Well, we can comment on JM's latest article if you like, here, because it's easier than doing it there.
Animal Farm, by George Orwell.
JM: "I have re-read Animal Farm, but I’m not recommending to the Furry Canon. Read something else."
Starts as a promising article, if only because it's not a mainstream opinion, and so I wanna hear what he has to say about that. Personally, I don't like Animal Farm. I read it once, and I thought it was boring. Meanwhile, I've read 1984 several times, particularly the transformation of the main character from a strong-willed individual into a decrepit accommodating carcass of a person, which I find fascinating.
But then, JM:
"I simply don’t think that Animal Farm [is] a furry book. Which got me thinking about what constitutes a furry book."
He argues a number of points to support this statement, most of which are ridiculous. JM: "For starters, I think that furry is escapist by nature." The furry 'genre' is not 'escapist'. Furry is a meta-genre. This means that it encompasses any cultural depiction where animal anthropomorphism is used, across different genres (with no other fixed staple). Maus by Art Spiegelman is an example of a furry work, the furry here used as tool by a non-furry author, to tell a biographical (of sorts) Holocaust story he wanted to tell. I've heard some people argue Maus is not a furry work, and I guess you could argue that to some extent. But this isn't their position.
In a previous article introducing what they attempt to do at [adjective][species] by defining "The Furry Canon" (somewhat dissenting with the assessments made by Fred Patten), they say:
"JM (editor horse-in-chief of [a][s]) and I were talking about Fred Patten’s article "What The Well-Read Furry Should Read," which features what Fred considers to be the top ten classics of the fandom. It’s not a bad list, but we had a number of questions. How did Jonathan Livingston Seagull and Animal Farm make the list, but Maus and The Wind in the Willows did not?".
So Maus is not escapism, but they call it furry. Quod erat demonstratum.
It's the kind of pseudo-depth I observe in their articles, which is like, using an analogy, "I'm attempting to give a closer look at this issue, but my glasses are permanently foggy".
Well, we can comment on JM's latest article if you like, here, because it's easier than doing it there.
Animal Farm, by George Orwell.
JM: "I have re-read Animal Farm, but I’m not recommending to the Furry Canon. Read something else."
Starts as a promising article, if only because it's not a mainstream opinion, and so I wanna hear what he has to say about that. Personally, I don't like Animal Farm. I read it once, and I thought it was boring. Meanwhile, I've read 1984 several times, particularly the transformation of the main character from a strong-willed individual into a decrepit accommodating carcass of a person, which I find fascinating.
But then, JM:
"I simply don’t think that Animal Farm [is] a furry book. Which got me thinking about what constitutes a furry book."
He argues a number of points to support this statement, most of which are ridiculous. JM: "For starters, I think that furry is escapist by nature." The furry 'genre' is not 'escapist'. Furry is a meta-genre. This means that it encompasses any cultural depiction where animal anthropomorphism is used, across different genres (with no other fixed staple). Maus by Art Spiegelman is an example of a furry work, the furry here used as tool by a non-furry author, to tell a biographical (of sorts) Holocaust story he wanted to tell. I've heard some people argue Maus is not a furry work, and I guess you could argue that to some extent. But this isn't their position.
In a previous article introducing what they attempt to do at [adjective][species] by defining "The Furry Canon" (somewhat dissenting with the assessments made by Fred Patten), they say:
"JM (editor horse-in-chief of [a][s]) and I were talking about Fred Patten’s article "What The Well-Read Furry Should Read," which features what Fred considers to be the top ten classics of the fandom. It’s not a bad list, but we had a number of questions. How did Jonathan Livingston Seagull and Animal Farm make the list, but Maus and The Wind in the Willows did not?".
So Maus is not escapism, but they call it furry. Quod erat demonstratum.
It's the kind of pseudo-depth I observe in their articles, which is like, using an analogy, "I'm attempting to give a closer look at this issue, but my glasses are permanently foggy".