GK's small success. That belongs
> squarely on my husband, D.A. Graf (Ian & Morgan stories and a couple of
> others for MU), for his writing. That is what I feel has saved the book
> time and time again. I'm no writer, I'm a plot person. He takes the
mess
> and makes sense out of it.
>

And damn good sense too! I'm pissed at myself for not hanging around your
table long enough at CF10 to meet him. <sigh> Maybe next year...

> I've been asked to make GK more sexy by Limelight Publishing Inc. A
> reasonable request, after all they're in it for the money and what sells?
> Sex appeal. I refuse to do anything gratuitous and I've gotten into
> arguments with them over it, but in the end it's up to me what I will and
> won't do. Didja notice Tanndi in issue four? Short shirt tucked under
to
> show off her belly, short shorts, buxom?

Oh, yeah! Yum!

>Only two noticed her who even said
> anything, most of the comments are about Artika, the living vampire
> Kynae-fox in issues 1 and 2.

I *still* like her "Go-Go" boots!

>I've been laffing about the shower scene in
> issue four, that sorta scene being a commonality in seemingly most anime
and
> manga (not all, I know). I dropped hints about, had some going "ohboy!"
and
> these same were so disappointed they couldn't see the boobyfruit and
other
> goodies. I'll do some sex appeal, yes, but only if it works for the
> character. I have more requests for Saraenae done in pin up up to
spoogey
> pics but I won't do it. Neither will I make her sexy in the book, it's
not
> in her character.
>

<snip>

> --Tygger L. Graf
>


--
--John F. Martin
Furry...@hotmail.com

"When you've had an Uzi pointed at you by a fellow in a ski mask, a bad
review is nothing at all."
--Mike Curtis

Night Owl Page:
http://earth.vol.com/~fsaint/home.html


Graf

unread,
Apr 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/12/99
to

John F. Martin <furry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01be850b$2e94f100$bc872ad1@default...

> Ouch! At least the numbers are going up...
>
> HEY, EVERYBODY! Buy and read GUARDIAN KNIGHTS!! It >kicks ass! (There.
Think that'll help? ^_^)

*blinks as she trips over this post then blinks again*

Heh, no telling, John, but thanks for the support. I really do appreciate
it. *snugs* As I've said before, I know GK isn't for everyone, and there
are detractors out there as well as more than a few who want to see it fail.
*shrugs* And thank you again for stopping by the table, it was fun...oh,
did you ever get back your Swiss Army knife?

> There are some damn weird people out there. *I'm* one of them, >but I'm
not *that* weird! "Draw spooge, or else"? Get real!

Yep. Being told "If you don't do it I won't buy it" or "I'll tell my
friends and shop to not get it" all the way up to "I should tell Diamond to
not carry it" and the real winner "Limelight should drop your book, it's not
worth the paper it's printed on", can really mess up your day. I still get
asked what issue the sex will start in so this small handful can start
buying it. Bleh, sorry, I firmly believer that sex does not need to be in a
book to sell it. A little sexiness doesn't hurt, no, but if there's a good
story then its not needed. You, weird? Nah...^_^ If you were too weird
I'd not have hugged you.

> Tantric mages...? Ooooohhhh, *kinky*! ^_-

It's all energy...^_^

> <blink, blink>
>
> Quote time!
>
> "...[T]hey couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season if >they
stood in the middle of a field of horny clues, smeared their >body with clue
musk and did the clue mating dance."
> --The Judge

LOL! True! That sounds like something Saraenae would tell Rivaim...*hms
and makes notes*

> And damn good sense too! I'm pissed at myself for not hanging >around
your table long enough at CF10 to meet him. <sigh> >Maybe next year...

He was around on Saturday...o_o...and ran the table pretty much of the time
on Sunday. Dean doesn't do many cons, mainly local ones. Perhaps ComicCon?

> Oh, yeah! Yum!

I take it that you like Tanndi....^_^ Don't worry, she's not core cast but
she will pop up now and then.

> I *still* like her "Go-Go" boots!

*laffs* The generic kneeboots that I tend to use...if you look at GK 1-2 I
gave Saraenae similar boots. I need a catalog of shoes and boots to use for
references...:P

Thanks for the comments, John! And it was great finally meeting you!


--Tygger L. Graf


Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Apr 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/12/99
to
In article <7etk6b$o9p$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>, "Graf" <gr...@primenet.com>
writes:

> *laffs* The generic kneeboots that I tend to use...if you look at
> GK 1-2 I gave Saraenae similar boots. I need a catalog of shoes and
> boots to use for references...:P

Suddenly I have this image of Saranae with a pissed look on her face, trying
to stand up in thigh-high leather boots with "Ballet Heels" saying "Okay, who
got Tygger the Kinky Boot Catalog?"


--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.


Michael Campbell

unread,
Apr 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/12/99
to

Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:

At least there's someone here who understands the logistics of the situation.
Judging from what I've heard, sales were down across the board. Although this
is indeed due to the fact that FC was just a handful of months before, it
also has to be taken into account that a lot of folks flew into town. Have
you seen what airline tickets cost this time of year, even in 'pack 'em in
like sardines' class? Eesh.

GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)


Dominic P. Cecava

unread,
Apr 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/13/99
to
Graf <gr...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<7erht6$9bd$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
>
> I honestly understand your frustration and words. You aren't the firs to
> speak them and you prolly won't be the last. But do you see what it is
that
> I and others are staying, Swiftfoot? How can WE give YOU and OTHERS what
> you all WANT when WE have no FEEDBACK and know WHAT to DO? Not shouting
> there, just emphasizing words. I've been asked for slice of life, I've
done
> them, nothing comes of it. I've been asked for drama, romance, sword and
> sorcery, action and still little to nothing.


You know, when I first got on AFF, I thought one of its purposes was a
place for fans to give feedback to artists and writers about their works.
Lately, it's been used for nothing but flames, personal grudges, etc. This
summer, I intend to change that. (But for now, I got to concentrate on
graduating first!)


> Okay, let's run with your blaming the artists. Yes, we do have the blame
in
> that we for the most part do more erotic works than non. But do you see
> WHY? You yourself said you were of the silent majority who look at the
> display book, find nothing they want, and just leave. If you are silent
and
> don't speak up, do you see how the cycle is continued? You and the other
> silents are to blame in that you do not speak up and let us know what you
> want. If you want something to buy, then please PLEASE let us KNOW. How
> can we help you if you don't help us? Now I will admit that I may be
wrong,
> that you may actually say something as do others. If so, great,
wonderful,
> thank you for it. If not, then perhaps if you did things could change.


Well, I have a whole list of ideas--characters and themes that I would like
artists to draw and writers to write about. My main interest and
contribution to this fandom is in rare mythical/fantasy creatures. Dragons
and unicorns are pretty abundant in this fandom, but I'm more interested in
the more obscure ones (hence my Obscure Mythicals posts--I plan on posting
more) like the karkadann or the questing beast.

I think this fandom is stagnating from the use of the same mundane animals
used over and over again in similar poses. A change of theme, as well as
characters, would be nice too.
If artists still want to draw mundane animals, try putting them in more
surreal environments, like a dragon in Victorian attire and setting (I know
something like this was done before).


> My numbers are very low in comparison. Okay, I'll be blunt: 645 is the
> number I was given by Limelight Publishing Inc. for issue five. A 20%
> increase from 516 with issue four. There are several factors, lack of
> advertising being one of them which is being taken care of, fortunately.
> Back when I first spoke of GK it was assumed to be a sex book by those I
> talked to. When it got out that I wasn't going to make it that I had
hassle
> and in cases threats if I didn't make it sexual. I may have a sexual
theme
> (tantric mages, incubus, succubus, etc), but I won't show the parts in
> action. There is something to be said for panning discretely away and
> leaving it up to the imagination of the reader as to what nice or horrid
> thing happened. I did that in GK 3 when Saraenae remembered her wedding
> night with K'andales. I've been asked if he did or told by those who
> assumed that he raped her viciously and that is why she's after him, for
> revenge. *rolls eyes* Even when I say that he didn't I'm given the
> nudgenudge winkwink.


This makes me wonder just what kind of people do you talk to? In almost
every post where you mention your works, people are looking for sex in it
left and right! Maybe if you hang around different crowds, you might get
completely different feedback?


> I've been asked to make GK more sexy by Limelight Publishing Inc. A
> reasonable request, after all they're in it for the money and what sells?
> Sex appeal. I refuse to do anything gratuitous and I've gotten into
> arguments with them over it, but in the end it's up to me what I will and
> won't do.


IMO, this is not reasonable at all. If the Publisher asks for such things,
then there's something wrong with the standards of the publisher and not
the artist. The publisher could always "suggest" some changes, but a "do
this or else" attitude from the publisher is bad for their image (in my
eyes anyway).


Didja notice Tanndi in issue four? Short shirt tucked under to
> show off her belly, short shorts, buxom? Only two noticed her who even
said
> anything, most of the comments are about Artika, the living vampire
> Kynae-fox in issues 1 and 2. I've been laffing about the shower scene in
> issue four, that sorta scene being a commonality in seemingly most anime
and
> manga (not all, I know). I dropped hints about, had some going "ohboy!"
and
> these same were so disappointed they couldn't see the boobyfruit and
other
> goodies. I'll do some sex appeal, yes, but only if it works for the
> character. I have more requests for Saraenae done in pin up up to
spoogey
> pics but I won't do it. Neither will I make her sexy in the book, it's
not
> in her character.

Good for you (and for Saranae!) Strong, independent NON-SEXY LOOKING
heroines are rare these days...this could also be another area for
non-spooge art ideas that you may want to consider.

> You are very correct in the statement that nonerotic art must stand on
its
> own merits. Unfortunately, if the artist doesn't know what sort of
things
> are wanted, we can't put them in there and the piece won't stand on its
> merits. Again, we aren't mind readers. We know what we like, but that
may
> not be what YOU are looking for. Yes, erotica has a very low common
> demoniator which is easy to reach. Yes, some are lucky to hit it each
time,
> others are lucky every now and then. I'm utterly surprised still over
how
> well the Chinese tigers are selling since I released them. I did those
for
> me, a personal project, nothing more. I got extremely lucky.

I knew there's an interest in obscure mythical creatures! The chinese
tiger symbols are on my list of rare fantasy creatures I'd like to see more
of. All the more reason for me to list other mythical creatures for
artists to consider drawing. I just know there's a market for this
stuff...

BTW, I need to get thost prints myself!
Tygger, could you e-mail me your latest print list?

> >It takes little creativity to come up with spooge that will sell,
>because
> the portion of the fandom that wants that sort of
> > material will snap up nearly anything. Admit it: a pinup is much
>easier
> to do than a clean work. Just look at a Penthouse if you >need
inspiration.
> The clean work requires originality, something >that the buyer hasn't
seen
> before.

Heh, there ought to be a magazine of "clean" pictures for artists to get
inspiration for non-erotic poses.

>
> Here's to breaking the cycle...
>

Maybe I'll be the one to break it for you...

--
*Paragon*
The Unidragryphoenix

Fortune go with you, wherever your journeys take you!


John F. Martin

unread,
Apr 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/13/99
to
Graf <gr...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<7etk6b$o9p$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...

>
> John F. Martin <furry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:01be850b$2e94f100$bc872ad1@default...
>
> > Ouch! At least the numbers are going up...
> >
> > HEY, EVERYBODY! Buy and read GUARDIAN KNIGHTS!! It >kicks ass!
(There.
> Think that'll help? ^_^)
>
> *blinks as she trips over this post then blinks again*
>
> Heh, no telling, John, but thanks for the support. I really do
appreciate
> it. *snugs* As I've said before, I know GK isn't for everyone, and
there
> are detractors out there as well as more than a few who want to see it
fail.
> *shrugs* And thank you again for stopping by the table, it was fun...oh,
> did you ever get back your Swiss Army knife?
>

Yah. I swung by and snagged it while you were talking to someone. I
should have let you hang on to it. It would have been a reminder to drop
by more often...

> > There are some damn weird people out there. *I'm* one of them, >but
I'm
> not *that* weird! "Draw spooge, or else"? Get real!
>
> Yep. Being told "If you don't do it I won't buy it" or "I'll tell my
> friends and shop to not get it" all the way up to "I should tell Diamond
to
> not carry it" and the real winner "Limelight should drop your book, it's
not
> worth the paper it's printed on", can really mess up your day. I still
get
> asked what issue the sex will start in so this small handful can start
> buying it. Bleh, sorry, I firmly believer that sex does not need to be
in a
> book to sell it. A little sexiness doesn't hurt, no, but if there's a
good
> story then its not needed. You, weird? Nah...^_^ If you were too weird
> I'd not have hugged you.
>

<blushes> Gosh, thanks... >^_^<

> > Tantric mages...? Ooooohhhh, *kinky*! ^_-
>
> It's all energy...^_^

Yah! Hey, if you're going to build up power for a spell, can you think of
a more fun way to do it? ^_^

>
> > <blink, blink>
> >
> > Quote time!
> >
> > "...[T]hey couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season if >they
> stood in the middle of a field of horny clues, smeared their >body with
clue
> musk and did the clue mating dance."
> > --The Judge
>
> LOL! True! That sounds like something Saraenae would tell
Rivaim...*hms
> and makes notes*
>
> > And damn good sense too! I'm pissed at myself for not hanging >around
> your table long enough at CF10 to meet him. <sigh> >Maybe next year...
>
> He was around on Saturday...o_o...and ran the table pretty much of the
time
> on Sunday. Dean doesn't do many cons, mainly local ones. Perhaps
ComicCon?

I don't get out to the Left Coast much...

>
> > Oh, yeah! Yum!
>
> I take it that you like Tanndi....^_^ Don't worry, she's not core cast
but
> she will pop up now and then.
>
> > I *still* like her "Go-Go" boots!
>

> *laffs* The generic kneeboots that I tend to use...if you look at GK 1-2
I
> gave Saraenae similar boots. I need a catalog of shoes and boots to use
for
> references...:P
>

> Thanks for the comments, John! And it was great finally meeting you!
>

Same here! Yay! I've finally been Tyggerhugged in RL! Weeeee!!

Jim Doolittle

unread,
Apr 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/13/99
to