Firstly, a minor quibble: "Animal Farm" is a novella, not a novel by word length, even if it is published by itself.
Now the main argument: of course, "Animal Farm" is furry! J.M.'s opinion is his own, which he's entitled to. But saying that "Animal Farm" isn't furry is like Sanrio Ltd., the makers of "Hello Kitty", saying that "Hello Kitty" (or Kitty White, the anthropomorphic cat-girl) isn't a cat; she's really a human girl. Which Sanrio has done recently, and they should know because she's their creation and their copyrighted character, isn't she?
Fine, but how many people agree with Sanrio? To the vast majority of the public, "Hello Kitty"/Kitty White is a cat.
Almost everyone would agree that "Animal Farm" is furry, except those who feel that "Animal Farm" is Literature and "furry" is a specific subcategory. Aside from general literary categorization, the animals in "Animal Farm" do not talk only to each other. They negotiate with other humans in the story. They buy land from a neighboring human farmer to enlarge their farm. So, unless you insist on pigeonholing "Animal Farm" as political allegory instead of furry, or you feel that a literary work must be by a furry-fandom writer &/or published by a furry-specialty publisher (or by a print-on-demand publisher like CreateSpace or Lulu), it meets the generally-accepted definition of furry.
J.M. is apparently one of those who feels that "Animal Farm" is clearly political allegory, so it can't be furry. (Also, it predates furry fandom.) I believe that it can be both at once, and that it should be considered a basic work of the Furry Canon.
It's amusing to consider what Eric Blair/George Orwell would have thought. Somehow I doubt that he would have been sympathetic to furry fandom. "Animal Farm" is still furry, in my opinion -- and, I think, in most furs' opinions.
Firstly, a minor quibble: "Animal Farm" is a novella, not a novel by word length, even if it is published by itself.
Now the main argument: of course, "Animal Farm" is furry! J.M.'s opinion is his own, which he's entitled to. But saying that "Animal Farm" isn't furry is like Sanrio Ltd., the makers of "Hello Kitty", saying that "Hello Kitty" (or Kitty White, the anthropomorphic cat-girl) isn't a cat; she's really a human girl. Which Sanrio has done recently, and they should know because she's their creation and their copyrighted character, isn't she?
Fine, but how many people agree with Sanrio? To the vast majority of the public, "Hello Kitty"/Kitty White is a cat.
Almost everyone would agree that "Animal Farm" is furry, except those who feel that "Animal Farm" is Literature and "furry" is a specific subcategory. Aside from general literary categorization, the animals in "Animal Farm" do not talk only to each other. They negotiate with other humans in the story. They buy land from a neighboring human farmer to enlarge their farm. So, unless you insist on pigeonholing "Animal Farm" as political allegory instead of furry, or you feel that a literary work must be by a furry-fandom writer &/or published by a furry-specialty publisher (or by a print-on-demand publisher like CreateSpace or Lulu), it meets the generally-accepted definition of furry.
J.M. is apparently one of those who feels that "Animal Farm" is clearly political allegory, so it can't be furry. (Also, it predates furry fandom.) I believe that it can be both at once, and that it should be considered a basic work of the Furry Canon.
It's amusing to consider what Eric Blair/George Orwell would have thought. Somehow I doubt that he would have been sympathetic to furry fandom. "Animal Farm" is still furry, in my opinion -- and, I think, in most furs' opinions.
Fred Patten