Like or hate Furry Comics?

[NakedElf]

Here are the questions:

1. Do you like, dislike, or 'it depends' furry comics?
2. How are you defining 'furry comic'?
3. Please explain your answer to question 1 if you feel like giving more details.

Please note that I have no personal self interest here, given that I do not write a furry comic. I ask for entertainment/discussion purposes only.



I'll kick things off by answering my own questions.

1. I do not dislike furry comics. I've read many good furry comics over the years, and neither seeing a comic described as furry nor thinking to myself that it is furry turns me off from reading it. However, I do not have any special attraction to furry comics.

2. I have a generous definition of 'furry', which is basically 'anthropomorphic animals'. <a href="http://www.ozyandmillie.org/">If it looks like a fox-human hybrid and talks like a human,</a> it's furry.

3. I think a lot of opposition to 'furry' comics stems from a perception that they're all porn, or that the creators are all into bestiality. Personally, given that all of my comics involve elves, I'm really in no position to throw stones.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

I think they fucking blow.

[Zwuh]

Furry comics are bad if there's no reasoning behind it. I dislike them when used in dramatic situations because I think they look comically ridiculous.

End tape.

[NakedElf]

What is the reasoning behind Mickey Mouse?

[Sincerely]

Your mom.

[NakedElf]

Yo, save the off-topicness for the off-topic forum. If you don't want to contribute to the thread, there are plenty of other threads out there.

[Zwuh]

Mickey Mouse is a personified animal made for the purpose of entertaining children through comedic actions. Distinguishing between furries (people animals) and cartoon-style characters (animals who act like people).

[Sincerely]

Yo, save the off-topicness for the off-topic forum. If you don't want to contribute to the thread, there are plenty of other threads out there.

But none of them are as insipid and derivative as this one.

Well I guess the Happy thread is pretty insipid and derivative, but it's at least positive, whereas this thread is just going to devolve into a negative debate over the merits of yet another sub-clique.

Also, it's stupid, and you should feel bad.

[Keffria]

Yeahhhh, your definition of "furry" may apply to anything with cartoon animals, but for most people, "furry" is pretty much synonymous with disgusting fetish pornography involving animal-like characters. Other, non-terrifying, comics involving cartoony animals are probably best classified as "anthropomorphic" or something else that doesn't have quite so many negative connotations.

Also. I agree with Zwuh's first point; if people are fox-human hybrids just for the sake of being fox-human hybrids, if they could be humans without messing up some part of the comic, that's stupid. If an artist is using anthropomorphic characters to make a statement of some sort or to create comic distance, that's probably okay.

[Jekkal]

1) I consider 'furry' as much a style as anime. Having cartoony/nonhuman characters is just part of the setting, not the plot.

Since I consider it as such, I have seen very good furry comics, and very bad furry comics. I do not consider furry a reason to define whether or not I like a comic, but it damn well helps.

2) Furry == Nonhuman characters that aren't robots. Stitch is a Furry, Scooby Doo is a Furry, Aliens in general are furries...

3) I have an avatar of my fursona, topless save for a speech bubble. What did you THINK my answer was going to be?

I like Suicide For Hire and Maus, both of which use their character's species as substitutes for Race and Ethnicity and little else. DMFA is unabashedly fur-based, but has story and quality that most comics would die for. I don't feel the need to rattle off a list of 'bad' furry comics, but you get the idea.

I don't understand WHY people have this issue with furry comics. Children are raised on a healthy diet of cartoons and 'funny animals', we seem to worship Disney and Looney Tunes, and yet the idea that nonhuman characters -- in COMICS of all places -- is somehow wrong enters our minds to the point that some people won't even read a comic if it involves furries.

Furry is a setting, not a genre, and certainly not a reason to make a character judgment about a comic.

[The Neko]

If people are fox-human hybrids just for the sake of being fox-human hybrids, if they could be humans without messing up some part of the comic, that's stupid. If an artist is using anthropomorphic characters to make a statement of some sort or to create comic distance, that's probably okay.

I'm going to go with this answer.

[Prettysenshi]

Furry comics are bad if there's no reasoning behind it. I dislike them when used in dramatic situations because I think they look comically ridiculous.

End tape.

[JTorch]

Yo, save the off-topicness for the off-topic forum. If you don't want to contribute to the thread, there are plenty of other threads out there.

Welcome to Comic Genesis, land of the derailed threads.

I generally don't like furries because there's usually really no reason for them to be animals other than the author's own personal fetishes.

[Zwuh]

1) I consider 'furry' as much a style as anime. Having cartoony/nonhuman characters is just part of the setting, not the plot.

Part of the setting is fine, provided there is a logical reason for such a device.

2) Furry == Nonhuman characters that aren't robots. Stitch is a Furry, Scooby Doo is a Furry, Aliens in general are furries...

That is the most vague, useless definition I ever heard.

I don't understand WHY people have this issue with furry comics. Children are raised on a healthy diet of cartoons and 'funny animals', we seem to worship Disney and Looney Tunes, and yet the idea that nonhuman characters -- in COMICS of all places -- is somehow wrong enters our minds to the point that some people won't even read a comic if it involves furries.

Furry is a setting, not a genre, and certainly not a reason to make a character judgment about a comic.

Funny animals, not animal-human hybrids - which is what most people take their issue with. And furry is a DEVICE used to create a setting.

This pretty much leads the same way as the parent thread about CGI. It may not be inherently bad, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

[Jekkal]

2) Furry == Nonhuman characters that aren't robots. Stitch is a Furry, Scooby Doo is a Furry, Aliens in general are furries...

That is the most vague, useless definition I ever heard.

Animals that act like humans are furries. If you want a stricter definition, you're trying too hard.

I don't see WHY there needs to be a reason for a character to be an animal any more than there needs to be a reason for a character to be a certain race.

[Keffria]

I don't see WHY there needs to be a reason for a character to be an animal any more than there needs to be a reason for a character to be a certain race.

Because good comics generally involve the artist sitting down, thinking for a while, and making deliberate choices about their story's structure and themes, and how different characters will fit into it, rather than just saying "DRAGONS ARE AWESOME LET'S MAKE EVERYONE DRAGONS". Incidentally, this also applies to an artist's choice of race for their characters.

[Zwuh]

2) Furry == Nonhuman characters that aren't robots. Stitch is a Furry, Scooby Doo is a Furry, Aliens in general are furries...

That is the most vague, useless definition I ever heard.

Animals that act like humans are furries. If you want a stricter definition, you're trying too hard.

[13:03] Kirb-hw: does this make a chimp in a top hat and a monocle a furry?

I don't see WHY there needs to be a reason for a character to be an animal any more than there needs to be a reason for a character to be a certain race.

There needs to be a reason for both those things, a-duhuurr. The phrase "token black" may seem familiar.

[Jim North]

I like good comics.

Now, I am personally a furry fan and I definitely do appreciate the extra layer that furry content adds to something, but this will not be enough to keep me reading a bad comic. I suppose one could say that furryness - like a number of other elements one can add to a creative endeavor - is much like a condiment. Adding it to an already good dish can enhance it, but no amount of pouring it on can make a bad dish good.

On the "furry just 'cause" thing . . . I don't mind that, myself. I do definitely prefer that the furry content has a point and/or an effect on the characters and the comic's world, but I don't think it's particularly necessary.

On the definition of furry . . . a furry is an anthropomorphized animal. An animal that has been given human characteristics. A monkey in a top hat and a monocle is not a furry since it's just wearing clothes. It didn't necessarily put those clothes on itself; a human could have put it on him. But a monkey in a top hat and a monocle that speaks English with a dry British accent and has many well-developed opinions about popular operettas is a furry.

[Jekkal]

That is the most vague, useless definition I ever heard.

Animals that act like humans are furries. If you want a stricter definition, you're trying too hard.

[13:03] Kirb-hw: does this make a chimp in a top hat and a monocle a furry?

Human behavior, not human dress, is what I'm after here. A chimp is a chimp. A chimp given human intellect and human behavior is another creature entirely.

I don't see WHY there needs to be a reason for a character to be an animal any more than there needs to be a reason for a character to be a certain race.

There needs to be a reason for both those things, a-duhuurr. The phrase "token black" may seem familiar.

I don't see WHY there needs to be a reason for a character to be an animal any more than there needs to be a reason for a character to be a certain race.

Because good comics generally involve the artist sitting down, thinking for a while, and making deliberate choices about their story's structure and themes, and how different characters will fit into it, rather than just saying "DRAGONS ARE AWESOME LET'S MAKE EVERYONE DRAGONS". Incidentally, this also applies to an artist's choice of race for their characters.

... So gag-a-day's need lots of thought into why you want to have two girl snakes talking in a bar about how eating mice makes their butts look so big?

Thought is needed, yes. I didn't say it needed MUCH thought. If you want to argue that most comics need to put some level of thought into their work, by all means I would agree with you. But if someone is fascinated by dogs, dragons, or ponies, who would argue that they can't make their entire cast a series of such?

We draw what we care about, and to think that we can only limit ourselves to humans or that furry work somehow must be held to a higher standard than nonfurry work . . . it's just foolish thinking.

[The Neko]

We draw what we care about, and to think that we can only limit ourselves to humans or that furry work somehow must be held to a higher standard than nonfurry work . . . it's just foolish thinking.

So, wait, expecting that authors THINK about their designs, work, and diegetic universes is holding something to a HIGHER standard? Haha.