Like or hate Furry Comics?

[Dr Legostar]

i think the distinction here is anthropomorphic vs furry. To me the former indicates simply that, anthropomorphized characters. Furry denotes a sexual fetish featuring the former. I'm fine with the former, and greatly disturbed by the latter.

[RemusShepherd]

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

I agree that whether a comic is good or bad is the primary consideration. But I'll admit to having an affinity to furry comics. There are a lot of comics that I wouldn't look at twice if they didn't feature talking animals. (Lackadaisy, Sluggy Freelance, VG Cats all come to mind.)

2. How are you defining 'furry comic'?

I'd rather not. 'Furry' is a very loose definition that some people use to encompass angels, demons, aliens and elves. :p I have very specific criteria for what I like about furry art...more on that in the next question. There are 'furry' comics that feature talking animals but that don't fit hit my triggers.

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

First of all, 'anthropomorphic' is a better-defined term, and I'm all in favor of precision in language. Trouble is, 'anthropomorphic' does arguably include things like angels, demons, aliens and elves. So I'll use 'furry' and 'anthropomorphic' interchangeably to describe a specific *style* of art and writing.

There is a value to having characters with animal characteristics. Animal features can be used as shorthand for characterization -- a dog will be loyal, a rabbit will be flighty, a ferret will be energetic, and so on. Alternately, you can play characters against their expected role for dramatic or comedic effect -- Usagi Yojimbo and Bun-Bun of Sluggy Freelance are more effective characters partially because they are stalwart and strong instead of cowardly, for example. This gives authors another handle to work with in their stories. Any expectation you can set up in your readers' minds can be used to lead them or misdirect them. Thus, stories featuring furries have an additional storytelling tool.

Animal features can be used in another way in anthropomorphic art. Animals have non-human expressions that can be interpreted as exaggerated forms of human expressions. Furthermore, we are hard-wired to react in certain ways to animal shapes and motions. The snarl of a big cat elicits fear; the snout of a pig causes revulsion; the wide-eyes of many prey animals creates feelings of empowerment in the reader and insecurity in the character. Playing with or against these images allows the artist another tool in manipulating the emotion of the viewer. This is similar to the wide-eyed, big-nosed conventions of comic characters as set down in the early 20th century. Furry characters naturally lend themselves to the shorthand, iconic comic language used in western art. And I think they add new conventions to it, taking it in new directions. Thus, I'd argue that furry art is a subgenre of comic art with a broader and deeper visual language than regular comics.

Under this definition, 'furry' encompasses any iconic characters used to elicit emotion and bargain a character's animal nature into storytelling devices. That covers a lot of fiction stretching back into prehistory. Enkidu, Anubis, Set, Pan, Mickey Mouse, werewolf stories, etc all qualify in my mind as furry stories, because the animal nature of those characters were all important to the stories or art in which they featured.

And I like stories that use the furry tropes well. I'm a sucker for exaggerated emotions and quick visual references for a character.

(And note how useful these things are for porn, where exaggerated emotion and shorthand devices to sketch out the plot are key. This is why furry porn exists, kids -- the anthropomorphic tropes lend themselves to porn as well as they do to comics.)

Boy, sorry for the length, didn't realize how long-winded that was going to be.

[Yeahduff]

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.

I understand your point, but my description of Usagi Yojimbo would definitely include the words "black-n-white" and "animals" within the first two sentences.

[Fabio Ciccone]

I've just noticeed one thing.

There's this style of making comics that's about using antropomorphic animals acting like humans.

If you like, it's called "antropomorphic animals acting as human".

If you hate it, it's called "furry".

I'm not saying anything more about this. Carrying on, then.



Well, for me, if I first look to a comic and the characters are antro-animals/furry, I'm inclined to dislike it. But there's a chance I might end up loving it if I like the content, like, for example, World of Fizz.

But in general I don't like'em very much.

[NakedElf]

i think the distinction here is anthropomorphic vs furry. To me the former indicates simply that, anthropomorphized characters. Furry denotes a sexual fetish featuring the former. I'm fine with the former, and greatly disturbed by the latter.

Anthropomorphic can also cover non-animal creatures. You could have an anthropomorphic pear or car, for example.

I refer to The Happy Penis as anthropomorphic because it has walking, talking fruit and penises. I would be really reluctant to refer to a talking piece of fruit as 'furry'.

[Dr Legostar]

i think the distinction here is anthropomorphic vs furry. To me the former indicates simply that, anthropomorphized characters. Furry denotes a sexual fetish featuring the former. I'm fine with the former, and greatly disturbed by the latter.

Anthropomorphic can also cover non-animal creatures. You could have an anthropomorphic pear or car, for example.

I refer to The Happy Penis as anthropomorphic because it has walking, talking fruit and penises. I would be really reluctant to refer to a talking piece of fruit as 'furry'.

and I would hope you're not sexually fetishizing fruit.

[JessicaRaven]

i think the distinction here is anthropomorphic vs furry. To me the former indicates simply that, anthropomorphized characters. Furry denotes a sexual fetish featuring the former. I'm fine with the former, and greatly disturbed by the latter.

Anthropomorphic can also cover non-animal creatures. You could have an anthropomorphic pear or car, for example.

I refer to The Happy Penis as anthropomorphic because it has walking, talking fruit and penises. I would be really reluctant to refer to a talking piece of fruit as 'furry'.

and I would hope you're not sexually fetishizing fruit.

yeah that's Penny Arcade's schtick

[Paul Escobar]

I understand your point, but my description of Usagi Yojimbo would definitely include the words "black-n-white" and "animals" within the first two sentences.

To clarify, it's not like I would go out of my way to not mention "animals" or "black & white".

But your reply made me think about why I don't think "animal" is a defining aspect of Usagi Yojimbo. And I came to the conclusion that there are two distinctly different types of "anthro animals":

One type (as in Usagi Yojimbo or Maus) where the characters are, to all intents and purposes, humans - who happen to be drawn with animal heads for purposes of symbolism or whatever. The "animal" bit is not important to the story (although it's important to how the story is conveyed).

And another type (as in Over the Hedge or Watership Down) where the characters actually are animals - who happen to be able to think and talk. Here, the "animal" bit is all-important to the story.

There are, of course, examples that fall somewhere in between the two types.

(One could add a third distinct but rarely used type where the characters are animals that have been enhanced or changed in some way to become humanoid, as in The Island of Doctor Moreau. But I digress.)

[RobertBlake]

I don't mind anthropomorphied animals/furry/whatever comics, as long as it's good. Although I admit I may be a bit biased, considering the characters in my comic are anthropomorphised animals.

My characters are as such mainly because I like animals and they're more fun for me to draw than humans. It also leaves open the possibility for bits of physical humour that might not be possible with human characters.

Well, for me, if I first look to a comic and the characters are antro-animals/furry, I'm inclined to dislike it. But there's a chance I might end up loving it if I like the content, like, for example, World of Fizz.

Booyah.

[NakedElf]

and I would hope you're not sexually fetishizing fruit.

Not really. I don't think there's anything really 'sexy' in the comic.

...fruit with boobs... now that's a stupid mental image.

[RemusShepherd]

But your reply made me think about why I don't think "animal" is a defining aspect of Usagi Yojimbo. And I came to the conclusion that there are two distinctly different types of "anthro animals":

One type (as in Usagi Yojimbo or Maus) where the characters are, to all intents and purposes, humans - who happen to be drawn with animal heads for purposes of symbolism or whatever. The "animal" bit is not important to the story (although it's important to how the story is conveyed).

And another type (as in Over the Hedge or Watership Down) where the characters actually are animals - who happen to be able to think and talk. Here, the "animal" bit is all-important to the story.

There are, of course, examples that fall somewhere in between the two types.

That's a neat division. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the symbolic masks are what it's all about. Watership Down's rabbits are no less symbolic for being actual four-footed critters. The use of animal symbolism as part of a character's nature in a story makes it into a furry story.

[Joel Fagin]

Two quick points about Usagi...

Firstly, it was originally going to feature Miyamoto Mushashi - a real historical and quite human samurai. However, the creator, Stan Sakai, made the intelligent and well considered decision to move to animals by doodling a rabbit with his ears tied in a topknot and thinking "Hey, cool". In that way, then, it doesn't quite fall into the category of being a antro comic for a good, well thought out reason

Secondly, there is one human in the comic, a Lord Hijiki. He's the main villain early on and no explanation is given for why he's human except the implication that, like many other characters in the comic, he embodies those qualities that make his species what it is. That is, he's human because he embodies the human traits of greed, arrogance and self-centredness.

- Joel Fagin

[The Neko]

Humans are animals, too. That's why furry comics are odd in that they leave one species out. That and they are always wolves, lions, or foxes. And gay.

[Jim North]

Mmm, sweeping generalizations. Just gonna say that not all furry comics exclude humans. Anywho.

The idea that there has to be a reason behind characters being furries perplexes me quite a bit, I must say. It's entertainment, neh? As I said, I do personally prefer there to be a reason myself, but as long as the characters being furries entertains the readers (and/or the story's creator), what more reason does there need to be?

Also perplexing, the strange misconception that many people have that "furry" automatically means "fetishist". As it was originally coined - by furry fans themselves, no less - the term "furry" simply means anthropomorphisized animals and/or the people who enjoy stories and art and what have you about such characters. The fetishist part was added on much later by those ignorant of how the fandom actually works or stupid enough to refuse to believe otherwise. That part then spread further, fed by other people's ignorance, the general tendency to judge first and actually examine later, if at all. The furry fandom itself continues to use the original, correct meaning. Continuing to use the fetishist definition when talking with furries themselves is to add connotations that are not there, continue perpetuating what a number of furry fans consider to be a negative stereotype, and builds on more from other people's ignorance.

Now, this is not to say that there aren't furry fetishists in the fandom, of course. Simply that "furry" does not encompass them and only them.

I feel I should also point out that there is a difference between sexual predilection and fetishism. The vast majority of those who are called furry fetishists merely have no problem finding furry characters objects of sexual desire. They don't absolutely require furriness to get off, don't desire furries to the exclusion of all else, and there are at least some of them who agree with non-furries that the really out there stuff is just way too damn weird.

And the final perplexing thing to me, those furries who call themselves anthros, particularly in attempts to distance themselves from the rest of the fandom. Y'know, the whole Trekkie vs. Trekker type thing. Now, as confusing as the term "furry" might be (Are birds furries? Are lizards furries? Are dragons furries? etc. etc.), the term "anthro" is far more so. While furry may be a tad too specific, anthro is far, far too broad. As has been intimated before, an anthro could be anything given human qualities. A talking, walking toaster is an anthro. While all furries may be anthros, not all anthros are furries, so trying to use the terms interchangeably or replace f with a doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It just screws up an already pretty screwed up situation.

Aaaaand I'm done being serious in this thread, I think. This sort of thing tends to get way too damn ridiculous from both sides after a while.

EDIT: Is it time to bring back the Jim Doe avatar? I THINK IT IS!

[The Neko]

Of course there are individuals in the "furry fandom" who aren't fetishists. But the thing is, you can't use that kind of reasoning to change the connotation of the word "furry" when you use it as a genre. It doesn't matter if it is a sweeping generalization or not; this is what people think when they hear the term.

[Vulpeslibertas]

For all the "furry" = "porn" crowd, I'd like to throw out the term "yiffy". The definition of that word is undisputed.

[Zwuh]

For all the "furry" = "porn" crowd, I'd like to throw out the term "yiffy". The definition of that word is undisputed.

Correct, both those words make people gag.

[Adaz]

Well, I have nothing against furry comics. I don't have many favorites among furry comics (In fact, right now, I am only following one, Kevin and Kell), but there's nothing inherently wrong with furry comics IMHO. If the premise is interesting, I don't care if the characters are humans, foxes, wolves, or talking teapots.

Now, Yiff comics? I wouldn't look at them at all. Just not my cup of tea.

[Fabio Ciccone]

And the final perplexing thing to me, those furries who call themselves anthros, particularly in attempts to distance themselves from the rest of the fandom. Y'know, the whole Trekkie vs. Trekker type thing.

Very good comparsion.

Down here we have two hooligans groups that cheer for the same team but fight each other... kinda stupid, no?

[Jim North]

you can't use that kind of reasoning to change the connotation of the word "furry" when you use it as a genre.

That was not my entire reasoning, it's not an attempt to "change" the connotation but to reassert the actual connotation, and it's not what everyone thinks.

But hey, thanks for playing!