Like or hate Furry Comics?

[VinnieD]

This is an interesting debate. First we need a definition of what a furry is though.

I'd say the best definition is either something that is half human and half animal or alternately a human represented as a human/animal hybrid. This is how a non furry fan usually defines things, while classifying things such as animals that happen to talk, (such as the rabbits in Watership Down, or the rats in Secret of NIMH) or alternately animals which have human like characteristics (such as Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse) as "Funny Animals"

The definition of Funny Animals has been around much longer than furries, and has been a popular subject in older American animation, and began to take the comic book scene over in the 70's. Ahtropromorphisizing animals has appeared in fiction far further back than either, though typically this would be animals which could talk.


Now furries would usually lump in funny animals into their fandom. One could argue that the first furry goes all the way back to the very first piece of written literature, The Epic of Gilgamesh, with Enkidu.

In the argument that if someone is half animal, it needs to be justified, Enkidu is definitely justified in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

But personally I think if someone simply chooses to represent humans as possessing animal characteristics as a metaphor for that person's inner self, then that's fine as well. It's just a style of artistic expression.

Looking at my own comic AntiBunny falls more under funny animals than furry. Though it's been called furry by some (I think they didn't read much into it) and I'm enough of an advertising whore to list it on furry sites for the traffic (as I said before furries like funny animals too). But my rabbits are distinctly non human, and I make a point of contrasting them against humans. They're just rabbits whom somewhere learned to talk and walk upright, and not even they know how or when it happened. (though that's part of the story)



So where do I stand? Furry is an art style. Some people put more thought into why they do it than others. Plenty of people go "elves are cool. everyone is going to be a elf" but still there are the good writers whom choose to write elves to contrast their culture against our own or as a means of exploring different cultures.

Just the same a lot of comics do just have furries for the sake of having furries, but I've seen others where furries have a very good reason for existing. For instance suicide for hire clearly designs every character as an animal to express that character's personality externally. Though more recently I've stopped reading that one, though it has more to do with not enjoying the direction the story went in, rather than any beef with the art.


There are of course two reasons for those who don't like furry as an art style. On the one hand there are those whom simply lump in furry with the furry porn sub culture, much like non anime fans lump in anime with hentai and think they're both the same thing.

The second reason would simply be a distaste for the art style, which is merely an issue of personal taste. Some people hate the Noir art style, or the anime art style, and so fourth. Some things just don't aesthetically appeal to some people.

[Johndar]

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.

Ok, but what does that have to do with aliens? Is this a furry?

That isn't an animal that acts like a human. You do say aliens in general, and there are animal like aliens in some stories, but "in general", they aren't.

My definition of a furry is a humanoid animal, like say, the characters in End of Things or Better Days.

A human with animal characteristics, like this dude, isn't a furry.

A talking animal like scooby-doo isn't a furry. Salem the cat isn't a furry. They're just animals who can talk, you might define them as anthropomorphized, 'cause in a way they are, but that's not a furry.

To answer your initial question Elf, I don't judge a comic based on whether it's furry or not. It doesn't really matter to me.

[Vulpeslibertas]

There are of course two reasons for those who don't like furry as an art style. On the one hand there are those whom simply lump in furry with the furry porn sub culture, much like non anime fans lump in anime with hentai and think they're both the same thing.

The second reason would simply be a distaste for the art style, which is merely an issue of personal taste. Some people hate the Noir art style, or the anime art style, and so fourth. Some things just don't aesthetically appeal to some people.

Yes.

Furry doesn't need to be justified any more than hand-drawn lines distributed by html need to be justified. I'm not a bunch of cell-shadded squigally lines, nor am I two dimentional. Why the heck would anyone here think that I'm going to identify with a comic character who's hand-drawn? Rather than draw realistically, each one of us has adopted a style - a way of seeing the world. This not not wrong, or undesirable. Furries are just another way of seeing the world. Furry-colored glasses, so to speak. You could just as easily demand that all comics be photo-comics as demand all of them be sans furries.

Human beings have an enormous potential to personify other objects, even lines on computer screens. To the left you see a series of multi-colored pixels, but what you think you see is a girl with pointy ears. You have personified it subconciously.

Some people cannot do this well, and some people don't want to. Some people cannot personify cartoon characters. This same thing goes with furries, space operas, and broadway musicals. For the life of me, I can't imagine real people breaking out into choreographed song and dance routines. Also, some people can't imagine animals as human beings. Some people can't imagine warp drive or hyperspace portals. Their minds just won't process it in the same category as "reality".

On the other hand, some people don't want to personify furries. Especially with the strong association of furries with porn. Mickey and Minnie getting it on... who really want's to think about it? Heck, I want go backspace that sentence out of exsistance. It just shouldn't be done.

EDIT:

A human with animal characteristics, like this dude, isn't a furry.

Ah, so my comic characters don't qualify as furries? I have so much more respect for myself now! I would disagree with your definnition, but defining "furry" is a bit like defining "freedom fighter". It really depends on who you ask.

[Johndar]

Ah, so my comic characters don't qualify as furries? I have so much more respect for myself now!

I can't tell if your being sarcastic or not, but as I said I don't think a comic being furry or not really matters. You shouldn't lose self respect over something like that.

I would disagree with your definnition, but defining "furry" is a bit like defining "freedom fighter". It really depends on who you ask.

I would define a freedom fighter as someone who fights for freedom. Although, yes, furry definitions aren't set in stone, it was just my 2 cents.

[Jackhass]

1. I sure don't read any.

2. A comic designed to excite people who are into the Furry fetish thing. It's not just any comic with anthropomorphic animals. I friggin hate how every comic with a talking animal is now defined by what some fringe fetish group likes.

3. I don't have anything against the Furry thing if it keeps to itself...I just get annoyed when my comic is just casually called a "Furry" comic because aparently anything with a talking animal in it is automatically furry porn now.

[Fesworks]

I wish I had time to engage in this thread, but I don't. I'll just say that I have a problem with people that are prejudice and lump things into stereotypes... but that's all I'm saying on the subject.

Yes, [you know who you are], that IS all I will be saying in this thread

[Cuendolin]

I just realize that I have a furry comic
I don't read many "furry" comics but I don't have a bad concept about them because that kind of fetish is not very familiar for me.
But every comic that abuses of some kind of idealization or coolness (elves, cute animals, aliens,...) is equally bad.
In short, It's highly depends on the comic.

[Turnsky]

i really do think a lot of you folks are looking too far into the overall genre, Anthros have their place, and like "anime/manga" that's a -very- broad term.

Furry porn, on the other hand, i can't understand the point of beyond either A) sating certain "Frustrations" of the creator, or B) Sating Certain "frustrations" of the viewer, sating said creator's finances, Like all porn, there's money in there somewhere.

either way, you're all making a proverbial mountain out of the equally proverbial molehill. Some people like 'em, some people hate them, there we go, my point stated, it's not like people have a gun to your heads saying you MUST read them.

also:
an·thro·po·mor·phic /ˌænθrəpəˈmɔrfɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-thruh-puh-mawr-fik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, esp. to a deity.
2. resembling or made to resemble a human form: an anthropomorphic carving.

take that as you will.

[Joel Fagin]

Whether or not the main characters are covered in fur is completely irrelevant to me. It contributes to the whole, just as art style, colour and characters do, but it's by no means anywhere near being a trait that makes or breaks a comic.

For the record, Usagi Yojimbo, which is a anthro comic, is both very highly regarded and my favourite running comic.

- Joel Fagin

[Turnsky]

Whether or not the main characters are covered in fur is completely irrelevant to me. It contributes to the whole, just as art style, colour and characters do, but it's by no means anywhere near being a trait that makes or breaks a comic.

For the record, Usagi Yojimbo, which is a anthro comic, is both very highly regarded and my favourite running comic.

- Joel Fagin

and is actually quite mainstream, if memory serves.

[Mercury Hat]

...defined by what some fridge fetish group likes.

Mmm yeah, baby, I like 'em 6 feet tall and the kind where the ice cubes come out the front. Sometimes they just let them drop on the floor, sooooo naughty.

Wait, what? No, what I meant to say was keep the thread civil, even if you have disagreements, people. I know it's a topic that's been done to death, but that doesn't mean you get to run roughshod over it.

[Dr Neo Lao]

1. Do you like, dislike, or 'it depends' furry comics?

I don't mind them, but pretty much all comics (furry, anime, noir, etc) fall into the "depends" category.

2. How are you defining 'furry comic'?

I ascribe "furry" to any comic that uses characters that have fur. I know it's a stretch and that some people may have difficulty with the "fur = furry" label, but that's the generally used label from what I've seen (which annoys Jackhass no end).

However, I put the extreme stuff into the "furry porn" sub-group. Seeing as they are a smaller part of a larger group. Same as "annoying assholes" are a small subgroup of the larger group "Americans". But not all those in the larger group are the same or have the same values as those in the smaller group.

3. Please explain your answer to question 1 if you feel like giving more details.

I love DMFA, I think it's great. Good story, good characters, good artwork - it's got nearly everything anyone could want from a webcomic (updates are sometimes a bit hit and miss, but at least better than mine).

But whenever I start reading a new comic, I'm normally paying attention to the comic as a whole - the art, the story, the characters, the ease of navigation (I hate comics that are hard to navigate - they waste my time and theirs) - the whole package. I prefer to look at a comic in it's completeness rather than focusing on one aspect and deciding not to read it due to it being in one category, or in a particular style or whatever.

Except sprite comics. I hate sprite comics. Go ahead, call me a hypocrite...

[Zwuh]

Except sprite comics. I hate sprite comics. Go ahead, call me a hypocrite...

You hypocrite!

[Mr.GtF]

Like many have already said it doesn't really matter if it's a furry comic or not. If the art work and writing is genuinely very good you'll want to go back and read regardless of what quadrupeds are being humanized in some unatural way.

Obviously, I'm not too keen on the whole furry thing, but having said that one of my favourite webcomics, Sequential Art, is a full on yiff-fest. Oh well. Nothings perfect I suppose :/

[Rkolter]

My definition of 'furry' is any kind of character that is a cross of some kind morphologically between a human and an animal. So for me, talking animals are just talking animals. Bipedal foxes are furries. Aliens are aliens. Ilia of Alex and Ilia was a furry, even though she had no fur.

I think people who need to change 'furry' to 'anthropomorphic' have issues.

And, I'm with Jim North when he says "I like good comics". No amount of adding furry to a bad comic makes it good, and simply having furries in a comic does not make it bad.

So, sure. I like some furry comics. But not generally because of the furry status of the characters.

[Turnsky]

My definition of 'furry' has been any kind of character that is a cross of some morphologically between a human and an animal. So for me, talking animals are just talking animals. Bipedal foxes are furries. Aliens are aliens. Ilia of Alex and Ilia was a furry, even though she had no fur.

I think people who need to change 'furry' to 'anthropomorphic' have issues.

And, I'm with Jim North when he says "I like good comics". No amount of adding furry to a bad comic makes it good, and simply having furries in a comic does not make it bad.

So, sure. I like some furry comics. But not generally because of the furry status of the characters.

your words make sense to me, the fact is, Furry or no, that shouldn't be the main drawcard of the comic, it should be Story and Art to be the main drawcards for ANY COMIC. if the story and art sucks, either one or both, no amount of species interchange will save it.

[Redtech]

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.

I'll have you know that I prefer women with exaggerated mammaries and "ghetto booty" infinately more than people who dress in fursuits. *YUCK!* That CSI episode was just so wrong on so many levels, but I ain't into that scene.

BTW, ain't most of the cast in yours non-human blobs? INFIDEL!

----
One supposes that at the end of the day, it is a personal preference and there isn't a singular identity even within the "furry" scene.

I do know one guy who is extreme with sexual shit and imaginary friends (yike) and another who is a very decent artist who just "role-plays" and doesn't get directly involved in furry "lifestyles" at all. So it isn't truely fair to label them equally, although from the outside, the fact that they both represent their universe anthromorphically is the biggest thing people latch on to.

While it isn't really fair to judge all artists based on pre-conceptions, it does happen. As Naked Elf correctly implies, how much of an impact would a comic hand, if all the cast were black, or other ethnicities and I tend to feel that "species" could be added to the list. As long as a universe is consistant, there shouldn't be a problem.

As with all art it's all subjective. I doubt anyone who hates the whole genere would ever like stuff such as PoisonedMinds, while I doubt there is anyone who hates comics because there are humans in it!

[Jim North]

Humans piss me off. Folks need to get off this sick human fetish they're on and draw some decent furries in their comics.

[Paul Escobar]

To most English-speakers, "furry" means nothing more than "covered with fur". To most people, their cat is furry, Garfield is not. Calling a type of comics "furry" is a completely arbitrary and home-made definition of the term, and usually means you're either involved in so-called furry fandom, or are aware of it and dislike it for the trainwreck it's perceived to be.

To answer the question: I like good comics. If it has an engaging story, charming characters, good art, and is well told, then it's cool, no matter what the characters look like.

If you think a comic is automatically better or worse just for having talking animals or humans or elves or whatever in it, you're focusing on the surface, which IMO is a silly thing to do.

Case in point, Usagi Yojimbo is a great comic, but I wouldn't call it a furry or an anthro comic, because that's neither important nor is it a meaningful description of the comic. If I were to convince someone who didn't know Usagi Yojimbo that they should read it, I'd say it's a samurai-adventure comic with some fantasy elements, that it's funny and well written and gives a fascinating look at 17th century Japanese society and mythology. The characters being animals (or perhaps rather, humans in symbolic masks) is quite beside the point. There's no need to focus on that one aspect - it's like saying it's a black & white comic, which is correct, but again, neither important nor a meaningful description.

The animal characters should never be a point in themeselves any more than human characters or robot characters should. Anthropomorphic animals are a literary device and a visual hook, and used right, they can enhance your comic. Used wrong, you just appeal to bunch of cartoon animal fetishists who jerk off to Sonic the Hedgehog porn. And we don't want that, do we now.

[Shishio]

I have to agree with Jim, Kolter, and Paul.

I like good comics.

Blacksad and Usagi Yojimbo both feature anthropomorphic casts, and they are among the best fucking comics I have ever read.