I’ve been making it a point in my recent work to give the characters more species-related mannerisms and personality quirks for this reason. After I was able to change my characters to humans all too easily in a few early short stories, I felt I was in desperate need of some way of differentiating them.
I’m late to this party, but it’s a core gripe of mine. I know that the early nineties were full of people who got tired of hashing out the differences between “anthropomorphic” and “furry” artistic expressions, but I think it’s a valid (if porous) distinction to make.
I know that, for myself, I respect anthropomorphic literature more than I respect furry literature. Anthropomorphic literature makes those distinctions of species matter, and are essential to the story.
Furry literature doesn’t make the species involved a core element of the plot or narrative themes. People With Fur Coats sells well enough, but I’m not sure if it furthers the genre or the artistic merit of a piece much.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the market decides, and the markets seem to be doing fine with People In Fur Coats furry stories, while anthropomorphics seems to be relegated to a niche within more classical science fiction and less commonly, fantasy.
This goes right back to the argument of what makes a furry (insert x here) a furry (insert x here). Spirit, my hubby, is all about the 50:50 / human:animal ratio. His main fursona isn’t just a human wearing a fursuit, but has the anatomy of a creature that’s not quite human and not quite animal. He’s always rp’ed him like this, and written him like this, and has called himself a furry for over a decade now. He is also far, far from the only example of a furry who ~prefers~ the 50:50 ratio that I can think of.
Also, though stories within the fandom such as Out of Position don’t use the species aspect to the utmost, they still seem to have a rhyme to the reason. For example, in OOP there are people who might frown down upon relationships outside of your own species, and there are basic stereotypes, and even who different characters are attracted to can lean toward species-preference. Stories like that still have a rhyme and reason for putting in the furry element and having it add a bit more to the story.
Unfortunately I’m not quite old enough to have gotten in on the fandom during the early nineties during those discussions, so I do apologize if that’s where most of what you said is coming from. I was, however, constantly dragged into the numerous discussions in the early 2000s on how to define furry, so that’s where all this is coming from.
I would say, again, that there’s also a niche even within the furry fandom for what you’re describing as anthropomorphics. I just get tired of writers assuming that furry readers don’t care (or don’t care anymore), like it’s already a decided thing, so why even bother. I’ve gotten emails from readers who liked some particular story of mine because it mattered that the characters were furry, and who lament the decline of that aspect of furry fiction. So they’re out there; just don’t know what percentage of readers/buyers we’re talking about.
I can honestly say, as a reader who struggled very much to get into the furry fiction (too many years rp’ing made it hard to take it seriously), I was happy as a school girl when I read a short story that included the predator/prey instincts in a non-smutty way. It helped me to better take the story far more seriously at a time when I was still trying to get through my own mental stigmas of it. This short, btw, was written by someone within the fandom who identifies as a furry :3
I’ve come to believe that the distinction between “furry” and “anthropomorphic” being drawn here is a lot blurrier in practice than we sometimes talk about it being. In the Ranea stories, the different “furry” races have names separate from their species (a Vraini is a fox the same way a human is a monkey) and I treat them essentially as the equivalents of elves and dwarves in more Tolkienesque fantasy; where does that fall in the line? Munchkin mentioned Kyell Gold’s work – Kyell gives absolutely no explanation for why the characters are wolves and tigers and foxes beyond They Just Are. But he pays a lot of attention to ways in which replacing humans with wolves and tigers and foxes subtly changes everything from ergonomics to architectural design, let alone social interactions – far more so than I see in a lot of stories where “here is why we have furries” is a significant part of the worldbuilding. Where does that fall in the line?
Basically, when we say we want (or don’t want) the species to “matter,” what does that mean? What I usually want is a feeling that if the characters weren’t anthropomorphic animals the story would be different. Not necessarily worse (or better) – just different.
I would say that’s at least what I want, too. I’m not always looking for a worldbuilding explanation of where the furry characters came from. Sometimes that’s necessary for the story, and sometimes it isn’t, but I think a lot of people get hung up on that and think that’s what people mean when they complain about humans in fur coats. They get hung up on “there has to be an explanation for the furries” or “furries must be essential to the plot,” instead of “essential to the story,” which isn’t quite the same thing. (And although I do especially like stories where it’s essential to the plot, I also know that’s harder to do.)
At the very least, as a reader I just ask for something where you couldn’t plug humans in and have exactly the same story, especially when it’s a contemporary story set more or less in current times – as if everybody in our regular day-to-day life just put on animal masks and went about their day. That type of approach creates what I’ve come to call “fox in Starbucks” stories, and they grate on me no end for feeling pointless and lazy – “furry” stories just because the author happens to be furry, basically. IMO, if that’s what you’re going to write, just write it with humans; you’ll have a bigger potential audience then anyway.
(Edited to add: Apologies if I made any of these points already in this thread… too little time at the moment to go back and check.)
Are there really readers who complain that the furry characters are too furry? By this I mean something akin to complaining that the characters enhanced senses ruined the story for them. I’ve felt the argument was there are those that read all the stories and enjoy them, and then those who read furry stories and feel like the species were forgettable and an opportunity was missed.
Using anthromorphic characters is a deep toolbox that seems to be skipped over a lot. I agree that if you can start swapping species or just change them to humans and nothing really changes in the story, then you’re probably not going deep into that tool box. I also think we focus a lot on the enhanced aspects of the animals but never the detriments. Colourblindness is a large example of this.
I really want to hug you for this last point. Often times when Spirit and I rp, such detriments come into play and can be used to spice up the story. Even the effect of a muzzle and how it would change the way an individual drinks from a glass is something so few think about. Or about how dealing with fur, be it the shedding season or just showering and having to dry and brush it? How much more time would that take out of a person’s day? Or what about when tails get in the way? This last one is actually going to be a major point in the story we’re working on for the sports antho, including how it might change the way the game is played and the rules that might be involved based off of what already exists for other limbs.
Honestly I think that’s one of the reasons OOP is drawing me out more into furry writing. There doesn’t have to be this whole long explanation or breakdown of how and why and all that. It ~feels~ like a story written by someone in that very world. There’s more of a natural feel to it, making it easier to be drawn in. There are small reminders, like a claw scratching over the Send button when a tiger is debating on whether or not to make a call, and mentions of relationships between different species and the possible stigmas they might face without having to go into the whole history of why.
Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever seen that complaint raised.
I also think we focus a lot on the enhanced aspects of the animals but never the detriments.
That might be due to a touch of Mary Sue-ism going on. We’re all in the fandom because we love anthro animals, after all, so we probably do tend to think of the positive aspects first and foremost – all the stuff that would be cool about being nonhuman – instead of what would be a drawback. Although, I also think maybe that tended to be dealt with to a greater degree in earlier furry fiction, and probably tends to come out more these days in transformation fiction, where the physical differences between human and animal form tend to get highlighted to a greater extent.
That’s something I’ve occasionally thought about. PT’s comment about the touch of Mary Sue-ness is on point.
But I admit I also do this as a conscious choice much of the time. Say my protagonist is a wolf – and he’s bipedal, 6’4", wears tailored suits, works at a bank and lives in a small but pleasant garden apartment on the east side. I may well want to think of ways in which him being an anthropomorphic wolf affects the story, but those ways may not have a lot to do with real world wolves – he’s not any closer to a real world wolf than a human is to a bonobo.
Having said that, I think it’d be neat to see more people play around with drawbacks and more small differences. The other night it occurred to me, for instance, that if you have sharp, non-retractable toe claws, you can’t use normal bedsheets – you’ll shred them when you move.
One aspect I love writing when I can is presenting species for whom the priority of senses is different than the baseline human, or who lack senses we take for granted.
For example, octopus lack proprioception; they have no way of knowing where and how their body is physically positioned without looking.
I’ve written some narrative in the past with scent-prioritized anthropomorphic characters. It’s difficult, as a person, to get into unfortunately. Tough reading, tough to keep some narrative details unknown when a sniff of air around someone gives away the last few days of their lives more or less.
Exactly the point I was trying to raise earlier in the thread. In my universe, my characters are human with animal attributes. It doesn’t mean that you don’t have large differences between people based on their species, but being part human can do a whole lot to mediate an uncontrollable prey drive. Having a brain that is almost wholly human and being raised in some type of society will have a far greater effect.
Here’s the thing: In the end, it’s perfectly ok to write furries any damn way you please. If you want their differences to be integral to the series, stories, arcs, subplots, etc., then write away. If you want the stories to be about interactions that occur at a higher level, then so be it.
A good story is a good story.
Now as far as the “fox in Starbucks” stories, I DO generally have an issue with them, but it’s a different issue. I feel that they’re weak. They’re not weak because the characters “aren’t furry enough”, they’re (probably*) weak because there’s no effort to world-build. Even the subtlest differences between creatures would almost certainly have affected the course of history to render modern times unrecognizably different than it currently is.
Anything else is personal preference, and I don’t (personally) think that anyone should stand in judgment or assert that one is better than another.
Just my opinion, as always. ^.^
-Fox
One point made during an rp was having a rabbit anthro eating rabbit at a restaurant. This was in a world where anthros were outnumbered by humans by a very large ratio, so of course the humans expected her to only eat vegetables. The character got a lot of funny looks, but it was later explained that the differences in the brain of an anthro rabbit were so significantly different from a feral rabbit that the dietary needs would be radically different. According to her, trying to compare an anthro rabbit’s needs with a ferals was ludicrous. She then went on to explain the actual science about it, and the writer based it off of real life biology mixed with some theories. It was really interesting.
It still negates the idea that there would still be some very obvious things that would need to be compensated for, unless the human with animal traits didn’t acquire the animal muzzle or animal tail. However, I do agree that a good story is a good story (the point I was trying to make earlier :3).
The fox in the starbucks thing is excusable to me when the storyline is solid enough for it. Maybe it’s because the very first one I read was one of the first ones to really pull me into furry lit. There are stories that would simply be way too boggled down or would drag if the author went into all the history and back story and how things got to where they are today, just as much as there are stories that ~need~ that. It also allows a reader to play out the fantasy of being a fur in the world we live.
I think what it boils down to is that there’s a group of fans for pretty much everything. As writers, as folks who decided ‘I’m not just going to talk about writing, I’m going to write!’, we have an advantage over other readers. We can write the stories we would want to read. Add in as much or as little furry/anthro aspect as we like. We can use this very world we live in and put in the players we choose, or build entirely new worlds, universes, dimensions. We can make our dreams a reality, or at least as close to a reality as a reader can get.
I don’t think a meaningless tautology really is an excuse to write a story without consideration to certain aspects. Yes, you can write them however you want but by at least considering the animal traits of your characters and including them in your writing, your story can go from good to great.
I don’t think it’s a meaningless tautology, but you’re free to say so. It’s certainly not an excuse. You need to consider more than just the animal traits to include in your writing, and those traits can be however large a part of your writing as you wish them to be without affecting the overall quality one iota.
“Animal traits” can be just as much a crutch as can any other device.
Characters need to think, feel and breathe. They need to be more than a collection of traits, instincts and responses. What about the abuse the character suffered from a relative as a child? What about the vehement but misguided vitriol her parents spouted for many years of her life—rhetoric she rejected years ago, but still has to consciously filter out in her actions?
Yours is the divine breath, the inspiration of your characters. They live and die by your hand. Do them the justice of writing them well. Many of the common ‘traits’ have become cliché, as patterns or anti-patterns. For many stories, they just constitute lazy writing, and I’ve seen a lot more lazy writing and overuse of cliché animal-derived traits than I have the aforementioned “people in fur coats”. (Admittedly, there is a bar of quality that I will not go much below to read any work, so that may by itself act as somewhat of a filter…)
We may be at loggerheads as to the subject at hand, but know that I respect your opinion, even if I don’t share it.
-Fox
“X is X” is the literal definition of a meaningless tautology so I’m unsure how you find it otherwise.
I’m not arguing that you should only think about animal traits. We’re writing animal people (unless you’re writing just a feral story but that’s another matter). You know what affects how a character thinks and feels? Things like traits, instincts and responses. I agree that character development is important but you seem to be just shuffling aside the fact that because they have animal traits, this in no way should be a part of their character that you explore.
One problem, though, is that, as Sasya pointed out above, if there were furries in our modern-day world, it logically wouldn’t be the same world, because at some point somebody would have to think about things like tails and claws and other physical and cultural aspects that would affect objects and social interaction and so forth.
That said, I think the fandom’s acceptance of humans-in-fur-coats stories may have a lot to do with how the fandom itself has changed in the last 15 or 20 years. It’s become very identity-focused and centered around one’s fursona and social interaction, and I think that’s showing in the fiction, too, where the furry characters are just human stand-ins in the human world. One doesn’t need a reason to decide you’re going to be a wolf or an otter or whatever online, of course, and you interact with everybody that way, in the regular human world, and the other people you’re talking to are just humans with animal masks – so there’s no perceived need for having your fictional characters be any different. In some ways, it’s maybe not all that different from another pet peeve of mine – those calls that writers put out wanting characters (others’ fursonas) to use in their stories. (Could be totally off-base with all of that, but it just occurred to me today that there could be some connection.)
[Citation needed]
Do you find yourself driven largely by traits and instincts? Perhaps you’re a very different creature than I. Certainly they play a part, but I can’t think of many instincts that affirmatively drive my behavior or my thoughts. I find that even the language that I speak effects more change in my conceptions than the adaptations of my ancestors to their environment.
Perhaps that’s just me.
I agree that character development is important but you seem to be just shuffling aside the fact that because they have animal traits, this in no way should be a part of their character that you explore.
Is that how you meant to word that? I don’t quite understand that, as written.
If your implication is that I’m asserting that animal traits should not be explored, you couldn’t be further from the truth. In my stories, in my universe, the animal traits contribute far less to the character’s character than their thoughts, concepts, development, and high-order thinking—there is little atavistic impulse from the animal side that isn’t shared by most species. The brain adapts to the body, and those reflexes so developed most certainly play a large part in the development and growth of the organism. The physical differences contribute often to different lifestyles and a lack of homogeneity of experience, yes, as do some of the physiological attributes of the characters that are retained, but generally speaking my universe, my character heavily favors nurture over nature.
Does that, by itself, make my writing poor? Would it be improved if I pasted animal responses on my characters?
I do not believe it would, personally, but you’re welcome to disagree.
-Fox