From: peacock5293@iscsvax.uni.edu (Greywolf)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: Re: The 'humanity' of furries
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:43:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <nunnemaJ.719209112@batman>, nunnemaJ@moravian.edu (john s nunnemacher) writes:
> 
> Let me just start with a blanket statement: I really dislike the fact
> that there is a need to catagorize and define everything ...  what

Well, I won't condemn the need to put labels on things, as I would say that
there are probably indeed a lot of different "types" of furry characters and
stories, and many "furry fans" may have preferences that lean toward one of
those more-or-less recognizeable categories.  For instance, I do not
particularly care for "furotica".  Also, I don't really consider myself in the
"Disney" camp (or Disney Afternoon) since I never watch the stuff -- I'm more
for "furry militech" stuff, like Chris Grant's *Empires* ... If there were a
series that had mecha, cybernetics, furries and humans in it, I'd probably be a
fan of that, too.  =)

What irks me is when there is some sort of insinuation when something that
*does* have anthropomorphized animal characters might not be "truly furry", due
to various reasons.  Maybe all "true furries" have to be built like humans,
maybe all "true furries" have to have animal-like quirks to their personalities
so they aren't "too human".  But I don't think so.  I had been of the
impression that "furry" is a rather broad term, covering everything from Bambi
to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to Bugs Bunny to the Kzinti to Maus to Empires
to Xanadu to the EDF to Omaha the Cat Dancer... and loads of other "categories"
I've failed to touch on.  Non-human animal-like characters given human or
human-like (to some degree) personalities is how I thought it went.

>   Any number of reasons. (Back off, man, I did a research project on
>   this. ;)  ) 

Research project?  Cool!  Tell more!  =)

>>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

Ditto here, insofar as views.  As for my stories, they're too half-finished to
be worth classifying let alone considering anyway.  The folks that I know who
don't like "furry stories" tend to be those who classify "furry" in a much
narrower term, and one which I think a lot of people use it for:  Animal-like
characters with human-like anatomy, usually in very erotic situations.

A very exclusive definition, IMHO, but it's one that a lot of folks seem to
have (including the "definition" I got a long time back from R. Talsorian Games
about "Furry T** Fandom").

>   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.

Yeah, and I HOPE to get around to reading that.  The campus library has it in
the Browsing section ... I just haven't been able to find the time to be able
to "browse" much of anything.  Maybe with Furry down (and with the prospect of
continuing building ruled out) I'll have more time for such things...

>   medium of animal stories *in general* should not be written off so
>   easily.

Yeah, that *was* a bit of a painful generalization.

-- 
-Jordan            ..      PEACOCK5293@iscsvax.uni.edu
                  .OO.     Jordan Peacock (Jordan Greywolf)
                  O/\O     (New Address):  1610 Parker
                   --                      Cedar Falls, IA  50613