Rennen wrote:I agree that, if you have a "higher meaning" or a "greater purpose" in mind other than just telling jokes in a visual format, yes, you need to have some thought involved with the characters. But would it honestly be all that different had you started out with Sybil as a rabbit? A wolf? How about a hedgehog? What if Fen was the fox and Syb the badger and Alex the cat? All else being equal, would it really be any different?
Rennen wrote:If you don't use the species in the story- a'la Holbrook's frequent, if often inane, snide references to large Fennec ears, rabbits' penchant for gnawing and jokes involving porcupine quills- then the species is more or less irrelevant. You're just drawing "funny animals". But on the other edge of the blade, if you DO use the species' quirks- skunks spraying in defense, dogs barking at cats, ad nauseum- you're really not making much of a sociopolitical statement most of us can relate to, are you?
Rennen wrote:The use of animals in comic and cartoon no longer confuses anyone, save for the possible exceptions of religious fundies or those who can't figure out butterfly ballots. And, I'll further the argument, do you really want them reading your work anyway?
Tim Tylor wrote:Gorey's Inanimate Tragedy
Probably not. But I consider that more an inadequacy of my strip than the concept of using different species; AF did originally arise from a few characters I'd doodled and abruptly decided to use, without much planning. I'll be thinking it through more thoroughly next time.
No... but that seems to imply that there's no room for anthropomorphisation to have real-world significance, which surely can't be true.
It's interesting to describe this as "less popular". It seems to me that Freefall is, as webcomics go, one of the most popular around. I can guess at other phrases you might have been trying for, but won't attempt to put words in your mouth.Rennen wrote:That also well illustrates the... less popular aspect of the topic at hand.
It may well be that I fit your criteria myself. I have written a fair amount, even in this forum, about Florence as a "Noble Female Character". But I confess that I find the bikini business to be a bit, oh, perhaps inappropriate is about the right word. Missing the point, perhaps.Rennen wrote:Nothing wrong with the strip itself, it hasn't even hinted at any sexuality, but the fans... oh, boy, the fans. The FreeFall forum is awash in those deeply enamored with the character Florence, an obsession often bordering on dementia.
Curious that Florence Ambrose has such a following--and she does--considering that she is one of the few anthropomorhic canines drawn without human-style breasts.Rennen wrote:The "fan art"- that Mark doesn't post in his "art by others" page- includes dressing her in bikinis or other semi-revealing clothing, or any number of "seductress" type poses.
You can't be Sirius! In all, ah, seriousness, what attracts me is the manner of thinking that she represents. She is re-popularizing doing the right thing--an activity that has lost favor in recent times. The fact that she is the one facet that makes Freefall a "furry" strip, although non-traditional, simply makes this good medicine easier to accept. I certainly support that.Rennen wrote:It's actually somewhat interesting to watch, kind of like Pitt's performance in the movie 12 Monkeys. They take this bright, intelligent engineer type, the fixer of nuclear reactors and spacecraft plumbing, this robotics expert... and dress her in "Sailor Moon" suits and Lara Croft outfits.
You're right on all counts, except for being the only one to notice.dkinged wrote:With regard to whether or not AF would be the same if the species of the characters were mixed up, am I the only one who's noticed that the characters at the center of society are all domesticated species -- rabbits, dogs, cats -- while the ones at the fringe are all wild -- badgers, foxes? And here I thought this was using the species of the characters to make a social comment.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest