Comic Genesis Forums

Jim North wrote:

Paul Escobar wrote:Nice try, but the first time around you specifically said that the fetish connotations "are not there" and that saying so "builds on [...] other people's ignorance." Now you say the connotations are there, but do not apply to all furries. Well, on that we agree.

Neko already pointed out that I was mistakenly using connotation to double for both denotation and itself, which I was, so you're a bit late to the game now with this. Cheers!

Way to read a post. I said nothing about whether you used "connotation" or "denotation". I simply pointed out that first you said the fetishes are not there, then you said they are. That's not semantics, that's you flip-flopping. But if you want to pretend you're just repeating yourself, be my guest.

On topic:

mcDuffies wrote:I think we all want to sound serious and to claim that our artistic choices are a subject of some serious internal debate and strong reasoning, as to make our work seem more serious. But artist is nothing if he doesn't follow his hunch. Artist's output is defined by his likes and dislikes, his interest, temper, his taste, many things that he can't control by strong editorial decisions. Art is nothing if it's not personal, if it's not a reflection of the mind and soul of it's artist. Someone said that watching a movie is like talking to a director and that you'll like a movie based on how much you'd like director's personality. Therefore, if artist likes furries, that's the reason enough to put them in his comic.

This is very true. But an artist's honest personal choices do not necessarily make for good art. A (furry?) comic like Boston & Shaun is undoubtedly a reflection of the artist's mind and soul - and it's still a big ball of WTF.

Genuinely interesting discussions about the rationality and/or honesty of our artistic choices aside, as readers we're simply left with deciding: Did it make for a good comic or not?

mcDuffies wrote:Artists use various means to enrich designs of their characters because if you draw them hyper-realistic, they can indeed look boring. That's why you for one exagerate certain features of your character. Some other artist does basically the same thing by adding to them features of animals. Big difference.

Er... you mean "no difference", right? (Just checking... Sarcasm doesn't translate well in text form.)

Paul Escobar wrote: Genuinely interesting discussions about the rationality and/or honesty of our artistic choices aside, as readers we're simply left with deciding: Did it make for a good comic or not?

And that depends on the reader, not the public at large.

What's the difference?

From reading the responses so far, it seems to me that generally the people who claim to dislike 'furry' comics also have a narrower definition of what 'furry' means than the people who claim to like them. I don't hear anyone saying, "Ugh, I hate Bugs Bunny, he's such a furry!"

Only people who are drawing things which are on the 'extreme' end of furry (that is, things we can pretty much all agree are furry, or which are self-proclaiming themselves as furry) are consistently getting the 'ew furry' reaction.

So it seems to me that you can basically draw whatever you want, and so long as you don't have gratuitous sex/nudity and don't call it furry, and most people won't just dismiss it out of hand. The people who like furry comics will decide that it's furry and and count that in your favor, and the people who dislike furry comics will decide that it's not furry, and so long as you're writing something good, you're good. And if you're writing shit, well, that's a different issue.

And let's face it, if you're putting in lots of sex/nudity, you're going to be turning people off (and some people on) whether your characters look like humans or animals.

NakedElf wrote: So it seems to me that you can basically draw whatever you want, and so long as you don't have gratuitous sex/nudity and don't call it furry, and most people won't just dismiss it out of hand.

This would be inaccurate.

...Jeez. No internet for a couple days, and look what happens. Haven't we had this discussion literally dozens of times before?

McDuffies wrote:Similarly with furries. I think we all want to sound serious and to claim that our artistic choices are a subject of some serious internal debate and strong reasoning, as to make our work seem more serious. But artist is nothing if he doesn't follow his hunch. Artist's output is defined by his likes and dislikes, his interest, temper, his taste, many things that he can't control by strong editorial decisions. Art is nothing if it's not personal, if it's not a reflection of the mind and soul of it's artist. Someone said that watching a movie is like talking to a director and that you'll like a movie based on how much you'd like director's personality. Therefore, if artist likes furries, that's the reason enough to put them in his comic.

This sums up my take on the issue pretty well. I had a furry in my comic because I wanted a furry in my comic. It's fun to draw. Yeah, he's one of those furries that, if you took away his furry-ness, the story would change... but I made the story AROUND the fact that he was a furry. It was a conscious choice, and I don't regret it, because I liked him as a character.

As I've said before, I have a high tolerance for utter crap. The only thing that will turn me off of a comic is either really poor art or really poor writing. To me "furries" counts as neither.

I think furries are the spawns of satan and all those who draw 'em will forever suffer in hell.

Doom for all o' you perverts!

yeahduff wrote:What's the difference?

yeahduff wrote:

NakedElf wrote:So it seems to me that you can basically draw whatever you want, and so long as you don't have gratuitous sex/nudity and don't call it furry, and most people won't just dismiss it out of hand.

This would be inaccurate.

When members of the public at large see something fuzzy and imeadiately start equating it with deviant sexual acts, it makes it hard to produce valid art in that genre. Individual readers may not ever look into something that they might like because it has been labeled as "porn", when it has nothing to do with such. It took me years to actually watch anime because I thought all of anime was that Pokeman garbage.

Constantly misapplying the word "furry" tends to apply the connotations of porn onto a valid form of artistic expression (sorry folks, for now I'll just hand-wave that pornography is not a valid form of artistic expression). Furry art is not for everyone. Giant robot mechas, distopian futures, romance comedy, historical drama, science fiction are not for everyone. It's fine for people to dismiss things out of hand. Personally, I find romance comedy to be a tad dull. It saves a lot of time searching for what to read next, but I sure wish people would stop running about claiming that any comic with cat ears makes the author a homosexual-bestiality-pimp-terrorist.

If you're going to use "furry" to mean "animal porn", then it would be awfully kind of folks to come up with another word that means "non-porn animals". It's like insisting that all Germans are Nazi's. It's damned irritiating for the non-porn crowed to be constantly lumped in with humanity's garbage. "Funny animals" is a weak term at best. I don't draw funny animals, I draw fox-girls in tights. Not exactly looney-tunes, but I'd like to think it's a bit of a distance from animal porn.

yeahduff wrote:

NakedElf wrote: So it seems to me that you can basically draw whatever you want, and so long as you don't have gratuitous sex/nudity and don't call it furry, and most people won't just dismiss it out of hand.

This would be inaccurate.

Apropos to the conversation, I don't think most people who encounter a drawing of a character drawn in the style of Bugs Bunny are going to dismiss it immediately and without any further consideration simply because it looks like what some people would define as 'furry'. Some might decide it looks like a kid's cartoon and dismiss it on that basis, some might dismiss it because they're only interested in sci-fi and it doesn't look like that, some might dismiss it because the art sucks, and some might dismiss it because they really dislike furry comics and this strikes them as furry. But the vast majority of people will say, "Huh. A talking bunny," and that'll be about it.

If people get a furry feeling from it, make no mistake, a lot of people will dismiss it outright, whether warranted or not.

If you're going to use "furry" to mean "animal porn", then it would be awfully kind of folks to come up with another word that means "non-porn animals". It's like insisting that all Germans are Nazi's. It's damned irritiating for the non-porn crowed to be constantly lumped in with humanity's garbage. "Funny animals" is a weak term at best. I don't draw funny animals, I draw fox-girls in tights. Not exactly looney-tunes, but I'd like to think it's a bit of a distance from animal porn.

Did you just use a Hitler arguement there?

This is very true. But an artist's honest personal choices do not necessarily make for good art. A (furry?) comic like Boston & Shaun is undoubtedly a reflection of the artist's mind and soul - and it's still a big ball of WTF.

If reading a comic is like getting to know a person behind it, then reading a comic that you don't like is like getting to know an unlikeable person. But liking/hating furries doesn't make one more or less likeable, nor does his comic. If artist is crappy, he makes crappy comic, period. If good artist just decides to make his next comic furry for no reason, just because he felt like doing furries - did he just singlehandedly ruin the entire comic?

Er... you mean "no difference", right? (Just checking... Sarcasm doesn't translate well in text form.)

Yes, I mean there's no difference.

Bah. That dislike for furries is just another thing of trend, just like furries themselves are a trend. Antropomorphization of animals is one of acient storytelling models, and it isn't very likely to be destroyed just because people currently associate it with some porn.
Actually I don't think that being associated with some kind of porn is something disastrous and degrading. The other day I saw a Woody Allen article published in Playboy so big deal. I mean, it is a big deal if your niche is conservatives who like to moralize and generalize a lot, but I don't think that anyone consciously decides "yeah, I think I'm going to write for the audience that can't make a difference between porn and non-porn".

mcDuffies wrote:Antropomorphization of animals is one of acient storytelling models, and it isn't very likely to be destroyed just because people currently associate it with some porn.

oh lord, it just occurred to me, Anubis is a furry!

yeahduff wrote:If people get a furry feeling from it, make no mistake, a lot of people will dismiss it outright, whether warranted or not.

"Furry feeling" is way too vague. My husband refers to Ozy and Millie as 'that furry comic you read', but somehow it's still an extremely popular comic. Ozy and Millie is not Jack and doesn't have nearly the same 'furry feeling' as Jack. People will reject Jack out of hand for being furry. If people are doing that with Ozy and Millie, it doesn't seem to be enough to really matter--and the strip would probably be less popular if it didn't star anthropomorphic animals.

vulpeslibertas wrote:When members of the public at large see something fuzzy and imeadiately start equating it with deviant sexual acts

But they don't. There are plenty of valid and popular works featuring "fuzzy" characters, and people don't think "porn" when they read Garfield or watch Bugs Bunny. However, if they come across furry porn on the internet, they'll probably draw a few (possibly incorrect) conclusions about people who call their work "furry".

Anthropomorphic animals are alive and well and as popular as ever, but, once again, most artists who draw anthro animals don't call their work "furry", and the general public do not use that term.

vulpeslibertas wrote:Constantly misapplying the word "furry" tends to apply the connotations of porn onto a valid form of artistic expression

Furries constantly misapply the word "furry". It means "covered with fur". Not "anthropomorphic animals". Most people don't even know that "furry" can be used in other sentences than "I bought a furry hat" or similar.

vulpeslibertas wrote:I sure wish people would stop running about claiming that any comic with cat ears makes the author a homosexual-bestiality-pimp-terrorist.

Where did anyone say that?

vulpeslibertas wrote:"Funny animals" is a weak term at best.

It's certainly better than "furry". If you want to define a category of art or stories featuring talking animals, "furry" is a lousy term, because A) most people never use the word in that way, and B) those who do disagree wildly on the exact meaning.

Remind me, why did anyone need another term than good old "funny animals" in the first place?

... And you invoked Godwin over cartoon animals.

mcDuffies wrote:If good artist just decides to make his next comic furry for no reason, just because he felt like doing furries - did he just singlehandedly ruin the entire comic?

For some people, perhaps. No for me. Animals are cool, elves are cool, robots are cool, humans are cool - as long as the comic's good.

NakedElf wrote:
"Furry feeling" is way too vague.

Of course it's too vague. People don't rigidly define their prejudices by strict conditions.

yeahduff wrote:People don't rigidly define their prejudices by strict conditions.

I hate offal.

*Ahem* Before I begin, please understand that I say this out of the depths of my little black heart. I don't particularly care about the issue, nor do I take offence at anyone here or their opinions, but Gee Wilikers it's fun to argue!

----------

Paul Escobar wrote:

vulpeslibertas wrote:When members of the public at large see something fuzzy and imeadiately start equating it with deviant sexual acts

But they don't.

But they do:

yeahduff wrote:If people get a furry feeling from it, make no mistake, a lot of people will dismiss it outright, whether warranted or not.

----------

Paul Escobar wrote:There are plenty of valid and popular works featuring "fuzzy" characters, and people don't think "porn" when they read Garfield or watch Bugs Bunny.

Ah, but Fabio Ciccone does: (And the only reason you don't is that you were in diapers when Walt Disney started doodling Mickey Mouse)

Fabio Ciccone wrote:I think furries are the spawns of satan and all those who draw 'em will forever suffer in hell.

Doom for all o' you perverts!

----------

Paul Escobar wrote:Anthropomorphic animals are alive and well and as popular as ever, but, once again, most artists who draw anthro animals don't call their work "furry", and the general public do not use that term.

That's because the portion of the general public that knows that the word "furry" applies to a genre happen to associate it with porn. Therefore people try to avoid the label at all costs.

----------

Paul Escobar wrote: Furries constantly misapply the word "furry". It means "covered with fur". Not "anthropomorphic animals".

The "furry" community created a label to describe themselves. Then a bunch of self-righteous moralists decided that anyone who used that label must be a sexual deviant and changed the definition. Egads Man! Now the furries will rename themselves fuzzies. Then the moralists will call all fuzzies perverts. Then the fuzzies develop a new term. It's the definition-cold-war from hell!

----------

Paul Escobar wrote:

vulpeslibertas wrote:I sure wish people would stop running about claiming that any comic with cat ears makes the author a homosexual-bestiality-pimp-terrorist.

Where did anyone say that?

Fabio Ciccone wrote:Doom for all o' you perverts!

----------

Paul Escobar wrote:

vulpeslibertas wrote:"Funny animals" is a weak term at best.

It's certainly better than "furry". If you want to define a category of art or stories featuring talking animals, "furry" is a lousy term, because A) most people never use the word in that way, and B) those who do disagree wildly on the exact meaning.

Remind me, why did anyone need another term than good old "funny animals" in the first place?

Maybe if you read the portion of my post that you just quoted, you would have seen why:

vulpeslibertas wrote:"Funny animals" is a weak term at best. I don't draw funny animals, I draw fox-girls in tights. Not exactly looney-tunes, but I'd like to think it's a bit of a distance from animal porn.

----------

Paul Escobar wrote: ... And you invoked Godwin over cartoon animals.

you bet I did! (actually, it was over cartoon porn, but it's funnier your way).

----------

Paul Escobar wrote:

mcDuffies wrote:If good artist just decides to make his next comic furry for no reason, just because he felt like doing furries - did he just singlehandedly ruin the entire comic?

For some people, perhaps. No for me. Animals are cool, elves are cool, robots are cool, humans are cool - as long as the comic's good.

What?! That's completely unreasonable! You should dislike everything that I dislike. Duh. When did the quality of the comic come into this discussion?

----------
PS

mcDuffies wrote:I mean, it is a big deal if your niche is conservatives who like to moralize and generalize a lot,

...And that's not a generalization

----------
For the record, I really find this debate humorous. I truly do respect the opinions of everyone, but that doesn't make for good forum reading. Let's face it, it's not like anyone is going to convince anyone else...

Paul Escobar wrote:Way to read a post. I said nothing about whether you used "connotation" or "denotation". I simply pointed out that first you said the fetishes are not there, then you said they are. That's not semantics, that's you flip-flopping. But if you want to pretend you're just repeating yourself, be my guest.

"Continuing to use the fetishist definition when talking with furries themselves is to add connotations that are not there" is the part I'm guessing you're talking about. This is one of the places where I should have said "denotation" instead of "connotation", as I mentioned in my previous post.

Way to read a post, yerself!

vulpeslibertas wrote:When members of the public at large see something fuzzy and imeadiately start equating it with deviant sexual acts, it makes it hard to produce valid art in that genre.

Now, I don't understand this. 'Valid art', in some cases, has included pictures of a man with a bullwhip up his ass. It should be possible to look past the deviant content and see the artistic quality in anything.

...yes, even Boston and Shaun.

vulpeslibertas wrote::D For the record, I really find this debate humorous. I truly do respect the opinions of everyone, but that doesn't make for good forum reading. Let's face it, it's not like anyone is going to convince anyone else...

I'm very glad at least one person understands the purpose of this thread--entertainment. *Maybe* someone will think things through and come to a better understanding of something or other, but so long as people are enjoying themselves, that's the real intention.