I have no clue what my comic's audience is.

NakedElf · Post by **NakedElf** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:30 am

princess wrote:I would narrow it down to science fiction 1st and furry 2nd.

_

I have no idea what my comic is anymore- I stick it under historical/mature/humour/manga/whatamess

Sexy?

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:03 am

The part with spilled guts was exceptionally sexy.

NakedElf wrote:Most people posting comics on the web in English are familiar with American and Japanese style comics. European comics, if they've encountered them at all, are a small minority.

Comes down to Reindeer and Bob. Even I'm not so faithful to my roots.

Nervous Spy · Post by **Nervous Spy** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:43 am

NakedElf wrote:
princess wrote:I have no idea what my comic is anymore- I stick it under historical/mature/humour/manga/whatamess
Sexy?

"Wrong"?

Fabio Ciccone · Post by **Fabio Ciccone** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:57 pm

One thing I hate but always do is check the "RPG Style" box. I hate the fact that everyone assumes fantasy and RPG are the same thing, and I really make an effort not to write RPG clichés... but I know that's what my audience thinks. Lost the count of how many "man, your comic's great, specially because I play D&D and stuff" I got...

Anyway, the point is you should try to describe what your audience is looking for I guess. Many times "theme" is more important than "style", although I think "manga" and "non-manga" difference should always be stated in capitals.

TheSuburbanLetdown · Post by **TheSuburbanLetdown** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:07 pm

Too much categorization designed to put everything in a neat little box. Though categories exist for a reason, so what're you gonna do? I mean, if I wanted to see a concert, I'd like to know whether I was going to see bebop group or a death metal group. But after a while it gets crazy with subgenres and so on.

I find furry to be an annoying category, and it's not even a genre. Something like Blacksad and Usagi Yojimbo don't resemble each other at all in both art style and content. Same with webcomics like Lackadaisy and Jack. The same thing happens with Anime and Manga, which aren't genres either.

I just draw and write stuff, and let my audience manifest itself. Many of the people I hear from aren't "furries" anyway.

NakedElf · Post by **NakedElf** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:29 pm

There are just sooo many comics out there which could be considered 'furry' that it really doesn't seem like a very useful designation to me (unless you're actually seeking out the furry porn community :P) I mean, is Mallard Fillmore a furry comic? Is Snoopy a furry character? There are so many other things which seem more relevant to whether I'm going to like a comic or not...

Princess · Post by **Princess** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:00 pm

mcDuffies wrote:The part with spilled guts was exceptionally sexy.

SICKO

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:16 pm

Too much categorization designed to put everything in a neat little box. Though categories exist for a reason, so what're you gonna do? I mean, if I wanted to see a concert, I'd like to know whether I was going to see bebop group or a death metal group. But after a while it gets crazy with subgenres and so on.

Truth. You know that you'll always find the most interesting things categorized as "other". Because most inspired authors work according to their own inspiration, not under genre conventions.
Or, even if they do work with genre conventions, they usually either break those conventions, or use them as a frame for a story that really shares little of the spirit of said genre.

I find furry to be an annoying category, and it's not even a genre. Something like Blacksad and Usagi Yojimbo don't resemble each other at all in both art style and content. Same with webcomics like Lackadaisy and Jack. The same thing happens with Anime and Manga, which aren't genres either.

I like CG's categorization system. I mean, you don't get to choose between whether your comic is furry or manga, those'll be two separate choices.

There are just sooo many comics out there which could be considered 'furry' that it really doesn't seem like a very useful designation to me (unless you're actually seeking out the furry porn community ) I mean, is Mallard Fillmore a furry comic? Is Snoopy a furry character? There are so many other things which seem more relevant to whether I'm going to like a comic or not...

I always thought that what differs furry from regular antropomorphic comics is that furries practically posses human anatomy covered with fur, so both Snoopy and Disney characters are too far from human anathomy to be considered furries.
When someone tries to lump all antropomorphic things into furries... to me that's a sensationalist approach. Like when someone tries to defend furries, and brings up arguement "well Disney did it too". As if it makes any convincing defence. Why defend at all? If you have need to defend something, then you're showing some awareness that you shouldn't be messing with it. I really prefer when everyone does their thing and not care what every concerned citizen thinks.

princess wrote:
mcDuffies wrote:The part with spilled guts was exceptionally sexy.
SICKO

DON'T JUDGE ME!

Eric Theriault · Post by **Eric Theriault** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:52 pm

Mine would be...
european alternative style art
with science-fiction elements in a sorta realistic context.

Most of the time, they just say "retro". It kinda annoy me, but if the glove fits...

The Mortician · Post by **The Mortician** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:49 pm

I ran into that label of "furry" comic twice already.

Once on TWCL where someone brought up my comic about it being furry (I wasn't a part of the argument, just referenced here and there).

Can't say I'm at all happy... but what am I suppose to do? Its the readers who are quick to label, not me. I stuck to science fiction because the story has robots which seem to be in control over the animals. Like all stories "what made today different" was to be about a human appear on a strange Earth. I try to write the stories have been revolving more around what thet human does action wise than anything.

I'm sticking to science fiction. The story has world rules which I don't intend to break anytime soon (unless I do another non-canon story hidden somewhere on the site).

Someone said the comic reminded them of Planet of the Apes in a way. I guess I can see where they are coming from. But there are subtle design rules I try to keep. Animal characters can't wear foot ware at all. They animals also have a real animal base (So no one will be seeing a fox with wings anytime soon). Animals also only have 3 fingers (which is weird because they don't look like they have a thumb to hold stuff). The robots have at most four fingers (if they have a claw). And only human beings have 5 and only that... unless there was an accident.

There are other things... design wise... I won't have to get into. Just know that the "furries" in the comic aren't the top of the pyramid. They are like the step above the fish and birds and below both humans and robots.

There was a strong time ago when after reading the comments about furry comics in general that I read from the TWCL and the Cornstalker thread that... kinda made me want to stop drawing the comic. I wasn't completely fond of the label. I just had that feeling that I was losing readers or turning them off because my comic was quickly labeled as furry. I knew I was getting into something when I made the decision to put them in.

*shrugs*

Godai · Post by **Godai** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:24 pm

I believe there is a distinction needed between anthro and furry.

Anthro, being "humanised" animals. Snoopy and friends fall into that category.

Furry, personally repulsive for me, I perceive more like humas in animal skin. And mostly they are, well, furry - I suppose almost exclusively mammals.

And yes, I do associate furry mostly with Furry Porn (which is kinda sick in my personal book).

Just thought I share, cause on my site (which is a webcomic database) we have anthro category to indicate "talking animals" but no furry, as it (nicely noted before) is no genre, more like subquality of "anthro" (I'd say substandard quality in most cases, but I'd be eaten alive for that remark probably. Lackadaisy is a rule-confirming exception).

Ataraxia · Post by **Ataraxia** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:51 am

mcDuffies wrote:
princess wrote: SICKO
DON'T JUDGE ME!

The part where McDuffies got judged was exceptionally sexy.

Nervous Spy · Post by **Nervous Spy** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:54 am

ataraxia wrote:
mcDuffies wrote:
princess wrote: SICKO
DON'T JUDGE ME!
The part where McDuffies got judged was exceptionally sexy.

Wait till you see the part where he gets punished.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:10 am

Oh yes baby

Fabio Ciccone · Post by **Fabio Ciccone** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:19 am

Are Disney's characters anthro?

NakedElf · Post by **NakedElf** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:22 am

godai wrote:I believe there is a distinction needed between anthro and furry.

The distinction I have heard is that anthro is broader than furry. Generally speaking, any non-human entity which is made humanoid is anthropomorphic. I somewhat grudgingly refer to my Happy Penis comic as 'anthropomorphic' because it contains walking talking penises with arms and legs, and walking talking fruit. (The grudgingly is because I am unsure if referring to a human body part as anthropomorphised is valid. But the fruit definitely are.)

"Furry", by contrast, refers specifically to works involving animals which act or look human to some degree, or vice versa. Snoopy walks on two legs, plays baseball, talks, and has some sort of relationship with Peppermint Patty--that would qualify him in many people's books as 'furry'. (Not in mine, but I'm hardly the only person out here.) Faux Pas is considered a furry comic, even though the characters are in many ways less human than Snoopy.

But in general, I think there is a grain of truth to the contention that "well, Disney did it, too," (not to mention how many furry comics I've seen where the art style is just really blatantly copied from Disney/Hana Barbara cartoons...) which is that the basic content of 'furry' comics, that is, animals who look humanoid and walk and talk, is really darn common. (Which is why I don't really consider it a useful category--its just *too* common to mean anything.)

Fabio Ciccone wrote:Are Disney's characters anthro?

Tyras · Post by **Tyras** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:07 am

I've usually seen the difference between furry and "talking animal" as a matter of attitude, though it's somewhat hard to define. Part of it is art style, but a lot of it is how they (the characters and the artists) carry themselves.

...Damn. I was about to break out some examples, but then I remembered that I hate furries. A lot.

Okay, here we go. From what I've seen, furries tend to be set in "real-life", as full members of society, living somewhat-human lives. Anthro or "funny animal" comics are more likely to take place outside of society. Their comics aren't based on real-life problems all that much.
So one could compare Better Days, Fletcher Apts, or Vinci & Arty - furry comics, if I may dare say so - to Calvin And Hobbes, Get Fuzzy, Garfield, or Ozy and Millie, none of which really act like furry comics.

I base this all off of nothing of course.

Fabio Ciccone · Post by **Fabio Ciccone** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:35 am

Tyras wrote:I've usually seen the difference between furry and "talking animal" as a matter of attitude, though it's somewhat hard to define. Part of it is art style, but a lot of it is how they (the characters and the artists) carry themselves.

...Damn. I was about to break out some examples, but then I remembered that I hate furries. A lot.

Okay, here we go. From what I've seen, furries tend to be set in "real-life", as full members of society, living somewhat-human lives. Anthro or "funny animal" comics are more likely to take place outside of society. Their comics aren't based on real-life problems all that much.
So one could compare Better Days, Fletcher Apts, or Vinci & Arty - furry comics, if I may dare say so - to Calvin And Hobbes, Get Fuzzy, Garfield, or Ozy and Millie, none of which really act like furry comics.

I base this all off of nothing of course.

I totally agree.

Ataraxia · Post by **Ataraxia** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:04 am

I prefer the term Funny Animals for my talking animals, but it seems like the term isn't well known among webcomic artists.

The term "furry" carries with it loads of baggage- furry fandom, furversion, the lollercost. It also seems to imply a certain art style that's closer to "Omaha" than it is to "Scrooge McDuck".

I don't know about the term "anthromorphic"... to me, it seems like a term used by people who are drawing the same kind of art as furries but don't want to be labeled as such. Given the opinions that many people have about the term I can't say I blame them.

Yeahduff · Post by **Yeahduff** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:03 am

godai wrote: (I'd say substandard quality in most cases, but I'd be eaten alive for that remark probably.)

(pssst.... the cloaking parentheses aren't working....)

Comic Genesis Forums

I have no clue what my comic's audience is.

Re: I have no clue what my comic's audience is.

Re: I have no clue what my comic's audience is.

Re: I have no clue what my comic's audience is.

Re: I have no clue what my comic's audience is.

Re: I have no clue what my comic's audience is.