I'm replying to a bunch of people at once down here, so pardon me. Except for, of course, Desiring_Change, who's definition of furry was made clear in another article's comments, and one that we can all agree with is wrong. For those of you not aware, he’s over on the Florida bestiality article claiming we all jack off our dogs. I think we can all discount any of his opinions out of hand.
Get it?
Now, more specifically, Lamarr, you are now putting words in my mouth. I never prescribed nothing, brother. I described. There's a, if you will, deleted scene from the original draft, that sorta made it as a subhead in the final draft.
The kind of criticism I’m talking about is descriptive, not prescriptive. ... This is my way of basically saying I have a definition in mind, but you might not like it. But there is a simple way to avoid this problem; the common definition of a furry fan is a fan of anthropomorphic animals; not, ironically, a fan of furry. I will argue that the furry genre is more specific than just “anthropomorphic animal,” or even “adult anthropomorphic animal.” If my particular definition exempts certain works in your “furry canon” (as it were), no problem; it still exists under the umbrella of “anthropomorphic animal,” and is therefore covered in the fandom definition. Furthermore, I have no intentions on modifying, or even delineating, the definition of “furry fan.” And, finally, this essay is entitled “A call for more furry criticism,” not “A call for more furry criticism … by me and me alone.”
I am not taking any kind of stance on the value of the genre I am describing, either morally or artistically. Nor am I saying, as I believe a lot of people believe I am doing, that all furries should drop what they are doing if it does not comply directly to my definition; only like "furry, by my definition," and only create "furry, by my definition." I tried to make that clear in my conclusion; apparently, I failed miserably.
You yourself agree that a werewolf movie and a kid's cartoon are not the same thing. Let's just set the word "furry" aside for a moment. An American Werewolf in London is a great werewolf movie; I know this because I've watched a lot of werewolf movies. It is also a pretty good horror movie; I know this because I've watched a lot of horror movies. Both "werewolf movie" and "horror movie" are genres with rules that I feel I understand. So I know if it is a better example of a werewolf movie than, say, the recent Wolf Man remake. Hopefully we both agree there, if we don't, let's just set it aside, okay? We've got more important things to talk about.
However, I have trouble comparing An American Werewolf in London to My Little Pony, partially, admittedly, because I've never watched an episode of My Little Pony. But even if I had, I'd still have trouble, because they are so different. An American Werewolf in London is scary and disgusting; because of this it succeeds. This is its goal, if you will; to be scary and disgusting. If an episode of My Little Pony could accurately be described as scary and disgusting, it would have actively failed. My Little Pony is going more for cute and cheerful. The "artistic goals," if you'll let me, of My Little Pony and An American Werewolf in London are antithetical. Even the element they both share, anthropomorphic animals (though, as Rakuen Growlithe points out, it could be argued that they actually don't share even that), is used for antithetical "artistic goals."
Now let me be clear; I am only using the terms "scary," "disgusting," "cute" and "cheerful" descriptively. These are not value judgements. The only time I'd say a work fails is if it does not reach its own "goals," as I have tried to explain here. The thing about anthropomorphic animals is that they are a means to reach a "goal," not necessarily a "goal" in and of themselves. Different artists use anthropomorphic animals for different reasons; hell, the same artist could, conceivably, use anthropomorphic animals for two very different reasons in different works. That's the takeaway lesson. I'm not saying all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. I am saying all animals are different, and must be judged on their own merits, if we are to truthfully evaluate their worth.
What I was attempting to do was delineate a specific use of anthropomorphic animals; I believe that, since the founding of the fandom, this is the area that has seen the most interesting artistic growth. I labeled this new and still emerging genre “furry.” My claims that this genre doesn’t fit well with prose, while I still stand behind that statement, does not mean that literature involving anthropomorphic animal characters is worthless; I am simply saying the specific “goals” (which are primarily visual) of the specific subset I was delineating are not well served by non-visual mediums.
In other words, if you want to write a furry book, go write a furry book. If you want to create a furry comic with “non-anthro” characters, go create a furry comic with “non-anthro” characters. Just realize that there are much more subtle differences in art and literature than “it has anthropomorphic animals” and “it doesn’t have anthropomorphic animals.”
On further review, the analysis of “Kistelli” was superfluous, and perhaps should have been cut completely (and it was extensively cut down in the final draft) but I had so much fun with it, I can’t really say I really regret letting it out there.
I'm replying to a bunch of people at once down here, so pardon me. Except for, of course, Desiring_Change, who's definition of furry was made clear in another article's comments, and one that we can all agree with is wrong. For those of you not aware, he’s over on the Florida bestiality article claiming we all jack off our dogs. I think we can all discount any of his opinions out of hand.
Get it?
Now, more specifically, Lamarr, you are now putting words in my mouth. I never prescribed nothing, brother. I described. There's a, if you will, deleted scene from the original draft, that sorta made it as a subhead in the final draft.
The kind of criticism I’m talking about is descriptive, not prescriptive. ... This is my way of basically saying I have a definition in mind, but you might not like it. But there is a simple way to avoid this problem; the common definition of a furry fan is a fan of anthropomorphic animals; not, ironically, a fan of furry. I will argue that the furry genre is more specific than just “anthropomorphic animal,” or even “adult anthropomorphic animal.” If my particular definition exempts certain works in your “furry canon” (as it were), no problem; it still exists under the umbrella of “anthropomorphic animal,” and is therefore covered in the fandom definition. Furthermore, I have no intentions on modifying, or even delineating, the definition of “furry fan.” And, finally, this essay is entitled “A call for more furry criticism,” not “A call for more furry criticism … by me and me alone.”
I am not taking any kind of stance on the value of the genre I am describing, either morally or artistically. Nor am I saying, as I believe a lot of people believe I am doing, that all furries should drop what they are doing if it does not comply directly to my definition; only like "furry, by my definition," and only create "furry, by my definition." I tried to make that clear in my conclusion; apparently, I failed miserably.
You yourself agree that a werewolf movie and a kid's cartoon are not the same thing. Let's just set the word "furry" aside for a moment. An American Werewolf in London is a great werewolf movie; I know this because I've watched a lot of werewolf movies. It is also a pretty good horror movie; I know this because I've watched a lot of horror movies. Both "werewolf movie" and "horror movie" are genres with rules that I feel I understand. So I know if it is a better example of a werewolf movie than, say, the recent Wolf Man remake. Hopefully we both agree there, if we don't, let's just set it aside, okay? We've got more important things to talk about.
However, I have trouble comparing An American Werewolf in London to My Little Pony, partially, admittedly, because I've never watched an episode of My Little Pony. But even if I had, I'd still have trouble, because they are so different. An American Werewolf in London is scary and disgusting; because of this it succeeds. This is its goal, if you will; to be scary and disgusting. If an episode of My Little Pony could accurately be described as scary and disgusting, it would have actively failed. My Little Pony is going more for cute and cheerful. The "artistic goals," if you'll let me, of My Little Pony and An American Werewolf in London are antithetical. Even the element they both share, anthropomorphic animals (though, as Rakuen Growlithe points out, it could be argued that they actually don't share even that), is used for antithetical "artistic goals."
Now let me be clear; I am only using the terms "scary," "disgusting," "cute" and "cheerful" descriptively. These are not value judgements. The only time I'd say a work fails is if it does not reach its own "goals," as I have tried to explain here. The thing about anthropomorphic animals is that they are a means to reach a "goal," not necessarily a "goal" in and of themselves. Different artists use anthropomorphic animals for different reasons; hell, the same artist could, conceivably, use anthropomorphic animals for two very different reasons in different works. That's the takeaway lesson. I'm not saying all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. I am saying all animals are different, and must be judged on their own merits, if we are to truthfully evaluate their worth.
What I was attempting to do was delineate a specific use of anthropomorphic animals; I believe that, since the founding of the fandom, this is the area that has seen the most interesting artistic growth. I labeled this new and still emerging genre “furry.” My claims that this genre doesn’t fit well with prose, while I still stand behind that statement, does not mean that literature involving anthropomorphic animal characters is worthless; I am simply saying the specific “goals” (which are primarily visual) of the specific subset I was delineating are not well served by non-visual mediums.
In other words, if you want to write a furry book, go write a furry book. If you want to create a furry comic with “non-anthro” characters, go create a furry comic with “non-anthro” characters. Just realize that there are much more subtle differences in art and literature than “it has anthropomorphic animals” and “it doesn’t have anthropomorphic animals.”
On further review, the analysis of “Kistelli” was superfluous, and perhaps should have been cut completely (and it was extensively cut down in the final draft) but I had so much fun with it, I can’t really say I really regret letting it out there.