watches the discussion between Sasya and Ocean like a ping-pong match Anyone keeping count of who’s winning?
I should break up this quote as I answer it, but I still haven’t had my morning coffee so will most likely screw it up X3
For the first point, it could be argued that had any singular event in human history gone any differently at all, we’d be seeing a very different world. It’s one of the reasons why there is such a big fan base for steam punk. What if the steam era had evolved a little further, or Edison (or Tesla, for that matter) died as a child? What if there was no Rockafella, or either of the Roosevelts had died young? What if Gates or Jobs decided in completely different careers? There were so many singular individuals and events that shaped and molded the world as we know it. While things like claws and tails and muzzles could very easily have changed things drastically, such worlds could have just as high a probability of being similar to ours as ours had to shaping up the way it did. Could go into the whole theory of multiple dimensions and a new one created for every choice we make thing, but yeah, too early in the morning x.x
I do agree though that the fandom has changed, even in the past decade. When I first went into the whole rp scene, we did stick with one character to rp with. However, it wasn’t considered our fursona so much as our go-to character. Their history, family, even personality would be changed depending on the rp you were taking part in. It wasn’t seen as an extension of the writer, just as… I guess you could say a doll to dress up and play with in the world that was created. However, there was also the flexibility to put in an entirely different species if the rp called for it. We didn’t use pictures or pre-made profiles. All the information was meant to be put into the rp, and it was expected to flow well and not feel expo-heavy. I think I went completely off topic with that x.x
Point is, I definitely saw the transition where folks were putting more and more of themselves into rp’s and stories. Folks used to be able to use a very speciest character and people would understand that it was the rp’er playing the character. These days, a person can be hated right out of a community for it, because they assume (even with disclaimers) that it’s the character playing the person. It’s disheartening, especially when this happens in chat rooms where you’re expected to be in full-blown rp mode. Unfortunately, that’s where a lot of people in the community hone their writing skills, and as you’ve pointed out, it shows loud and clear in the stories these days.
Let me start you on that path to learning: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+meaningless+tautology
This isn’t about me or you (unless you are a real fox typing those words?), this is about anthropomorphic characters. They are different from humans. If they’re not different from humans, then we come back to original argument of ‘Why are you using Anthropomorphic characters?’ If you just want to use them, then fine, go be on your merry way, but you may be missing something that could give your world and your characters more depth.
I also don’t see why you argue against exploring this part of the characters when you say yourself you use it in your own writing. So what are you even arguing anymore?
I am sorry that the subtexts of my statements were not perceived.
(unless you are a real fox typing those words?), this is about anthropomorphic characters. They are different from humans.
Would you like to discuss an actual tautological argument? Here’s one! You’re asserting, essentially, that anthropomorphic characters are different from humans because anthropomorphic characters are different from humans.
Because, in my case, the backstory of my universe resulted in the creation of anthropomorphic characters from human stock for the purposes of genetic diversification. I don’t need any more ‘why’ than that, even though I have plenty.
Or it could turn the story and the characters into things that they’re not and make the setting about subjects and concepts that exist at a far lower domain of thought.
I don’t. I never have. I’ve simply maintained that neither way is wrong and that every character, story, universe is going to be sufficiently different as to preclude any hard-and-fast rules… and that, in fact, bemoaning the fact that stories exist featuring anthropomorphic animals that don’t think, feel and behave to your expectations is counterproductive.
Groupthink is often contrary to creativity, and if we’re going to have a discussion on the subject I see no reason not to state my opinion to that effect.
-Fox
Not to offend or anything, but what subtext? You debated it’s not a meaningless tautology and asked for a citation. He gave you one.
I also think this is turning into more than a debate.
Not to offend or anything, but what subtext? You debated it's not a meaningless tautology and asked for a citation. He gave you one.
Oy. The subtext in my original statement that makes it not wholly literal and thus obviously not a tautology, the fact that even if it were, a tautology itself isn’t necessarily meaningless, the fact that “Citation needed” is intended to gently suggest all of the above, and so forth and so on.
A “let me google that for you” link is not a citation, so no. Furthermore, we are not talking about logically provable absolutes, so none of this discussion holds any value—it’s a sidebar, pure and simple. The original subtext was missed, and my gentle hints to that effect have met with blank stares.
I also think this is turning into more than a debate.
This particular exchange went from discussion to debate, and that was fine… but with the advent of snark it has become less and I believe (from the discussion the shoutbox) that neither party wishes to continue along that line.
-Fox
I went all the way back to the start of this thread and confirmed a suspicion I had – namely, that Duroc’s original thesis wasn’t precisely make furries relevant, it was make the species relevant:
I am reading a book of furry stories and I have come across a well known furry writer who has once again done something I find happening way too often in published furry works. I have already forgotten the species of one of the main characters because the author has done absolutely nothing to make the species of the character relevant to the story.
Frankly, “Why furries?” is kind of a done-to-death question; we’ve been asking it for at least thirty. The answer is context sensitive, and the context is the story you’re asking it about. It’s only relevant if it’s relevant to the story in some fashion, and more pointedly, it tells you nothing about how the anthropomorphic aspects are used. I’ve read stories with very detailed world-building establishing how anthropomorphic races came about that in practice were still largely “people in fursuits” stories, and I’ve read stories with no explanation for why they’re furries or how the world came about where the author’s nonetheless paying due diligence to the fact that he’s not writing about humans.
Given a choice between the two, which would I prefer? Trick question. I’d prefer the one that tells the more interesting story. All other things being equal, I’d prefer stories to pay that due diligence – but I think it’s very easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees in these kinds of discussions. If you don’t like plotless, meandering slice-of-life “just like our world but with furries” stories, maybe the problem phrase isn’t just like our world but with furries, it’s plotless, meandering slice-of-life.
With respect to Duroc’s actual question: sort of? If I’m forgetting what species your characters are, it’s because you’re not doing a good job showing me – but a little “they’re people but still like animals” goes a long way. Again, it depends on what the story is. I want to see your character’s ears go back, the tail go down (or wag)… but when you start trying to build personality traits/quirks around species, the type of story you’re trying to tell is going to determine whether that comes across as awesome, or just unintentionally comical and/or overbearing.
The thing is, though, while no, I don’t like plotless, meandering slice-of-life stories, I also don’t like stories that may very well have a decent plot and character development but where I find myself asking “why are these characters bipedal animal-people when they could have just been human and it would be the same story?” So while I see your point, and while that may be a factor in some cases, the non-furry aspects of the story itself are not usually the core problem for me as a reader.
Maybe it’s cause I’m not feeling in particularly high spirits today, (and probably shouldn’t be writing this post) but I find the notion of a done-to-death question a bit condescending even though I probably shouldn’t. And I think the aspect from my first post is getting lost. Again, I was discussing my issue toward a published work. Well, several published works if I’m to be honest, where money was spent, money that I could’ve chosen to spend elsewhere but I was putting it toward the writers and publishers of this community. And I was addressing my annoyance at how the furry, anthropomorphic, whatever you want to call it, aspect is plastered on and I simply lose what these characters are supposed to be because little to nothing about the furriness or the animal like qualities of these characters doesn’t stand out. And I was asking whether or not this bothered anyone else. And from looking at the other posts, it does seem to trouble some other people.
I mean, if you were writing about orcs and elves and fairies and they all melded together in the author’s writing because he did nothing to take into account that the physical aspects and world building dynamics (or whatever device you wanted to use) of orcs and fairies are most likely gonna be different. If you changed them to something else, the story has the potential to be something very different. If not, why use them at all, right? And if I can’t tell the difference between a character being a fairy or an orc, that is going to effect how I, as a reader, is going to appreciate and enjoy the story.
Now, if somebody wants to post something to FA for free or do a role play where no thought is given to the worldbuilding or the animal traits of the character, fine by me. No problem with that at all. But when I am paying money… yeah, I’d like a bit of effort from the author. And even Kyell Gold, obviously a talented writer, has left me at times where I’m reading and going, I have no clue what species this character is and I just see this generic blank space with a tail in my mind, because nothing about the animal trait of the character stood out or effected the scene/story in any way. Obviously, I thought Common and Precious was the best example of making the species of characters stand out but Out of Position left me questioning the species of characters several times.
And if you are doing a story where there are only a couple species in the world, it certainly makes things easier in the readers mind. He has less options to fill that blank void. But if your world is populated with foxes and wolves and lions and bears and horses and hogs and monkeys and sea horses and hermit crabs and hairless cats, it’s easy to lose track and I think the author, speaking as someone who used to write, should put even more effort into makes the animal traits in his furry world matter and effect the story and stand out to the reader. Just my opinion.
That’s a really good example. 
Duroc, my point was that it didn’t seem to me that your initial question was “why furries,” but more “how furries,” i.e., how that affects the story. That’s always been by far the more interesting question to me. I guess I didn’t communicate that very well; maybe my willingness to defend stories in which Furries Just Are muddled my point.
But, I’ll still defend them. Someone has to. 
For one, I don’t think those stories are intrinsically ones in which you can just swap in humans and have the stories be identical, and that’s kind of what I was trying to get across in (apparently badly) drawing the distinction. But isn’t it eminently possible for a story to have the furry aspects be pretty superficial and still be a cracking good story? And also, isn’t this maybe a bit more of a continuum than the way we tend to keep portraying it? I have no idea where my own “Dreams Are For Vixens” would fall in this category: the Furries Just Are, and it would be possible to rewrite it without using furry races and have essentially the same story, but the fact that they are furry changes the way the story is told. (The protagonist is a chubby raccoon girl with body image issues in part from the way she perceives raccoons to just naturally be.) Isn’t that enough?
As for “done-to-death”… well. Maybe I should have looked for a less prickly phrase, but Furries Must Be Explained vs. Furries Just Are was a debate well underway when I got into the fandom in 1988. Sorry, but it’s a topic I get kind of Grumpy Old Fart about.
A good story, yes. A good example of a furry story? Maybe not.
As for "done-to-death"... well. Maybe I should have looked for a less prickly phrase, but Furries Must Be Explained vs. Furries Just Are was a debate well underway when I got into the fandom in 1988. Sorry, but it's a topic I get kind of Grumpy Old Fart about.
Conversely, I get tired of being told, either explicitly or implicitly, that this is a question that’s over and done with, and nobody should care about it anymore because apparently the furry writer powers that be settled it twenty years ago, or whatever. I still think it’s an important topic. I think it’s always going to be an important topic to consider, at least for those of us who care about furry/anthropomorphics as a genre/subgenre/category of fiction, and I think it’s still something furry writers should think about with each story they write, whatever conclusion they come to.
Having just seen the newest Hobbit movie this Friday, I agree. I can’t even imagine the band of Dwarves being anything but dwarves, or Bilbo being anything other than a Halfling, or even the Humans being anything else. It just wouldn’t seem right, and would indeed change the story drastically.
I’d have to agree on PT with this one. I know I tend to get a bit passionate when it comes to what makes something-someone furry. It’s something that’s been discussed and argued and debated and beaten to death during the entire time I’ve been in the fandom. I’ve read, witnessed, and taken part in countless discussions over it, and at times can be rather sick of it. However, it’s something that seems to mean a lot to furries old and new. It also doesn’t help that a pet peeve of mine is generalization, even though I tend to be guilty of it myself (though I’ve been trying to catch myself). It drives me nuts, especially when such generalizations pertain to something that has become such a big part of my life such as the furry fandom.
On that note though, I think this thread has made it clear that there are folks all over the board on this. There are, without a doubt, very talented writers within the community that feel passionate about keeping the furry factor pure, beyond humans in suits. Give us rhyme and reason why you made the character something other than human. Weave the traits and characterization throughout.
It can be possible to be a great writer within the community (I only read one of Chip’s writings, but I highly enjoyed it :3) and still be okay when the furry factor is lacking as long as all the other elements are good enough to support it. Who are more there for the story than the furriness. While others ask why, they tend to ask why not.
There’s nothing wrong with any opinion. It all comes down to personal taste and style. So often we create or read a thread to find like-minded individuals. I’m glad this is one of the few sites where even those who disagree can state their case and get involved in the discussion without having torches and pitchforks turned on them. Though it’s highly doubtful anyone’s opinion will be swayed, it’s still a wonderful thing to be able to peer into their thought process and be allowed more of a peek of who and what they are.
I feel like I’m ending up playing devil’s advocate at this point; when I read the disagreements they still sound an awful lot to me like people are more interested in “tell me how the characters being furry matters” than “tell me why the characters are furry,” which is most of what I was saying. The rest of what I was saying was arguing it’s a continuum rather than an either/or, with the “Dreams Are For Vixens” example. That story certainly doesn’t have a why and it barely has a how, but you would need to do more than run search and replace on the text if you wanted to rewrite it with humans instead of furries. And it’s that kind of story I think is getting a bit of short shrift. I like stories almost everywhere on the continuum, if they’re good.
And the “done to death” wasn’t that it’s already settled – it’s that it’s never going to be settled, which is why “how” is (usually) a more interesting question to me. I’m sorry my attempts to be flippant are coming across as nasty. They’re not meant to.
At any rate, how do people think showing furriness should be done? I confess I’m a little dispirited after a review of Five Fortunes which strongly implied my story was a failure on these grounds, yet the protagonists’s character arc is largely driven by worries over how she’s perceived due to her being a wolf. If anything, it’d be the kind of story I’d think someone could point to and say, “Look, you’re actually writing stories in which the furriness matters, so stop arguing the other side, jerk.”
This may be rehashing or going on a tangent but I’ll say it anyway.
How the furriness should be done at the end of the day is completely up to the author. As someone else said, some people are simply happy with a good story, and it could be about anthropomorphic prunes wearing clothes and they’d be perfectly happy with that. Others look for something more. They may want a how or a why or just something more than a “fur coat”. The thing is, as a writer, you have the freedom to write however you choose. But that doesn’t mean everyone is going to like it or enjoy it. If you write a story where the furries just are and they come across as nothing more than humans in fur coats, you are taking a risk in isolating a group of readers. And just because we are in a small, tight knit community, people aren’t obligated to like it.
I come across pretty blunt. I say what’s on my mind and I ain’t the smartest or best at putting a cute little spin on things. But I get the feeling sometimes that writers, especially writers in this community, have this assumption that when we purchase a novel or an ebook or an anthology, that we are somehow obligated to read it from end to end and finish it. But we’re not. As a reader and a consumer, my time and money is valuable. If I go turn on the television and I don’t like what I see, I can change the channel. If I sit down to play a video game and don’t enjoy it, I can go stream a movie on my computer. And the same thing with reading. If I start reading something, and I don’t like it, I’m not going to keep reading just because. Maybe some people do, but I don’t. There have been several things I’ve purchased from furry publications and decided not to finish them because I didn’t like them for whatever reason. Be it Isolation Play or Thousand Leaves, I started reading, got 50-70 pages in, didn’t like what I saw and put the book away. My time is important. And be it the tacked on furriness, the writing wasn’t good, the story was boring, the characters made questionable choices, whatever the reason may be, but those are my decisions based on my likes and dislikes and it varies from book to book, story to story. I can’t but a finger on it each and every time.
And unfortunately, I review. I do that thing we all bitch about and say people aren’t doing enough of. And I’m honest. I’m not doing it to cause drama or say, look at me, I’m an asshole reviewer. I’m not looking to butter up another writer cause I want them to turn around and read my next publication and cross my fingers, hope he reviews my story and gives me a pat on the rear saying, look what an amazing brilliant person you are. Here, have a biscuit. And I’m not beholden to a publisher or editor, worried that if I make them angry they might not publish my novel. But I will also praise something if I enjoy it. And I will say this author did an amazing job.
The thing about it is, furry writing can be done in a ton of different way. But investing a little bit of thought in the furry aspect of the character doesn’t take much to have a major impact in how the reader will see and remember a character for the entire time they are reading. It doesn’t take much. What if you had a deer character who worked for a logging company and he has to wear a hard hat. And he doesn’t want to lose his job so every few day he goes through the painstaking process of filing down his antlers so he can wear his hard hat and keep his job that he’s worried about losing. And the truth is he’d really like to change jobs because when I drives into the city to go to the bar the does ignore him because he doesn’t have a huge rack like the other bucks. Very simple. But I would remember this character. And the furriness still just is but at least I find it interesting. Yes, the writing is still going to have to be done well and the story behind it still needs to be good but simple things like this matter to some.
What about a spider who is a dominatrix and uses her web for bondage? (You’re welcome, Voice) This was an idea I had for an anthology but since I don’t write much at all any more, screw it. I’ll throw it out there. Or another thought I had of a bird who loved to dance and used his talons like tap dancing shoes. I’ll never get around to writing it so here ya go. But again, a very simple idea. But somebody is going to remember that character. Still technically furry. Still technically tacked on. But yet it didn’t take much thought at all to make him pop and stand out.
Just like anything else in life, sometimes we get lazy. Writers get lazy. Publishers get lazy. Editors get lazy. And if we do that, we are taking a risk with the readers who are spending their valuable time and money to support this community. Some are okay with it. Others aren’t. And maybe because I’m a boar I have the balls to say so. Have you ever seen a hog’s testicles? Trust me, they’re big.
But in the end, it doesn’t take much effort to make furry character less forgettable, it’s simply a matter of if we make the choice to do so. But then we have to deal with the ramifications from the readers, and potential reviews if we do.
Now stop being an asshole, Duroc. Nobody likes you. Go home and cry alone in bed.
Very, very well said Duroc.
+20 points for inclusion of spiders.
Once more agree with Voice in it being very well-said. I do want to point just one thing out though. The exclusion of a nice deep furry aspect might not have anything to do with laziness and everything to do with a preference of the writer prefering to spend time, energy, and thought on other aspects of the character or storyline, or the concern of the author that too much focus on the furry aspect could take away from other points they’re trying to put more focus on. Now, this could go right back into the loop of ‘why bother writing with furry characters then’, but once more that can swing right back over to the argument of ‘why not’ or ‘personal taste’ or ‘that’s what floats my boat’. And round and round the debate goes.
There’s also the thought that, just as there’s an entire market for those who get a special glee out of delving more into the furry aspects (like myself) and those who don’t want to bother with books that don’t include enough of a furry aspect, there might also a specific market for those who ~prefer~ people in furry suits over the heavier furry aspects. From the reviews I’ve been reading of books that use anthro/furry characters, there seems to be an entire “gateway” group of books for those who wouldn’t read such stories except they’re not too heavy in the furry aspects. Indeed, it seems there are quite a number of people that would never have bothered with ~any~ furry/anthro books had it not been for these “gateway” books that are light enough on the furry aspect that these people gave the stories a chance to really shine, allowing them to see that yes, there’s real talent in this community.
So it seems there’s a place for everything and everything for a place. It’s good to want to keep from isolating markets, but you’re not going to be able to keep from isolating them all since tastes in reading are about as personal as tastes in writing.
+20 for use of porcine genitalia.
I’ve pretty much made my points (probably twice over) already in this thread, but for one last thing I’d also add, in terms of “gateway” fiction, that stories where there is some reason for the characters to be furry are also a good gateway for people who don’t normally read furry fiction. For many people, yes, the furriness is a hangup, but it’s more like “why are the characters animal-people?” and getting stuck on that, instead of “there’s too much animal nature here and not enough human-ness.” This seems particularly true for readers who are familiar with sf/f, and so they do (consciously or unconsciously) expect the furriness to affect the story in the same type of way that including elves or dwarves or vampires would.
And also, Duroc, I don’t think I’ve said this publicly – or if I have, I haven’t enough – but thank you for reviewing. And thank you all who review. I know it takes time (one reason I haven’t been reviewing much of anything lately), and I know it can be something of a risk in such an insular community of writers and publishers, but it’s important to the writers individually and to that furry writing community as a whole, and I appreciate everybody who takes that time.
PT, I’d agree with you, except I haven’t read enough of the books I’ve seen said reviews on X3 Though honestly, most of them appear to be more “human in a fursuit” than anthro/furry. I could be completely wrong in this, so please don’t quote me on it. It’ll just be something to keep in the back of my mind as I get further into my book list :3
If you’re writing a first draft or writing something to post for free on a website, sure, I can see focusing on other areas and not others. But for published work or something you’re wanting people to pay money for, you should be giving all areas the focus and attention they deserve. Whether or not a writer succeeds on giving all areas the proper treatment is a different story, but he damn sure better put in the effort. If not, why expect the reader to put in the effort of reading it?
Put it this way, if you only focus on certain areas of a published story or novel and just leave others passable, it’s like cleaning up the backyard for a family and friend bbq. You clean out the pool, pick up trash, wash off the deck, mow the lawn and spruce up the flower beds, but don’t pick up the dog poop all over the backyard. Somebody’s gonna notice.