Gallery #25 ships
Richard Chandler
I meant to post this right away, but at least I have now. Last Friday
Gallery #25 went out in the mail. It is 262 pages, with works by 31
different artists. The cover price is $16, although subscribers naturally
get a discount.
Ed Zolna should have his 85 copies any day now.
The artists in this issue are:
Alex Schlarmann, Alyn Gryphon, Andrew Murphy-Mee, Cataroo, Chris Whelan,
Dean L. Norton, Diana Vick, Frank Gembeck Jr, Herb Bresky, Jack Cavanaugh,
Jim Groat, John Boulton, John Tatman, JW Kennedy, Kathy Marschall, Ken
Fletcher, Larry Dixon, M. Poomah de Alarcon, Mark Davis, Mike Capriola,
Mike Raabe, Polecat, Robert Kirkpatrick, Roy D. Pounds II, Sandi
Wilkinson, Sky Rigdon, Steve Corbett, Taral Wayne, Terrie Smith, Tom
Millorn, and Tygger.
This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think is
wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really controversial, but
the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those things have been
bugging me too, but I never put them into words like that." so far.
For subscription info e-mail, or check out the web page.
--
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog... but they can tell right
off the bat if you're an idiot! -- Me
http://www.teleport.com/~mauser/ Gallery Web Page
"Yeah, I've got ADD, wanna make something of.... oooh, cool. Look!"
wol...@netcom.com
In article <4pr1cl$7...@nadine.teleport.com>,
--
| wol...@netcom.com * General mischief engineer * PFT Founder |
wol...@netcom.com
In article <4pr1cl$7...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>I meant to post this right away, but at least I have now. Last Friday
>Gallery #25 went out in the mail. It is 262 pages, with works by 31
>different artists. The cover price is $16, although subscribers naturally
>get a discount.
>
[snip]
>
>This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think is
>wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really controversial, but
>the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those things have been
>bugging me too, but I never put them into words like that." so far.
Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
soapbox, er, fanzine.
And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!
Brian
Steve Gattuso
wol...@netcom.com wrote:
> Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
> fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
> two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
> soapbox, er, fanzine.
Then let me go on record as saying that in many ways, Rich didn't
go far enough. And that responses like yours are a lot closer to the
sort of obtuse banality I expected to see about the editorial.
And just when the hell does publishing a fanzine make it illegal
to state an opinion, you schmuck? After the huge battle over the CDA,
you'd think some of you would get a clue as to what the 1st Amendment is
all about.
> And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!
And you wanted to be a real wolf, instead of the yapping,
bitchy poodle you are.
Tygger
wol...@netcom.com wrote:
: Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
: fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
: two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
: soapbox, er, fanzine.
: And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!
Interesting. I've heard the opposite, and as for the editorial, well,
I and others have been addressing some of the points Rich made here in
the ng. This was BEFORE Gallery shipped.
Not meaning to start a flame war, and I'm not meaning to come across as a
flame, just giving a bit of what I know.
Just goes to show how one article can be interpreted differently by
different people. *grins*
--Tygger
--
****************************************************************************
tyg...@netcom.com http://www.av.qnet.com/~canuss/tygger
****************************************************************************
"Place your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark."
Lazarus Long, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
wol...@netcom.com
In article <tyggerDt...@netcom.com>, Tygger <tyg...@netcom.com> wrote:
>wol...@netcom.com wrote:
>
>: Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
>: fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
>: two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
>: soapbox, er, fanzine.
>
>: And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!
>
>Interesting. I've heard the opposite, and as for the editorial, well,
>I and others have been addressing some of the points Rich made here in
>the ng. This was BEFORE Gallery shipped.
>
>Not meaning to start a flame war, and I'm not meaning to come across as a
>flame, just giving a bit of what I know.
>
>Just goes to show how one article can be interpreted differently by
>different people. *grins*
>
>
>--Tygger
>
I would venture to say that in the editorial he draws a handful of
pretty accurate conclusions that everyone already knows, and a whole
boatload of whacked-out, fucked-up, insane lunatic conclusions. This
also seems to be the attitude of just about everyone I've spoken to
who've read the article, but then I guess some people in the world really
do think that 'wanting to give and not receive' anal sex means lack
of commitment, that no one in the Furry community has died of AIDS,
and that intolerance is the road to freedom. I've never read such
blatant, arrogant megalomanical ramblings in my life except by groups
like the Christian Coalition and PETA.
Just goes to show how one moron can be interpreted different ways by
different people. Not that this is a thinly veiled comment on you, Tygger,
just that what some might see as Rich trying to be helpful others see as
sociopolitical masturbation.
Mark Phaedrus
In article <wolfieDt...@netcom.com>, <wol...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <4pr1cl$7...@nadine.teleport.com>,
>Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think is
>>wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really controversial, but
>>the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those things have been
>>bugging me too, but I never put them into words like that." so far.
>Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
>fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
>two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
>soapbox, er, fanzine.
I haven't read the editorial in question, so I can't comment on that
(other than to say "if you're going to complain about something, it would be
nice if you mentioned at least one specific thing you're complaining about").
But after you just reposted Mr. Chandler's entire message with no new text
whatsoever (in article <wolfieDt...@netcom.com> in this thread), you
might have reconsidered whether this was the best time to launch into
insults concerning intelligence... :-)
--
## Macintosh developer with 3+ years commercial experience; hire me... ##
## Please see <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/resume.html>. ##
If you're interested in books/stories with transformation themes, please
try <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/translist/translist.html>.
Timothy D Fay
Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
>This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think is
>wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really controversial, but
>the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those things have been
>bugging me too, but I never put them into words like that." so far.
I thought it was a fine editorial, Richard. (If such a comment from me
doesn't destroy your credibility, it should at least cause you to remember
your last three meals :) ). I thought quote from Eric Blumrich was
especially powerful, and I think you should reprint it here in a.f.f.
--
Reply to: fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
-- http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/m279/fayxx001 --
"My mental facilities are TWICE what yours are -- you pea brain!"
-Percival McLeach
++++ Stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal! ++++
++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
++++ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++
Roz Gibson
In article <4q087d$5...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu says...
>
>Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
>
>>This issue also features a scathing editorial about
everything I think is
>>wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really
controversial, but
>>the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those things
have been
>>bugging me too, but I never put them into words like that."
so far.
>
>I thought it was a fine editorial, Richard. (If such a
comment from me
>doesn't destroy your credibility, it should at least cause you
to remember
>your last three meals :) ). I thought quote from Eric
Blumrich was
>especially powerful, and I think you should reprint it here in
a.f.f.
Or better yet, read every disgruntled thing Eric has to say in
HUZZAH! He has an esspecially turgid account of his arrest and
imprisonment in rural Tennessee in the current issue (#22).
BTW, I basically agree with most of what Chandler said. I
deal with the dog collar and leash crowd by ignoring them.
They no more represent mainstream furry fandom than "femenazis"
represent women or career criminals represent blacks. They are
a very visible minority, and it falls upon us to educate fandom
at large and potential new furries that there's a lot more
things to furry fandom than men being led around on leashes.
Timothy D Fay
Timothy D Fay (fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
>...I thought quote from Eric Blumrich was
>especially powerful, and I think you should reprint it here in a.f.f.
That's bad phrasing on my part. What I meant to say is that you should
reprint your entire editorial here in a.f.f.
Mitchell Marmel
>Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
>fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
>two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
>soapbox, er, fanzine.
>
>And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!
I'll be durned. It IS possible to type without opposable thumbs!
-MMM-
M. Mitchell Marmel
In article <31C342...@primenet.com>, Steve Gattuso
<Pdoo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> wol...@netcom.com wrote:
(drivel deleted)
> > And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!
>
> And you wanted to be a real wolf, instead of the yapping,
> bitchy poodle you are.
Poodle's too good for 'im. Small pomeranian.
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Laboratory\ marm...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
============================================================================
Gary Burke
In article <4q4k2g$f...@news.interlog.com>, <and...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>Richard Chandler wrote:
>>This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think
>>is wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really
>>controversial, but the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those
>>things have been bugging me too, but I never put them into words like
>>that." so far.
>
>
>
> Furry fandom is a social club, not a Cult of the Artist. It's not
>defined by `true believer' furries who dedicate themselves to
>furthering some primal furry agenda with their creativity or
>patronage. It's defined by everyone who calls themselves a furry fan.
>There are a lot of people saying they are fans and as a result there
>are many different approaches to enjoying being furry. The internet,
>conventions, fanzines, prozines and all the other ways that furries
>interact with one another are vital parts of the fandom.
> _All_ of these diverse ideas are valid and have to be, not just
>tolerated, but accepted. It's selfish and patronizing to insist that
>people enjoy fandom your way or not at all. That doesn't mean we
>can't debate our just plain argue about our opinions, as long as folks
>avoid confusing their feelings with being some kind of higher belief.
>That they are a voice for the `one true way' that is more valid than
>anyone else's ideas.
I concur 100%. I also read the editorial in Gallery and was struck by
the subtext that only artists and people who buy lots of art are valid
furry fans, that those who just hang out on furrymuck, like furries,
and go to cons to meet their friends in RL are 'dilettantes' who should
be expunged from the fandom. "Take back our fandom" is how you worded
it Rich, if I'm not mistaken, along with a general attitude that we've
been too tolerant of these dog-collar wearing, T-or-D playing faggots
who could all use a good kick in the ass. (Jim Groat's con report had a
similar tone, although I've come to expect that from him)
You singled out gay furries for special attention, and I'm sorry, claiming
you can't be homophobic because you're bisexual just doesn't cut it.
Plenty of GAY people are homophobic, it just means they hate themselves.
(I'm not saying you do, I'm just saying that bisexuality does not mean you
can't be phobic/bigoted towards openly gay people.) There are a lot of
gay artists, fans, fanboys, writers, whatever. A lot of them are from
Furrymuck and I have seen how the open, tolerant atmosphere of furry
fandom as a whole and furrymuck in particular has helped a lot of people
to come to grips with their sexuality, and find love and acceptance. To
a lot of people that has been a godsend. I think going back to the guns-
and-vixens atmosphere of furry fandom that was here when I started (at
least among the group I started with) would be an immense loss.
As for our reputations in other fandoms, I could give a rat's ass what
some Trekkies think of furry. Anime has a FAR worse reputation for
being sex-obsessed but that hasn't stopped it from gaining massmarket
wide acceptance in recent months/years. (Sailor Moon?) We have our own
cons, our own APAs, etc. etc. and do not have to ride on the coattails
of other fandoms. If some con decides not to allow furry art in the art
show, it's their loss. Furry parties can still be held at the most
furryphobic of cons, you just hold you head high and ignore the Capt. Kirk
geeks.
"Taking Back The Fandom"
I suppose, somehow, Rich, Major Matt, and the rest could marshal the
forces, gather your weapons, put on your best berets and fatigues and
arrange a putsch at CF8 -- line up the collar and leash crowd (code:
those decadent queerboys) and run them out of the Atrium Marquis on a
rail. There'd be no spooge in the art show, and the businessmen and
christian revivalists staying at the same hotel wouldn't see anything to
offend their delicate sensibilities. It'd be Disney in the video room
and the dealers room would be back issues of Furrlough and Albedo for as
far as the eye could see. No dancing in the cabaret or Purple Nurple
Live, I guess we could have a wholesome filksing instead. We could show
each other our automatic rifles and surplus hand grenades.. but none of
those snuggling fanboys, God that's disgusting. Oh
wait,there'd still be topless vixens - some sexual artwork is more equal than
others. Sounds like a fun con..
Gary "Reservations still available" Burke
--
gary burke------------------------------------------------------------------
"I just got one thing to say: you better WORK IT!"
wol...@netcom.com
In article <31C342...@primenet.com>,
Steve Gattuso <Pdoo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>wol...@netcom.com wrote:
>
>> fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
>> two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
>> soapbox, er, fanzine.
>
>go far enough. And that responses like yours are a lot closer to the
>sort of obtuse banality I expected to see about the editorial.
If you think he didn't go far enough, than I don't really consider you
to agree with me then.
> And just when the hell does publishing a fanzine make it illegal
>to state an opinion, you schmuck? After the huge battle over the CDA,
>you'd think some of you would get a clue as to what the 1st Amendment is
>all about.
What the fuck are you talking about? Who said it was illegal or should be?
Are you reading someone else's post or just too busy making personal
attacks on me to even read what I'm saying? (For the record, yes I would
consider my comments towards Rich to be personal attacks in some ways,
but I wouldn't claim he said or suggested things he didn't. This guy
seems unable to read and understand what I'm saying.)
For any others who may be as clue-deficient as this guy, while the
first amendment gives Rich the right to say what he wants for the most
part, it also give me the right to say I think he's wrong. Is that
OK Steve or should I type more slowly for you?
>
>> And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!
>
> And you wanted to be a real wolf, instead of the yapping,
>bitchy poodle you are.
Uhhh.... Ok. Whatever. You're making very little sense you know.
Tygger
Timothy D Fay (fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: I thought it was a fine editorial, Richard. (If such a comment from me
: doesn't destroy your credibility, it should at least cause you to remember
: your last three meals :) ). I thought quote from Eric Blumrich was
: especially powerful, and I think you should reprint it here in a.f.f.
*nods* Heck, much of what he mentioned has been kicked around online
here and is being booted about myself as well right now on 2 threads.
I agree, upload the editorial here Rich. I'm quite curious a to the
other responses.
and...@interlog.com
>Richard Chandler wrote:
>This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think
>is wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really
>controversial, but the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those
>things have been bugging me too, but I never put them into words like
>that." so far.
Ah.. let me change that for you.
Furry fandom is a social club, not a Cult of the Artist. It's not
defined by `true believer' furries who dedicate themselves to
furthering some primal furry agenda with their creativity or
patronage. It's defined by everyone who calls themselves a furry fan.
There are a lot of people saying they are fans and as a result there
are many different approaches to enjoying being furry. The internet,
conventions, fanzines, prozines and all the other ways that furries
interact with one another are vital parts of the fandom.
_All_ of these diverse ideas are valid and have to be, not just
tolerated, but accepted. It's selfish and patronizing to insist that
people enjoy fandom your way or not at all. That doesn't mean we
can't debate our just plain argue about our opinions, as long as folks
avoid confusing their feelings with being some kind of higher belief.
That they are a voice for the `one true way' that is more valid than
anyone else's ideas.
That's exactly how your editorial in issue #25 reads. You are an
`old guard' furry fan bitching about the current fandom and
desperately wanting the good old days back.. by any means possible.
This alone doesn't bother me, as I've grown use to hearing the same
pointless rhetoric from many furs who have been in the fandom for a
relatively long time. And you are, of course, welcome to voice your
opinions.. tho I think you are being unprofessional to do so in your
`zine. That's another issue. What I resent is your using Gallery as
a means to further your personal agenda under the guise of it's being
_the_ Furry Agenda. You are misguided if you believe that your
feelings are more than just your feelings. A few other people might
agree with you, but this doesn't mean you can ignore any of the people
in the fandom who disagree with you.
For example; I strongly disagree with your agenda to de-evolve the
fandom into something that would fit into your narrow ideas.
Especially by means of some form of `ethnic cleansing.' The diversity
of people, artwork and social expression in the fandom is what makes
if worthwhile to me. It keeps it alive and interesting. I disagree
so much with you that I don't want to support your means of promoting
your agenda.. once again I'm thinking of not publishing my artwork in
Gallery any more. I know I'm not the only artist having these
thoughts.
The cons outweigh the pros and there are other, less polit-icky,
`zines out there. However I've met and made friends with several
wonderful people because of Gallery and it does give many fans a
chance to see my work. So I'm not sure what to do. Either way I want
to make the decision soon because I dislike how much stress this is
putting on me.
-- Andrew Murphy-Mee --
Brian Harris
: Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
: fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
: two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
: soapbox, er, fanzine.
WTF? Why is he a "fucking idiot" if he airs his own personal opinion in a
magazine that he owns and publishes? Do you call everyone who has an
opinion vastly differing from yours a "fucking idiot"? Even if their
ideas seem strange to you?
I'm an "older" user of Furry, having been around a long time, too. I
think some things should go back to the way they were, too. Am I a
"fucking idiot", too now? Because I feel that way? Do you base your
choices of reading material on the publisher's beliefs? Does it matter if
he writes a little essay on it in the beginning of the book, even if the
rest of the book has nothing more to do with it? Why call him names here
when you could be writing your intelligent counter-essay to him for
Gallery?
Unless Rich's editorial is as childish as your response, I think he's
certainly shown he's one step above your ranting. No, I haven't read it
yet, but I sure doubt that even if he rants and raves about how everyone
is a fool and brain-dead, that I wouldn't take it as personally as your
retort.
As for further comments in other followups about not buying Gallery
because of what Rich believes, this would be a truly illiterate world if
people only read material by writers and artists who felt the exact
goddamn way that you do. This, right here, is what keeps people from
saying what they think today.
I'm going to keep buying Gallery no matter what he says. He has to say
something a lot worse before I quit reading Gallery because of his
opinion.
- Rigel
Richard Chandler
In article <wolfieDt...@netcom.com>, <wol...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
>fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
>two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
>soapbox, er, fanzine.
I know you can do better than that.
In my editorial, I flamed the following sorts of scum:
- Scam artists.
- Mercenaries who don't care about the fandom, they just wanna make money
from it.
- Dilletantes, or specifically, people who came to furry fandom through
the net, but who aren't interested in Furryness so much as it's just a
crowd to hang with.
- People who used the fandom as some sort of stepping stone for promoting
their own, wholly unrelated agenda.
- In particular, those who in the past set the tone trying to turn it
into their own private sexual playground.
- and as an example, I slammed the "Dr. Pepper file".
- People who are more interested in seeing their own wet dreams
transcribed to paper by artists, rather than checking out what visions the
artists have come up with by themselves.
- And I pointed out how this customer-driven situation has become toxic
to anyone who has a serious interest in a professional art career.
- And finaly, people who are attracted to Furry Fandom not because of the
critters, but because they hear about the "horrible" reputation of it
being some kind of sexual free-for all, and join up in order to get laid
(And specifically by men, since women are pretty rare at CF).
Please, pick any one of these categories of people I've slighted, and
explain to me rationally and logically, and without insults, how much
their presence benefits the fandom.
Richard Chandler
>defined by `true believer' furries who dedicate themselves to
>furthering some primal furry agenda with their creativity or
>patronage. It's defined by everyone who calls themselves a furry fan.
>There are a lot of people saying they are fans and as a result there
>are many different approaches to enjoying being furry. The internet,
>conventions, fanzines, prozines and all the other ways that furries
>interact with one another are vital parts of the fandom.
I have a problem with that definition. It's the same problem that
manifested itself a long time ago in science fiction fandom. Sometime in
the 60's or 70's, people who had been in the fandom a long time started to
realize that there were a lot of people coming to the conventions simply
because they liked going to conventions. Many of them didn't even READ
Science Fiction.
If the fandom consists of simply anyone who calls themselves a Furry, then
what's so special about being a furry? Am I really all that far off base
by wanting anyone who claims to be a fan of furries to actually have a
sincere interest in the meta-genre?
Sure, the conventions and zines are all the ways people interact, but the
very raison d'etre is because they are interested in anthropomorphic
characters in some way shape or form.
> _All_ of these diverse ideas are valid and have to be, not just
>tolerated, but accepted. It's selfish and patronizing to insist that
>people enjoy fandom your way or not at all. That doesn't mean we
>can't debate our just plain argue about our opinions, as long as folks
>avoid confusing their feelings with being some kind of higher belief.
>That they are a voice for the `one true way' that is more valid than
>anyone else's ideas.
You know, right on the front page of every copy of Gallery is a little
disclaimer that says that "Any editorial comments are strictly the
responsibility of their author, and do not reflect on the opinions or
views of anyone else involved in this publication". This applies
especially to me. I have some pretty strong opinions on things, and I'll
be damned if I'm gonna hold 'em back. I did once, and I damn near choked
on it. And I did it for you, if you recall. I'm the one who smoothed out
the feelings of some people who objected to some of the things you put in
Gallery. You should grant me the same courtesy.
> That's exactly how your editorial in issue #25 reads. You are an
>`old guard' furry fan bitching about the current fandom and
>desperately wanting the good old days back.. by any means possible.
Then you misread me. The "good old days" are what brought us to this
sorry state. I don't long for the days when people traded cruddy fifteenth
generation Ken Sample Xeroxes like Anime fans used to do with tapes.
Where one's status in the fandom was determined by how many binders full
of art you had. Some things have gotten a lot better (and I'm going to be
writing the flip side of this editorial for #26).
>This alone doesn't bother me, as I've grown use to hearing the same
>pointless rhetoric from many furs who have been in the fandom for a
>relatively long time. And you are, of course, welcome to voice your
>opinions.. tho I think you are being unprofessional to do so in your
>`zine. That's another issue. What I resent is your using Gallery as
>a means to further your personal agenda under the guise of it's being
>_the_ Furry Agenda. You are misguided if you believe that your
>feelings are more than just your feelings. A few other people might
>agree with you, but this doesn't mean you can ignore any of the people
>in the fandom who disagree with you.
You'll note I'm not. Hell, the main reason I commented on the lack of
comment was in hopes to draw some out. I think you're granting my words a
little more power than they have, but on the other hand, I AM the editor
and publisher, and if for some reason I decided to take my ball and go
home, there wouldn't be a damned thing anyone could do to stop me. (Of
course,the daunting task of writing half a box worth of checks would be a
strong incentive to keep the book going instead).
As for being unprofessional. FIJAGDH. This isn't my job. I don't depend
on it for a living. Hell, I don't even make any money on it. I merely
spend 60 or 70 hours of my life on it every quarter. It's a labor of
love. I love what the fandom has the potential to be, and it makes me
heartsick to see people dragging it down.
> For example; I strongly disagree with your agenda to de-evolve the
>fandom into something that would fit into your narrow ideas.
>Especially by means of some form of `ethnic cleansing.' The diversity
>of people, artwork and social expression in the fandom is what makes
>if worthwhile to me. It keeps it alive and interesting. I disagree
>so much with you that I don't want to support your means of promoting
>your agenda.. once again I'm thinking of not publishing my artwork in
>Gallery any more. I know I'm not the only artist having these
>thoughts.
"Ethnic Cleansing" Why not just call me Hitler and get the argument over
with? The whole Mass Graves thing was a metaphor. I'm sure that when
Dave Bryant was taking the Six Shallow Graves poll, he wasn't planning a
hitlist.
Hell, there's nothing I can do to stop you from taking your ball and going
home either. But if you go, you're letting me win. On the other hand,
you can take that same list I gave Wolfie, and tell me which ones you
really think ought to stay to make Furry Fandom a better place than it is.
> The cons outweigh the pros and there are other, less polit-icky,
>`zines out there. However I've met and made friends with several
>wonderful people because of Gallery and it does give many fans a
>chance to see my work. So I'm not sure what to do. Either way I want
>to make the decision soon because I dislike how much stress this is
>putting on me.
There are a bunch of people in Gallery who hate each-other's guts, believe
it or not, but for the good of the book, they deal with it. And it's
perfectly okay for you to hate me if you want. I have never kicked anyone
out of Gallery, and it will be a sad day if I ever do, so that's one thing
you needn't worry about. Say what you want. Savage me up and down in
your next trib if you feel it's necessary, or turn the other cheek. It's
your option.
Personally, I think you ought to at least stick around for "Pedestals".
You may find that I'm not quite so evil or small-minded after all.
Richard Chandler
In article <4q52ng$b...@zot.io.org>, Gary Burke <ga...@zot.io.org> wrote:
>I concur 100%. I also read the editorial in Gallery and was struck by
>the subtext that only artists and people who buy lots of art are valid
>furry fans, that those who just hang out on furrymuck, like furries,
>and go to cons to meet their friends in RL are 'dilettantes' who should
>be expunged from the fandom. "Take back our fandom" is how you worded
>it Rich, if I'm not mistaken, along with a general attitude that we've
>been too tolerant of these dog-collar wearing, T-or-D playing faggots
>who could all use a good kick in the ass. (Jim Groat's con report had a
>similar tone, although I've come to expect that from him)
There are lots of ways to contribute to the fandom. I don't quite see how
playing truth or dare is one of them. What does it have to do with funny
animals?
Yeah, perhaps there was a subtext there that the main focus at a
convention is creation or consumption, that might be a valid criticism if
I had left out any mention of participation. But I didn't. Even just
sitting in on a panel discussion and asking the right question constitutes
furthering the fandom. But the people I complained about don't even do
that.
>You singled out gay furries for special attention, and I'm sorry, claiming
>you can't be homophobic because you're bisexual just doesn't cut it.
>Plenty of GAY people are homophobic, it just means they hate themselves.
>(I'm not saying you do, I'm just saying that bisexuality does not mean you
>can't be phobic/bigoted towards openly gay people.) There are a lot of
>gay artists, fans, fanboys, writers, whatever. A lot of them are from
>Furrymuck and I have seen how the open, tolerant atmosphere of furry
>fandom as a whole and furrymuck in particular has helped a lot of people
>to come to grips with their sexuality, and find love and acceptance. To
>a lot of people that has been a godsend. I think going back to the guns-
>and-vixens atmosphere of furry fandom that was here when I started (at
>least among the group I started with) would be an immense loss.
Hmmm, the subtext I'm picking up here is that we should be tolerant of gay
furries, but there's something wrong with vixens and guns. Maybe you
should have that plank in your eye taken care of before you start poking
after the speck in mine.
I could say something about "Since when is it the responsibility of the
people who happen to like Beatrix Potter and Disney films to provide an
environment where young gay men can come to grips with their sexuality? I
mean, shouldn't they turn to the gay community for that? They have a lot
more experience with that sort of thing." But frankly, that's not the
problem I have. Anything that keeps a young gay male from offing himself
is a good thing. The problem is that they've been abusing everyone else.
There's nothing wrong with gay furries. There IS something wrong with
reckless, abusive, and rude gay furries. Whether it's needless
psychodrama, willful ignorace of safe sex practices, or simple lack of
grace and common decency, what these young people are getting from furry
fandom lacks one of the things they desperately need. Discipline (Self or
otherwise). Behaviour that would be damn close to the edge at a pride
march is way over it at a convention. I only ask two things of them: A
little common courtesy, and that if they don't have a sincere interest in
anthropomorphics, they stay home.
>As for our reputations in other fandoms, I could give a rat's ass what
>some Trekkies think of furry. Anime has a FAR worse reputation for
>being sex-obsessed but that hasn't stopped it from gaining massmarket
>wide acceptance in recent months/years. (Sailor Moon?) We have our own
>cons, our own APAs, etc. etc. and do not have to ride on the coattails
>of other fandoms. If some con decides not to allow furry art in the art
>show, it's their loss. Furry parties can still be held at the most
>furryphobic of cons, you just hold you head high and ignore the Capt. Kirk
>geeks.
The problem is, what if it's not just an isolated con? What happens when
loathing of Furry Fandom is widespread? This isn't a what if. Right now,
if you want a job in animation, you'd better take all your furriness and
stuff it deep in the closet and hope nobody digs it out. (Try asking Dave
Kuhn about Furry stuff.) When Warner Brothers slams tiny toon fandom in
a nationally broadcast evening special, then you know that this fandom has
accumulated some powerful enemies.
At SDCC, why is it that the furry panels are always scheduled late at
night, when the other publishers are having their parties? And why do the
panels end up with titles like "How can you find IT under all that fur?"
SDCC is the largest comics media con in the world, and every single person
in attendence gets a program book where the only mention of anything furry
has ridicule written all over it. Hold your head up? Sure. Once you've
bent your shoulders down against the sand. "What image problem?"
It seems that some people LIKE furry fandom to be the cesspit it's
becoming. They like to wallow in their own filth. They are having their
fun, and don't care how much it stinks up things for everyone else. As
long as they get their jollies, the rest of us can go to hell. I want the
future to be better than things are now.
[I deleted the long rant that shows that you can be just as intolerant as
you accuse me of being]
Richard J. Bartrop
On 17 Jun 1996, Gary Burke wrote:
> As for our reputations in other fandoms, I could give a rat's ass what
> some Trekkies think of furry.
That's very nice for you, but some of do have ties in other fandoms.
I've been involved with Science Fiction Fandom for many years, and know
many people there, people who's opinions I respect, and it bothers me that
furfandom is getting such an unfortunate reputation. Its one thing to be
thought of as a little odd, its quite another to have people recoil in
disgust, as one furfan related here not too long ago
> "Taking Back The Fandom"
> > I suppose, somehow, Rich, Major Matt, and the rest could marshal the
> forces, gather your weapons, put on your best berets and fatigues and
> arrange a putsch at CF8 -- line up the collar and leash crowd (code:
> those decadent queerboys) and run them out of the Atrium Marquis on a
> rail. There'd be no spooge in the art show, and the businessmen and
> christian revivalists staying at the same hotel wouldn't see anything to
> offend their delicate sensibilities. It'd be Disney in the video room
> and the dealers room would be back issues of Furrlough and Albedo for as
> far as the eye could see. No dancing in the cabaret or Purple Nurple
> Live, I guess we could have a wholesome filksing instead. We could show
> each other our automatic rifles and surplus hand grenades.. but none of
> those snuggling fanboys, God that's disgusting. Oh
> wait,there'd still be topless vixens - some sexual artwork is more equal than
> others. Sounds like a fun con..
Sounds good to me ;)
Richard Bartrop
Grey on FurryMUCK
Gary Burke
In article <4q5q2p$d...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <4q52ng$b...@zot.io.org>, Gary Burke <ga...@zot.io.org> wrote:
>>I concur 100%. I also read the editorial in Gallery and was struck by
>>the subtext that only artists and people who buy lots of art are valid
>>furry fans, that those who just hang out on furrymuck, like furries,
>>and go to cons to meet their friends in RL are 'dilettantes' who should
>
>playing truth or dare is one of them. What does it have to do with funny
>animals?
Furry fandom is a social club, basically. Not everybody sketches. Truth
or Dare is a good icebreaker at gatherings to get people to try to talk to
each other in RL, which is something that a lot of furries sometimes have
trouble with, usually talking in snailmail letters or on the computer.
It's connection to funny animals is tangential at best, but it generally
goes on in private or semiprivate room parties anyhow and isn't really a
specified con activity. (Unlike, say, the pet auction, which people just
do because it's fun).
>Yeah, perhaps there was a subtext there that the main focus at a
>convention is creation or consumption, that might be a valid criticism if
>I had left out any mention of participation. But I didn't. Even just
>sitting in on a panel discussion and asking the right question constitutes
>furthering the fandom. But the people I complained about don't even do
>that.
Possibly, but I don't see 'the fandom' as being this seperate entity from
the people that comprise it, an entity that must be appeased. Everyone
has a different way of liking furries, and more often than not if they
have come all the way to a con they probably have at least some regard
for funny animals -- seeing someone running around in say, a collar, ears,
short-shorts and a bunny tail doesn't mean they're at the con just to get
laid and have no interest in furries, they just have a different way of
expressing themselves - and they are in some way participating.
>>gay artists, fans, fanboys, writers, whatever. A lot of them are from
>>Furrymuck and I have seen how the open, tolerant atmosphere of furry
>>fandom as a whole and furrymuck in particular has helped a lot of people
>>to come to grips with their sexuality, and find love and acceptance. To
>>a lot of people that has been a godsend. I think going back to the guns-
>>and-vixens atmosphere of furry fandom that was here when I started (at
>>least among the group I started with) would be an immense loss.
>
>Hmmm, the subtext I'm picking up here is that we should be tolerant of gay
>furries, but there's something wrong with vixens and guns. Maybe you
>should have that plank in your eye taken care of before you start poking
>after the speck in mine.
Not quite. Because, there are still guns and vixens in the fandom - and
I'm not saying we should eliminate them. I am just glad it's not ALL guns
and vixens.
>I could say something about "Since when is it the responsibility of the
>people who happen to like Beatrix Potter and Disney films to provide an
>environment where young gay men can come to grips with their sexuality? I
>mean, shouldn't they turn to the gay community for that? They have a lot
>more experience with that sort of thing." But frankly, that's not the
The problem is the mainstream gay community is very appearance-oriented
and sadly, not all that accepting to a lot of people who don't fit either
the 'pretty boy' or 'bear' molds. I think that is a definite problem but
i'm glad there's furry to pick up SOME of the slack.
>problem I have. Anything that keeps a young gay male from offing himself
>is a good thing. The problem is that they've been abusing everyone else.
>There's nothing wrong with gay furries. There IS something wrong with
>reckless, abusive, and rude gay furries. Whether it's needless
>psychodrama, willful ignorace of safe sex practices, or simple lack of
>grace and common decency, what these young people are getting from furry
>fandom lacks one of the things they desperately need. Discipline (Self or
>otherwise). Behaviour that would be damn close to the edge at a pride
>march is way over it at a convention. I only ask two things of them: A
>little common courtesy, and that if they don't have a sincere interest in
>anthropomorphics, they stay home.
Those I can agree with, actually. The psychodrama and ignorance of safe
sex actually, is something most people went through in junior high. But
now you get a large number of furries, who are gay or bisexual, and quite
frequently not that experienced relationship-wise, going through the same
things their straight friends experienced on the class trip to Washington
in Grade 8. Of course it is intense. Unfortunately it kinda goes with
the territory. Yes, MAYBE some people could tone it down a notch.
But everyone's definition of a 'notch' varies, and some people's notches
are all the way out of the fandom. Whose notch do you use?
>>As for our reputations in other fandoms, I could give a rat's ass what
>>some Trekkies think of furry. Anime has a FAR worse reputation for
>
>The problem is, what if it's not just an isolated con? What happens when
>loathing of Furry Fandom is widespread? This isn't a what if. Right now,
>if you want a job in animation, you'd better take all your furriness and
>stuff it deep in the closet and hope nobody digs it out. (Try asking Dave
>Kuhn about Furry stuff.) When Warner Brothers slams tiny toon fandom in
>a nationally broadcast evening special, then you know that this fandom has
>accumulated some powerful enemies.
First of all, Disney/warners would be upset about ANY spooge, furry or
not. PG furry stuff I can't see being a problem. And I'd be willing to
bet that it isn't the presense of spooge but anthropomorphics themselves
that are the target of ridicule. Even if it was squeaky-clean it would
still be thought of as 'childish' by narrow minded SF fans. Warners was
slamming nerdy, obsessive fans who make Tiny Toons the focus of their
whole lives, which is not an unworthy target for slamming IMHO.
The people at my job, where I write for a television show (the
anti-gravity room segment on furries was my idea) were exposed to the best
and the worst of furry fandom. They saw 'Albedo' and 'Omaha', i mentioned
that there was harder-core spooge, the camera crew at the con saw the
kinkiest of the artwork, and all I got were a few joking comments, which
I answered with jokes of my own. People EXPECT some kind of sexual
artwork, they didn't treat me like I had the plague, because I was
careful to put it in context. It was regarded as, at worst, kinda geeky,
but not grounds for incarceration.
>At SDCC, why is it that the furry panels are always scheduled late at
>night, when the other publishers are having their parties? And why do the
>panels end up with titles like "How can you find IT under all that fur?"
>SDCC is the largest comics media con in the world, and every single person
>in attendence gets a program book where the only mention of anything furry
>has ridicule written all over it. Hold your head up? Sure. Once you've
>bent your shoulders down against the sand. "What image problem?"
I know that there's some comics fans who slag on furries, or anime fans
who slag on furries, or whatever. Do we wring our hands and mold our
fandom to suit their interests in the hopes they won't slag us? Even
if we did I still think they'd have snarky comments to make, because
that's human nature. I think a better approach is to slag back, in good
fun, and thus continue the great circle of life. They're just RIBBING
more often than not, I wish people wouldn't take it so seriously. If
the person bears a serious chip on their shoulder against furry and is in
a position of power at a con I don't think altering our own con (which
said chip-holder wouldn't be near anyways) is going to help any.
You don't have to justify your like of furries to anyone. If they really
hate you for it, it's their own problem.
>It seems that some people LIKE furry fandom to be the cesspit it's
>becoming. They like to wallow in their own filth. They are having their
>fun, and don't care how much it stinks up things for everyone else. As
>long as they get their jollies, the rest of us can go to hell.
You're not wrong. The scam artists, etc. you mentioned are definitely in
that category. I just disagreed with some of your categorizations and
blanket statements.
> I want the
>future to be better than things are now.
You're not alone Rich! I started Animus with just that goal in mind.
To provide an alternative - without killing what's already here.
(yeah, ok, so it's been slow developing, I've been busy with RL, but
it's still very much alive) Animus might well produce erotica, but
it'll have something to it BESIDES sex - some sort of artistic statement.
I believe the promotion of agendas is a fundamental reason for art
and should be encouraged rather than quashed. A 'message' of some kind
seperates art from illustration IMO. Illustration is all well and good,
and entertaining, and can take you away to other worlds, and even evoke
emotions.. but when it does all that PLUS delivers a message about us,
we humans, on this planet at this time, that the artist feels is
important, then it becomes true art. I have seen tons of illustration,
often of excellent quality, but very little art. My biggest hope for
the future is that there'll be more of it - and that takes agendas and
plenty of them. Whether I agree with the agenda or not is immaterial -
in fact disagreeing strongly with something is healthier than a steady
diet of orthodoxy. (it's why I watch Rush Limbaugh) In any case, that
would have to be my biggest beef with your editorial. That in the name
of anthropomorphics, we should tone down the fandom until it is a
monochromatic world view that won't offend, but won't produce any
art either, just lots and lots of illustrations.
>[I deleted the long rant that shows that you can be just as intolerant as
>you accuse me of being]
For that I apologize, I was in a mood to spout off, and that's just what
happened. I'm sure you know how that feels :)
Look, I'm not out to make any enemies, but I happen to think there's some
things about modern furry fandom that are good, and necessary, and might
offend or disgust some people, but that's what makes them so important.
By treating tolerance as a weakness, we lose our diversity which is our
main strength, regardless of what bigots think.
and...@interlog.com
mau...@teleport.com (Richard Chandler) wrote:
>If the fandom consists of simply anyone who calls themselves a Furry, then
>what's so special about being a furry? Am I really all that far off base
>by wanting anyone who claims to be a fan of furries to actually have a
>sincere interest in the meta-genre?
It's true that for furry fandom to be unique it must have barriers..
something that says, "Furry Fandom starts and ends here." But how do
you define where that barrier is? Especially when a lot of people
have differing definitions all ready?
My main problem with your editorial is that you seem to want to define
the fandom in way that will exclude people who's interest in things
furry are differant from your own. If a fur enjoys playing a
character on FurryMuck and getting together at furry cons to meet and
perhapse have sex with the people s/he has met online; who are you to
say they aren't allowed to?
I've rarely bought (or sold) artwork at conventions and I've never
attended a SIG. (Tho I regret having missed ones on things artistic..
I can never keep the con sechedual straight.) Does that make me a
non-contributor? I suppose because I draw and publish my artwork I do
contribute to a certain degree.. but what if I didn't know how to
draw? If a fur shows up a a con, has a great time him/herself and
helps their furry friends enjoy themselves, I think they've
contributed in the most valuable way possible.. by making others furs
happy.
>Then you misread me. The "good old days" are what brought us to this
>sorry state.
I don't really see that the fandom is in a 'sorry state.' There are
things about it that I also think could be better, and some of them I
agree with you about...
'Ghosting' cons is definatly not to be tollerated, it's grossly unfair
to the people paying for the con.. both the ones running it and the
folks who have paid their way.
I also dislike the reputation the fandom seems to have in professional
circles.. but I see that more as a problem on their end. True,
erotica is hardly professional.. but fandoms aren't supposed to be
professional. That's the whole point. It's a chance to get away from
work-a-day life. It can become a problem when people don't keep their
private furry lives out of their professional lives. For example I
wouldn't put an erotic furry picture up at my desk any more than I'd
put up a photo spread from a gay porn magazine. And nude furries do
-not- cavort through my professional portfolio. I'll admit to some
concern regarding how being a furry fan might affect my career as an
animator.. but my being furry doesn't affect my skills as an artist
and will not show up 'on the job' so it's really none of my employer's
bussiness as long as I maintain a professional demeanor at work.
(Depending on the contract of course.. some studios have a clause of
exclusivity which would forbid me from selling my artwork to anyone
but them. That doesn't cover giving it away however.)
Sex at cons doesn't concern me as long as it' s kept private. If
someone does something in public that upsets me then it's either time
to let them know that they're going to far, or to move on if I'm the
one at fault. (I have to admit that I find straight couples necking
pretty gross. But that's my problem and I won't inflict it on other
people.) If someone get's upset or beligerant about it'd surely be a
case for hotel security, non? That people might, out of ignorance
alone I hope, engage in unsafe sex at cons also upsets me. I don't
want my friends dying on me.. and don't want to catch anything nasty
either. Which is why I will be distributing a free guide to safer sex
at CFE2 (with beautiful yiffy artwork donated by several prominant
furry artists.. including your's truely *grin*) and hopefully it will
be available at future cons. Maybe it will help.
>on it. And I did it for you, if you recall. I'm the one who smoothed out
>the feelings of some people who objected to some of the things you put in
>Gallery. You should grant me the same courtesy.
No one has ever told me that talking in Gallery about my dislike of
weaponry is inflammatory. Perhapse I was a little out of hand in
saying that owning a gun is an act of violence.. clarifying that this
is simply how I feel on the issue was probably called for. For that I
appologize.. and will in Gallery as well if anyone takes offence. The
only reason I boach that topic at all is when someone else brings it
up.. I feel it's important that there be a counter point so things
don't seem overly biased. That aside, you may recall that I once gave
you advice that helped you avoid publishing a potentially damaging
editorial. I do care about Gallery and what happens in it.. which is
why this editorial upset me so much. If I didn't care I'd have either
ignored it or just quit out of hand, non?
Instead here we are, talking about it. :)
> Hell, the main reason I commented on the lack of
>comment was in hopes to draw some out.
Sorry.. I'd've been in touch sooner but it takes an extra week before
I get my copy.
>As for being unprofessional. FIJAGDH. This isn't my job. I don't depend
>on it for a living. Hell, I don't even make any money on it.
Umm.. I don't understand FIJAGDH and I think Gallery is a professional
'zine; it's sold to the public and the contributors are making money
off of it. And upon reflection I've realized that it's your
inflammatory writing style that I'm objecting to when I called you
unprofessional. But that's a valid stylistic choice.
>"Ethnic Cleansing" Why not just call me Hitler and get the argument over
>with?
The thought of calling your agenda 'fascist' did occour to me. But
that sounded pretty silly and would be sure to end the conversation.
>The whole Mass Graves thing was a metaphor.
You said the whole thing was a 'half joke.' I'm not sure how you go
halfsies on things like executing people. Again.. inflammatory
writing that shoves glass under my skin. To me it's like telling
jokes about the Holocoust.. it really pisses me off that such an
insanely horrible thing should be treated as a joke. Especially when
me and/or my friends are the butt of it.
>Hell, there's nothing I can do to stop you from taking your ball and going
>home either. But if you go, you're letting me win.
That's one of the reasons I'm still here. Like I said.. I'd hate for
there to only be one point of view expressed; especially when I have a
fairly differant point of view.
>On the other hand,
>you can take that same list I gave Wolfie, and tell me which ones you
>really think ought to stay to make Furry Fandom a better place than it is.
I had a quick glance at it. My main concern here is how you would
suggest we go about determinging who the 'good' furries are and who
the 'bad' ones are.. and how to deal with them. So far you've only
come up with mass executions.. and we both know now what I think of
that.
>There are a bunch of people in Gallery who hate each-other's guts, believe
>it or not, but for the good of the book, they deal with it. And it's
>perfectly okay for you to hate me if you want.
Really? *wuf* I'd never noticed.. but then I tend to miss that kinda
thing. I have to admit to disliking one or two members as well.. but
certainly I don't hate them.. and I don't hate you. I'm only
concerned about the opinions you are expressing and worried that you
(and maybe other people) might belive them to be a good agenda to use
to modify the fandom. Yes.. I know I'm lending a bit too much weight
to your ideas, that almost certianly nothing will change. But at
least by voicing my concerns I'll help make sure that nothing changes
for what I think is the worse.
Such vainity, eh? Thinking that my words have any power.
>I have never kicked anyone
>out of Gallery, and it will be a sad day if I ever do, so that's one thing
>you needn't worry about. Say what you want. Savage me up and down in
>your next trib if you feel it's necessary, or turn the other cheek. It's
>your option.
Okay. I'll most certainly have something about it in my next trib.
Tho hopefully with our discussions here it will be more constructive
than merely complaining that you're full of it. *giggle*
Yeah.. I'm staying. :)
>Personally, I think you ought to at least stick around for "Pedestals".
>You may find that I'm not quite so evil or small-minded after all.
I'm looking forward to it.. tho I wish you had published it alongside
your tirade. It's a hell of a long wait between issues.
- Andrew Murphy-Mee -
Herman Miller
In article <4q5ku6$a...@nadine.teleport.com>, mau...@teleport.com says...
>
>In my editorial, I flamed the following sorts of scum:
> - Dilletantes, or specifically, people who came to furry fandom through
>the net, but who aren't interested in Furryness so much as it's just a
>crowd to hang with.
And what's wrong with that? It's not like we're some secret society with
passwords, hand signals, and such. If furry fandom isn't open to anyone who
wants to participate, even to the minimal extent of just hanging out with
furries, that's part of the problem. Did I miss the "Lurkers Not Welcome"
sign on my way into the newsgroup?
> - People who used the fandom as some sort of stepping stone for promoting
>their own, wholly unrelated agenda.
> - In particular, those who in the past set the tone trying to turn it
> into their own private sexual playground.
> - and as an example, I slammed the "Dr. Pepper file".
But "Dr. Pepper" wasn't even furry! Besides, the exaggerated account of the
prevalence of furry sexuality is only one part of a file that is otherwise
fairly perceptive, from a non-furry-fan.
No doubt there are some (many?) who enjoy furry sexual role-playing. Is it
wrong to call their interest "furry"? What about someone whose primary
interest in furry topics is children's literature? They're all interested
in furry topics, but some furry fans are simply more specialized than
others.
--
new & improved home page! +----------<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/>----------
|"You have passed a law that will get less respect
Thryomanes (Herman Miller)| than the 55 m.p.h. speed limit dead bang in the
(hmi...@io.com) | middle of the First Amendment." - Steve Russell
FarStar Station
Ack, too much to quote!
Gary Burke (ga...@zot.io.org) wrote:
: I concur 100%. I also read the editorial in Gallery and was struck by
: the subtext that only artists and people who buy lots of art are valid
: furry fans, that those who just hang out on furrymuck, like furries,
: and go to cons to meet their friends in RL are 'dilettantes' who should
: be expunged from the fandom. "Take back our fandom" is how you worded
: it Rich, if I'm not mistaken, along with a general attitude that we've
: been too tolerant of these dog-collar wearing, T-or-D playing faggots
: who could all use a good kick in the ass. (Jim Groat's con report had a
: similar tone, although I've come to expect that from him)
Now, I also pointed out to Rich (in live coversation this last week) that
I thought his editorial sorta left out people who don't buy much, etc.
Mostly because that part sorta includes me, poor as I am.
Now, he told me that's not what he meant (didn't think it was).
I think there is a problem with the words, not his message - they can be
interpreted in being broader than he meant. It's hard to seperate the
bums from the window shoppers and the poor in this case...
It's Rich's mag, so he gets to use it as he wants. I really think he has
a good point here: We need to get together and create a positive
atmosphere for more than just sex.
Why does the Caberet need to be sex-oriented? Why were people not
behaving themselves at the con? I don't know, myself. And it's this kind
of stuff that bugs me.
Rich has good reason to give a care about what the rest of the world
thinks of 'us'. He's certainly not homophobic, nor did he single them out
except for due cause. My 'gay' friends throught of furry as a 'gay'
fandom, I found out. Tolerant, yes. Homosexual only, no.
Why can't you give a care what other people think?
I'm not asking that you base your opinions on theirs, I'm asking for a bit
of consideration for others...
Thanks
Crissa
--
sgc...@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with Teleport
I am only but one... Which one I can never be sure, but definitely me.
Contents Copyright 1996 - Stacey Ann Croft
http://www.teleport.com/~sgc201 <no adspace avail> :)
Sean Lyon Castro
Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
: This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think is
: wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really controversial, but
: the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those things have been
: bugging me too, but I never put them into words like that." so far.
On Rich Chandler and Gallery #25...
It took me a little while to respond to your editorial mostly because I was
in absolute shock that you wrote it in the first place. I have rarely if
ever seen so much arrogant opinionated rambling presented as some sort of
state of the union address for any group or community, let alone Furry. So
it took me some time to put together a response that I felt properly
addressed your statements.
I'd like to start off with a comment to those who I have spoken to about the
article who say, "He makes some good points, but..." I don't take exception
with the entire article any more than anyone I've spoken to about it does.
However, that does not excuse your actions. The end doesn't justify the
means, and your attempts to guise your vitriolic opinions of members of
Furry Fandom as helpful comments on what Furry needs to fix itself (Your
quaint little 'Shallow Grave' comments - Could you have put it any more
inappropriately?) doesn't excuse the content.
As an analogy, during the 1950's Senator McCarthy and his crew had some very
noble goals (Protection of America's security) and some very real enemies
(Communism). However, this did not excuse him labelling American citizens as
subversive to our way of life, or his attacks on individuals who were
innocent people who also happened to associate with communists. Similarly,
just because there're things wrong with Furry doesn't mean it's right for
you to single out groups you see as subversive to 'True Furry' culture and
brand members of those groups as detrimental to fandom. It's a form of
bigotry, pure and simple.
I'll respond in the common Internet-style of quotation and response. I'll
keep the quotations of your editorial mercifully brief, partially for
brevity and partially because in just about all of your points you have a
few choice statements that speak volumes about you and I take the most
exception to.
Gay Furries
"Particularly those, because a lot of these fellows are much more inclined
to give than to receive, which some in the mainstream gay community might
consider a failure to commit, that by not taking the receptive end, one is
merely substituting a butt for a vagina."
What in heaven's name are you talking about here, Rich? First of all, who
are you to call into question ANYBODY'S sexuality, furry or otherwise? What
kind of arrogant ass are you to think you have the slightest right to
comment on someone's 'true gayness' or for that matter true heterosexuality.
Then you take it even further to the statement above, linking the desire to
'give' rather than receive anal sex as some sort of commitment issue? I
wasn't aware you were a sexual psychologist.
I can't figure out exactly what you think is wrong here... You ramble about
people who aren't really gay, young men who ARE gay attracted to the fandom
('Scuse me, but I don't exactly see our little corner of the world as being
young attractive male surplussed. Perhaps I'm just missing it.) You speak so
nebulously it's difficult to figure out anything except that you seem really
down on males having sex with males. Unless they're motives are pure and
they're seasoned gay sex participants, that is.
Oh, and you can be gay and still be bigoted. In fact, I think your comments
in this section are perhaps the best evidence of that I've yet to see.
Safe sex
"A lot of those people who come to Furry Fandom in search of a sexual
free-for-all and unfortunately finding it..."
"Yeah, maybe I haven't heard about any Furries dying from AIDS yet, but you
out there who are doing this should get it though your thick skulls there's
a hell of a lot of other nasty things out there to get, and your illusory
veil of protection has already been penetrated by hepatits."
Ah, here's Rich the safe-sex martyr. All us poor moronic fools killing
ourselves and we need daddy Rich to teach us about safer sex. Thank you,
Rich, but last time I checked whether to be safe or unsafe was still a
personal choice up to the individual. If you want to be helpful, instead of
arrogant, you could list the names of safer-sex promoting organizations. But
you don't, you just explain to us all how stupid we all are. You'd rather
just sound like the voice of reason among turkeys. Is it frightening that
people are engaging in unsafe sex? Absolutely. But instead of soapboxing
and waxing didactic about it you could have tried something constructive.
Furry's a big comminuty, Rich. I've known people who've gotten STD's from
both inside and outside the fandom. It's sexual life in America, and even
safe sex won't protect you from some of them.
Oh, and some Furries HAVE died of complications arising from AIDS, and you
both do a terrible disservice to their memories AND show your ignorance in
one fell swoop. Congratulations.
Net Furries
"Maybe it isn't [wonderful]. Being on the Internet has made it a lot
easier for people to find Furry Fandom. Perhaps too easy."
"Frankly, with some of the trends I've been observing, it's [the net] been
poisoning us."
"But if they aren't dedicated people, are the numbers amplifying us, or
diluting us?"
"Even more aggravating are the ones who refuse to become educated because
they don't care. They have no interest in the history of fandom the've
chosen to become involed in or what it's about."
(Not a real quote below)
'Why, when I was a kid, I had to walk 10 miles just to look at a Lance Rund
picture! We didn't have these NET CONNECTIONS, we didn't have these
CONVENTIONS, and we LIKED IT!'
So net furries are ruining the fandom? Nevermind that it's linked fans and
artists from across the entire planet into a unified culture. Nevermind
that people who never would have even heard of the fandom let alone joined
it have been able to participate in a meaningful fashion. No, all the net's
done is brought legions of sex-commission begging fools who have nothing to
contribute to the fandom. Once again I'm shocked by your incredible
stupidity, in thinking that MORE members joining the fandom and more people
participating somehow 'taints' it.
So what if they think the net is all there is? Who cares? Before the net,
all furry was was a bunch of people talking on BBS's and in person. Before
that, it was an even smaller group, some of them artists and some of them
fans (Probably in the same ratio!) and many of them just as obnoxious as the
current make-up, all only talking in person.. You have no idea how much you
sound like a crotchety old man complaining about how all these newfangled
gadgets are messing up our society. The good old days weren't always good,
Rich, and electronic culture has brought us much more rich, deep culture
than we could have ever had without it.
And why do these people need to become educated anyway? Do they need to have
some sort of respect for people like you, the 'first furries'? I'm sorry, I
don't know the history of Star Trek fandom and I'll bet most people in it
don't either, and don't care to. It's not slight to the fandom or to them -
Why is it such a big deal to you?
Sex Commissions
"I agree, the whole genre is capable of so much, but what has happened
is that the cart is now before the horse."
"Instead of artists drawing what their muses tell them, and selling it to
those who share their vision, we have this ever growing mob of consumers..."
By the way Rich, in the one sentence above you managed to fit in seven
commas and 10 lines of text. I didn't quote the whole thing because it
would've taken me so long. Sheesh!
On this I have two things to say.
The first being, once again, who cares if the majority of Furries want
sexual stuff? I've seen the titty-bunnies in your house, and they have just
as redeeming art value as anything else. I can't say I'm entirely pleased
with people who want ONLY sexual stuff, but I'm not willing to list them as
the top six things wrong with fandom. You really don't present anything in
your article as to WHY these people cause so many problems, except to
blather about them getting commissions and then feeling like they own the
artist, or something. Well, I've known quite a few artists and that's a
pretty damn rare problem, despite what you seem to think.
Second, people don't HAVE to do sexual art. No one's making them, and it's
not always what's in demand. If your art's good enough, no one really gives
a fig if it's titty-bunnies or not. Baron Engel, John Nunnemacher, and Ruben
Avila are all extremely good examples of artists in our community who do
fantastic art without ever 'having' to do sexual stuff. Some of them and
others may choose to on occassion, but I don't see mr. Engel having any
problem gaining respect as one of the best artists in our community without
a single 'wanna buttfuck' shot.
You seem to think there's this incredible pressure on artists to draw sex. I
think there IS pressure, but I'd say there's also a pressure on them to draw
furry stuff as well. So what? They draw what they want. One of us being an
artist, we have discussed this a few times and feel, basically, that we have
no idea to whom you are referring to when you talk about burnout and people
who think they own either of us after buying some work. I'm sure this HAS
happened to folks, but this doesn't make it a rampant issue, certainly not
the one you seem to think it.
Broad Agendas
"Furry Fandom is a fandom concerning anthropomorphics. It is not a fandom
conerning [many things on Rich's personal hit list deleted]... It's just for
people who like comics, art, stories, or films involving critters. That's
all, really.
Well, roll up the tents and go home, Martha. Rich has spoken, the case is
ended. If he says that's all that Furry fandom is, it's true, so we might as
well just stop talking about anything else.
You go on for quite awhile here about all these 'agendas' in furrydom, when
as Mr. Mee so correctly pointed out, what you go on about is an agenda of
your own! (Although to you of course yours is the right one.) How can you
be so blind to your own arrogance? I very rarely listen to someone say that
the way to further a culture is to trim bits of it they find objectionable.
At least, not since the Jim Crow laws were repealed. You claim to know what
Fandom's 'about', and list anyone not subscribing that ideal as... What?
In fact, here is where one can find your most wild accusations and attacks.
Everyone from sexual deviants to money-grubbing slime are targets of your
commentary, to put a kind term on it. You pretty much manage to blame all of
furry's ills on the vast majority of it's population, with you an apparently
a few stalwart others trying to stem this tide of
[sexuality/greediness/apathy/tolerance] that threatens to undermine the
fandom. (Along with those durn buttfuckers) You don't make as many specific
comments here, but your broad generalizations manage to encompass quite a
huge number of people as being problem-causers. They taint YOUR fandom, they
advocate ideals YOU find distasteful, so of COURSE they're damaging to the
community - How could they not be, you think they are, so it must be true.
You also manage to get your little bestiality digs in there before the
section's over. I know this is also one of your little personal vendettas,
and one I'd guess you just want to make sure you pick on. Frankly, Rich,
Furry Fandom may not BE about any of those things you mention, but that
doesn't mean that people in the fandom aren't also fans of it. You mistake
participating members as a broad agenda... Or do you think these people are
honestly trying to subvert fandom to their evil ways. (Wow, that McCarthy
analogy just keeps getting better and better...)
Your total lack of humility exceeds anything I've seen before. You're so
sure that you're right, so sure that if this fat was trimmed we'd be a
utopian community, you completely ignore the fact that diversity is what
makes things stable and strong, what makes them attractive to new members.
Which brings us right into...
Erotic Art
"Nobody wants to be right on the border. Cheescake has become a dying art
form, because nobody wants to risk the middle ground..."
Uh, what? Huh? I've seen more cheescake than hard erotica in every
Confurance art show I've been to. Do you even look at you own fanzine? Most
of it's cheescake fer chrissakes!
Tolerance
"So how did things get into this sorry state? One word, tolerance, explains
it all. It's one of those offshoot of political correctness that came along
with all those broad agenda folks."
My final specific comments I don't even know how to formulate. You manage to
boil all these 'problems' down to one thing, and to you I send a hearty
fuck-you. You blame tolerance for the problems in Furrydom? You blame
tolerance for the ills in our society too, it would seem, since you label it
broadly as a PC term applying to {what he said}. I'm not even going to try
to refute this. People who see tolerance as a problem are just as screwed up
as you, and those who don't don't need additional comments to butress their
opinions.
Intolerance comes awfully close to bigotry, once again you loudly brag your
open-mindedness while your opinions don't support it. Label me a PC
broad-agenda furry if you want, but for all your claiming it's not it's
still prejudice you're advocating. You're doing the equivalent of a
neighborhood doing a "Take back the streets!" program by advocating tossing
out the minorities since they're the ones causing the problem.
In closing, Rich, you're an ignorant, cynical, yes intolerant individual who
feels it necessary to use his artistic fanzine as a mouthpiece for his
ridiculous opinions. If your readers were interested in your rambling
opinions I'm sure you could post them to Usenet - The vast majority of your
readers I'd venture to guess don't give a fig what you think is wrong with
the fandom. (In fact, those drooling gay sex-commission buying, buttfucking,
net furries are probably just looking for the next sexual piece in your
'zine - Which there's certainly no shortage of. I suppose you just have to
'tolerate' those artists who insist on submitting such subversive smut.) But
even if they did, and even if your editorial was the right and appropriate
forum for you to spew your beliefs, you're still way, way off the mark.
In fact, I think one of those graves is just about overflowing with your
hateful and ridiculous assertions. We'll have to figure out a way to fit
tolerance into the other five.
[Lyon]
I ask that you consider this formal notification that I will no longer be
contributing to your fanzine and I wish my subscription to it immediately
canelled. Any outstanding balance is yours to keep. I'm not interested in
a refund check.
This letter is a joint message from both Cinnamon and Lyon. Although the
pronouns are in most cases 'I' it is a cooperatively written open letter
to Rich.
Cinnamon and Lyon