I don't really give a shit about Fur Affinity and am basically just, you know, partisanly defending Flayrah, so I'm moving down to the hobbits. Hobbits are funner.
I google myself sometimes and, uh, I don't get a lot of results. You know. So you stick out. Also, Tolkien in general and hobbits in particular as a defense against worldbuilding; I mean, come on. That sticks. I can't think of a worse counter-example to my argument. It's less a grudge and more I've been waiting for an opportunity to dunk on something that obvious for ... nine years, was it? I mean, that's what I'm saying; "Tolkien has a lot of unexplained hobbits running around", are you fucking kidding me! The first thing you read when you open a copy of The Fellowship of the Rings is literally a long, tedious explanation of hobbits! THEY COULD NOT BE MORE EXPLAINED. I would wait 90 years to dunk on that shit!
But, like you, I've mellowed since then, and in the context of the original comment you were quoting, that was in the time period Fred Patten was alive stuck in his bed and had nothing better to do than flood Flayrah's inbox with reviews of everything, and just about every other review was "the characters being furry had no impact whatsoever on anything". I think it was a bigger problem then you thought because you weren't either a. Fred, b. stuck with a constant stream of Fred and weren't reading literally everything published as furry. Fred's situation was pretty unique, so even if you were trying to read everything, he had you beat. And given he was usually a very forgiving reviewer, I mean, if he was getting kind of annoyed, it was probably pretty bad.
Yes, giving me a complete rundown of how your furry world evolved is probably overkill (though could also be fun!), and I get hung up on the worldbuilding aspect at times. Kyell Gold is not part of the problem. The characters being animals is important to the story in his writing (and, for that matter, Jacques Redwall books), even if there's no "explanation". What I was railing (badly? Probably.) against at the time was that a lot of "furry authors" weren't even at that level. There were a lot of "the main character is a tiger" only effecting the cover illustration from other authors, and let's just not find examples right now, how about that?
If I had to guess why, I'd say its medium confusion. Let's face it, a lot of furry inspiration comes from non-literary sources, and lot of them are visual mediums. It's not so bad the main character of Aggretsuko being a red panda effects the story, her characterization or her setting fuck all, because she's the main character in an animated television show, so we can see her. She looks nice. That's justification enough in that medium. Since we can't actually see the fucking character (outside of the aforementioned cover illustration), it needs a bit more justification in a novel. People were trying to turn animated cartoons into novels without understanding that there's a difference.
I didn't actually write a lot about hobbits this time, sorry.
I don't really give a shit about Fur Affinity and am basically just, you know, partisanly defending Flayrah, so I'm moving down to the hobbits. Hobbits are funner.
I google myself sometimes and, uh, I don't get a lot of results. You know. So you stick out. Also, Tolkien in general and hobbits in particular as a defense against worldbuilding; I mean, come on. That sticks. I can't think of a worse counter-example to my argument. It's less a grudge and more I've been waiting for an opportunity to dunk on something that obvious for ... nine years, was it? I mean, that's what I'm saying; "Tolkien has a lot of unexplained hobbits running around", are you fucking kidding me! The first thing you read when you open a copy of The Fellowship of the Rings is literally a long, tedious explanation of hobbits! THEY COULD NOT BE MORE EXPLAINED. I would wait 90 years to dunk on that shit!
But, like you, I've mellowed since then, and in the context of the original comment you were quoting, that was in the time period Fred Patten was alive stuck in his bed and had nothing better to do than flood Flayrah's inbox with reviews of everything, and just about every other review was "the characters being furry had no impact whatsoever on anything". I think it was a bigger problem then you thought because you weren't either a. Fred, b. stuck with a constant stream of Fred and weren't reading literally everything published as furry. Fred's situation was pretty unique, so even if you were trying to read everything, he had you beat. And given he was usually a very forgiving reviewer, I mean, if he was getting kind of annoyed, it was probably pretty bad.
Yes, giving me a complete rundown of how your furry world evolved is probably overkill (though could also be fun!), and I get hung up on the worldbuilding aspect at times. Kyell Gold is not part of the problem. The characters being animals is important to the story in his writing (and, for that matter, Jacques Redwall books), even if there's no "explanation". What I was railing (badly? Probably.) against at the time was that a lot of "furry authors" weren't even at that level. There were a lot of "the main character is a tiger" only effecting the cover illustration from other authors, and let's just not find examples right now, how about that?
If I had to guess why, I'd say its medium confusion. Let's face it, a lot of furry inspiration comes from non-literary sources, and lot of them are visual mediums. It's not so bad the main character of Aggretsuko being a red panda effects the story, her characterization or her setting fuck all, because she's the main character in an animated television show, so we can see her. She looks nice. That's justification enough in that medium. Since we can't actually see the fucking character (outside of the aforementioned cover illustration), it needs a bit more justification in a novel. People were trying to turn animated cartoons into novels without understanding that there's a difference.
I didn't actually write a lot about hobbits this time, sorry.