From: nunnemaJ@moravian.edu (john s nunnemacher)
Subject: Re: The 'humanity' of furries
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 00:33:10 EDT


Let me just start with a blanket statement: I really dislike the fact
that there is a need to catagorize and define everything ...  what
proportion of 'human' to 'animal' the characters in a given story are
does not make the story inherently any more or less legitimate than any
other story.  These days there seems to be a prolific concentration
within 'furry fandom' of a few specific 'types' of furry characters,
leading in many ways to the discouragement and/or alienation of many
other types.  Sigh. Anyway ...

In <1992Oct14.080504.15903@netcom.com> fuzzy@netcom.com (Fuzzy Fox) writes:
>hepfox@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Peyton) writes:
>>The first is to make their
>>furry characters completely human in every way except for physical
>>appearance (of which Hepcats and Usagi Yojimbo are just two of many
>>examples).
>When an author does this, I often wonder why the author chose to place
>his characters in a furry universe.

  Any number of reasons. (Back off, man, I did a research project on
  this. ;)  )  A few have been mentioned by some other folks already.
  There's the potential for allegory or metaphor. There's the draw of
  having something different to work with, something alien, something
  non-human. There's the potential to use somewhat stereotyped
  characters .. which is not necessarily a bad thing at all, if used
  properly: it can help create a recognizable character in the
  short-term without spending lots of time defining the character; or,
  more interestingly, one can create a character that seems to be
  stereotypical, then introduce some aspects of his/her personality that
  seem to contradict the original stereotype, and thereby (if it's done
  properly) give that character a great potential for depth ...

  The list goes on ...

>Humans would have worked just as
>well, and probably might have expanded the readership as well, since not
>everyone likes furries.

  Ooh, this one gets me too ...  The fact that a story uses animal
  characters should not, and does not, have a very heavy influence on its
  readership.  I do not write 'furry' stories, I write stories that use
  animal characters for a variety of reasons.  Basically, practically
  ANY type of story can be done with animal characters and, if done
  properly, it can appeal to a wide audience.  (Just a few examples ..
  Bugs Bunny and friends, Disney's 'Robin Hood' and, more recently and
  successfully, Beast from 'Beauty and the Beast', as well as a
  multitude of science fiction paperbacks in the bookstores all have
  characters that are zoomorphic ('furry,' if you will) in nature, yet
  none of these are restricted in appeal to a specific segment of scifi
  fandom known as 'furry fandom.' Another prime example:  Art
  Spiegelman's 'Maus' is a powerful document that has brought much
  praise from the literary and artistic elite alike ... and I hardly
  ever hear mention of it in the fandom circles.

  Simply, I contend that in spite of the existance of a scifi fandom
  sect and a miriad of mid- to low-quality specialty publications, the
  medium of animal stories *in general* should not be written off so
  easily.

						Just my twentytwo cents,
							john

  A
  
-- 
 ---------------------[ "Of all the luck, my parents had to be humans." ]
 John Nunnemacher     [       "Don't take it too hard.  Humans provide  ]
 2426 Ivan Street     [   some very important protein."           -C&H  ]
 Bethlehem, PA 18017               E-mail: nunnemaJ@moravian.edu