Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

From your conclusion: "The fans themselves only over analyze it because outsiders insist on seeing something sinister or depraved in it, and therefore Furry fans have to be able to explain themselves."

Bull.

This is a benefit of analysis; it is not why we choose to analyse it. We choose to analyse it because we are fans; I don't understand how you can be a fan and not have some personal definition that will exclude something. Science fiction fans are still arguing over what constitutes science fiction, and most likely will be until the universe contracts (or some other apocalypse appropriately science fiction-y). And God bless'em for it; at least I can tell they actually give a shit about what they're talking about.

Besides, why are you the only one to get to write the essays?

"Especially if one has created something worthy of taking a place in this prestigious history."

The furry fandom has created jack, and you know it; the fandom has had no effect whatsoever on the mainstream. When J.J. Abrams directed Star Trek, you know he was thinking, "Boy, I hope the Trekkers like this. If they don't like it, to a certain extent, I will have failed with this movie." When Gore Verbinski directed Rango, you know he wasn't thinking the same thing about furries.

Nothing is being made for furries by non-furries. Furry, as a genre, for all intents and purposes. does not exist outside the Internet. Your definition, and every broad definition with it, is an attempt to camouflage this fact, probably mostly to yourself.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.