"Are you a furry?"

[Blue Dragon]

I just joined and you can list me as a furry too. Take a guess what I am. It's rather obvious.

[Rapscallion]

I just joined and you can list me as a furry too. Take a guess what I am. It's rather obvious.

Um, wouldn't that make you a scaly?

Rapscallion

[Record Store Tough Guy]

I just joined and you can list me as a furry too. Take a guess what I am. It's rather obvious.

Let me guess. A fox?

[Saydrah]

Man, I've never thought of Brian that way... I just always thought of him as a dog that has the odd ability to form English words, kind of like Lassie, only more literate, in much the same way Stewie can 'talk' despite being too young to be able to form such complex sentences.

Man, just think... there are way too many children's shows that have anthros... A lot of stuff aimed at the younger kids apparently support furry-ism! Oh, noes!

Actually, this is why I tend to avoid the furry fandom. I have no problem with the sub-culture, but the claiming any talking, walks-upright animal anywhere anytime is part of it that some members- though not the majority- tend to engage in just squicks me from a creative perspective. I'm a writer and I would be quite peeved if I wrote a character into one of my works that happens to be animal-like, but talks and walks upright (and I do write sci-fi/fantasy, so it could happen) and someone chose as a result to co-opt that character into the furry fandom, use it as their fursona, or state with certainty that the author MUST be a furry.

Catgirls are one thing, but Brian from Family guy? He's just a dog.

Sorry to poke my nose in with a less-than laudatory view of the furry fandom, but I think sometimes people ought to consider the creator's right to define their characters a little more thoroughly. It kind of reminds me of how JKR got labeled pagan/Satanist for writing books with magic in them.

Though again I emphasize- I have no problem with the vast majority of furries, furry sites, furry art, etc. Most of the people are very nice people and most of the art is very talented; it's just not my thing. I prefer the Potter fandom. I don't even LIKE the original books that much, but I want to have DementorDelta's babies!

[Gabrielle Proctor]

My ex-roomie is a furry. I like most of his friends, they're a good crowd.

[Imogene]

Um, wouldn't that make you a scaly?

Yes, but scaly is another sub-fandom of furry.

but the claiming any talking, walks-upright animal anywhere anytime is part of it that some members- though not the majority-

I probably should have added the </sarcasm> tag to my post... I thought the "Oh noes!" was hint enough... sorry.

[Broomjockey]

Yes, but scaly is another sub-fandom of furry.

Yet to hear a scaly actually accept that. It's usually considered seperate but equal.

[Imogene]

Yet to hear a scaly actually accept that. It's usually considered seperate but equal.

Browse FChan, there's scaly image threads there ALL the time.
Note: site NSFW.

[edible_hat]

It kind of reminds me of how JKR got labeled pagan/Satanist for writing books with magic in them.

Also, there are people out there who refuse to recognise the canonicity of The Half-Blood Prince because it contradicts their favourite fanfics.

[Andara Bledin]

Um, wouldn't that make you a scaly?

Either a scaly or otherkin. Depends on the philosophy of the individual in question.

I'm technically a scaly, myself, but I just call myself a furry.

Yet to hear a scaly actually accept that. It's usually considered seperate but equal.

If they consider themselves fully otherkin, they might not associate with furrydom. They're different groups.

Of course, if they're persona is an aligator and they're resisting the umbrella term "furry" they're just being silly, since "furry" refers to anyone who is a fan of anthropomorphic animals, even if they have no animal-based persona at all.

I have a couple of friends who are interested in anthropomorphics in literature, but aren't particularly interested in the visual art or spiritual side in the least. They have no furry personae and are interested in only a small subset of the whole shebang, yet they will still allow that they are still part of the fandom.

Actually, this is why I tend to avoid the furry fandom. I have no problem with the sub-culture, but the claiming any talking, walks-upright animal anywhere anytime is part of it that some members- though not the majority- tend to engage in just squicks me from a creative perspective.

Catgirls are one thing, but Brian from Family guy? He's just a dog.

Ok, so all catgirls are ok to be pigeonholed into the "furry" collective, but the talking dog is untouchable? Actually, he's about as anthropomorphic an animal as you can get; he's only missing clothes.

^-.-^

[Bliss]

As a vestigial fur i really enjoyed this thread so far. But it seems to be derailing too quickly into a fratching worthy fight over terms and details. Please peeps, dont sour this thread on me

[Broomjockey]

But it seems to be derailing too quickly into a fratching worthy fight over terms and details.

I don't see anything wrong. If you have a specific issue that's bothering you, use the report button.

[Bliss]

I thought I saw it going down, sorry I got twitchy finger, And I didn't report because it wasn't yet a fight or bad situation and thus I didn't want to alert a mod yet. Plus I tried to do my post as tactful as I could for I thought I could help a little. Sorry for the misstep then.

[Nekojin]

Strictly speaking, any anthropomorphized animal, whether real or fictional (by that, I mean the difference between cats, skunks, and alligators vs. unicorns, griffons, and dragons) is furry. It doesn't matter how far it is - if it's an animal with human traits (walking, talking, coherent thinking), or a human with animal traits (catgirls, etc.), it qualifies as furry. Even Watership Down, which is strictly a book about rabbits, is considered furry.

- - - - -

As far as respecting the author's intentions goes - well, that's fine, but you have to realize that a creation only "belongs" to the author (talking emotionally, not legally) up until the day the creation is released to the public. Once the public observes the creation, they will get their own emotional attachments to the creation in ways that the author never realized or intended.

Take, for example, Star Wars. 20 years after the fact, George Lucas decided that the showdown between Han and Greedo in the Cantina made Han look a little too ruthless, and changed it to show Greedo shooting first in an official rerelease of the movie. What happened after that should be pretty common knowledge. (And if you're unfamiliar with this bit of movie history, do a Google search for, "Han shot first," for more information than you ever cared about!)

So I ask you... who really shot first? As the Creator, does George Lucas get to rewrite it after release? Legally, there's no question - it's his creation, he can alter it how he sees fit. But morally? Emotionally?

[Broomjockey]

So I ask you... who really shot first? As the Creator, does George Lucas get to rewrite it after release? Legally, there's no question - it's his creation, he can alter it how he sees fit. But morally? Emotionally?

Okay, this? ^is Fratching material. Sorry, but that's too far off-topic.