Ah, man, I could almost go with this post, but you missed something. Comic books aren't a genre; they're a medium. But that's just really a nerd quibble.
Anyway, there was a portion I cut saying the furry fandom is a fandom of anthropomorphic animals; I'm not interested in changing that definition. I think what I'm trying to get across is that furry artists have created a brand spanking new genre the likes of which has never been seen before. This is what I'm trying to define in the article. Yes, it is a derivative subset of funny animal, which uses anthropomorphic animals as a story element, like everything from "Watership Down" to the Bible.
Anthropomorphic animals are a dime a dozen; this new genre is almost nonexistent, and may in fact die before it gets any kind of attention outside of the fandom. In fact, from what I'm getting here, the fandom doesn't seem to really care about it that much.
"Watership Down" is a great book, but when it comes down to it, Richard Adams is probably unaware of furry, and if someone where to leave him alone for five minutes on FurAffinity with an adult login, it would probably kill him. The man is 91. And "Watership Down" is a fairly politically conservative book, when you get down to it.
Meanwhile, in the last 30 years, furry artists, backed and often exclusively commissioned by furry fans, have created something never before seen. "Anthropomorphic animal" already has a name. It's "anthropomorphic animal."
This genre doesn't. Why not name it in honor of its creators?
In conclusion, IT IS NOT HERESY, AND I WILL NOT REPENT!
Ah, man, I could almost go with this post, but you missed something. Comic books aren't a genre; they're a medium. But that's just really a nerd quibble.
Anyway, there was a portion I cut saying the furry fandom is a fandom of anthropomorphic animals; I'm not interested in changing that definition. I think what I'm trying to get across is that furry artists have created a brand spanking new genre the likes of which has never been seen before. This is what I'm trying to define in the article. Yes, it is a derivative subset of funny animal, which uses anthropomorphic animals as a story element, like everything from "Watership Down" to the Bible.
Anthropomorphic animals are a dime a dozen; this new genre is almost nonexistent, and may in fact die before it gets any kind of attention outside of the fandom. In fact, from what I'm getting here, the fandom doesn't seem to really care about it that much.
"Watership Down" is a great book, but when it comes down to it, Richard Adams is probably unaware of furry, and if someone where to leave him alone for five minutes on FurAffinity with an adult login, it would probably kill him. The man is 91. And "Watership Down" is a fairly politically conservative book, when you get down to it.
Meanwhile, in the last 30 years, furry artists, backed and often exclusively commissioned by furry fans, have created something never before seen. "Anthropomorphic animal" already has a name. It's "anthropomorphic animal."
This genre doesn't. Why not name it in honor of its creators?
In conclusion, IT IS NOT HERESY, AND I WILL NOT REPENT!