![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tabbiewolfOr, How Normal People Operate on the Internet.
There is a post circling Tumblr right now called "The Furry Problem." I was going to bitch about it on Tumblr but in all honesty there's enough to bitch about that I'm moving my bitching here. Go give the post a read (or at least a quick skim), I can wait :)
Done? Alright, it's opinion time!
This post really, REALLY rubs me the wrong way. And I say that as someone who has been a member of the furry fandom for half my life now, and drawing furry art for nearly 30 years (I drew it long before I discovered the fandom). Also please keep in mind I have never read this fellow's comic or any other post he's made, so the post I linked is all I know about him.
First off, he's just not correct:
"As I grew older and began seriously getting into cartooning, I noticed something odd going on around me: the cartoon animal was quickly becoming an endangered species. The animal designs of the 80’s and 90’s TV cartoons were being seen less and less in modern times within the industries that they helped create.
How could this happen? Are people just no longer interested in funny talking animals?"
Uh. Funny talking animals are still pretty popular. Yes, the styles have changed, but they're still there. He seems really focused on the idea of style here; characters like those seen in Adventure Time, Regular Show, and even My Little Pony apparently don't count? Heck, when you get down to it, Spongebob Squarepants and all his undersea buddies are talking animals.
So, instead of thinking: "Hey, maybe I should work on my artistic skills! Drawing humans or in a style other than the one I draw in could be beneficial to my career!", he blames the furry fandom for his not being able to make a decent career out of drawing cartoon animals.
Beyond that, this statement:
"To everyone else, it roughly translates to a fandom entirely focused on sexual deviancy, homosexuality, and sexual activities that incorporate elaborate animal costumes."
...is extremely offensive. Homosexuality being equated with sexual deviancy is pretty fucking awful. Homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual deviancy and fucking in fursuits is. Beyond that, sexual deviancy and fursuit sex aren't hurting anyone AND they aren't any of your business; if you judge someone based on what they do in the bedroom you're basically an asshole (and a voyeur. Seriously, why do you care?). This entire statement sounds like someone trying to justify being against gay marriage (because, you know, those gays make you uncomfortable), and it just reeks of entitlement.
Actually, entitlement is a good word for the whole post, because the entire thing is just sitting there gleaming with it. Oh no, I can't get published because I draw furry art! Uh, so...if you want to get published by the company that rejected you specifically for the cartoon animals, draw something else. You've literally drawn yourself into a corner, and instead of opening your talents and drawing other things, you are blaming the fandom you have boxed yourself into.
To quote my friend Venter: "Remember kids: If you treat the fandom as a stigma, strangers will too."
Another bit from the article, reflecting on what I just said:
"You could argue that it was silly of me to not bend to the pressure and just make Peter & Company an all-human cast, but that is precisely the problem. There shouldn’t be anything WRONG with cartoon animal characters, nor should there have to be a plot-specific reason why these animals can walk and talk."
So far, outside of that one letter saying they weren't accepting comics with cartoon animals at the moment, I really doubt this a problem that's been encountered too much...well, unless this guy is listening to the assholes on the internet, which he probably is. Again, limiting yourself to one genre/fandom/style and then bitching about that genre/fandom/style being the reason you're not popular/can't get published/whatever he's bitching about is quite possibly the most moronic thing I have ever heard.
TLDR: Tabbie's opinion on the "Furry Problems" post is basically her making masturbatory gestures and rolling her eyes.
ANYWAY, I think I've run out of steam on this whole thing, but I just felt like bitching about it, and that's what LJ is for. Everyone is free to chime in your opinions on both the original post and my opinions on it...which is also what LJ is for!
There is a post circling Tumblr right now called "The Furry Problem." I was going to bitch about it on Tumblr but in all honesty there's enough to bitch about that I'm moving my bitching here. Go give the post a read (or at least a quick skim), I can wait :)
Done? Alright, it's opinion time!
This post really, REALLY rubs me the wrong way. And I say that as someone who has been a member of the furry fandom for half my life now, and drawing furry art for nearly 30 years (I drew it long before I discovered the fandom). Also please keep in mind I have never read this fellow's comic or any other post he's made, so the post I linked is all I know about him.
First off, he's just not correct:
"As I grew older and began seriously getting into cartooning, I noticed something odd going on around me: the cartoon animal was quickly becoming an endangered species. The animal designs of the 80’s and 90’s TV cartoons were being seen less and less in modern times within the industries that they helped create.
How could this happen? Are people just no longer interested in funny talking animals?"
Uh. Funny talking animals are still pretty popular. Yes, the styles have changed, but they're still there. He seems really focused on the idea of style here; characters like those seen in Adventure Time, Regular Show, and even My Little Pony apparently don't count? Heck, when you get down to it, Spongebob Squarepants and all his undersea buddies are talking animals.
So, instead of thinking: "Hey, maybe I should work on my artistic skills! Drawing humans or in a style other than the one I draw in could be beneficial to my career!", he blames the furry fandom for his not being able to make a decent career out of drawing cartoon animals.
Beyond that, this statement:
"To everyone else, it roughly translates to a fandom entirely focused on sexual deviancy, homosexuality, and sexual activities that incorporate elaborate animal costumes."
...is extremely offensive. Homosexuality being equated with sexual deviancy is pretty fucking awful. Homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual deviancy and fucking in fursuits is. Beyond that, sexual deviancy and fursuit sex aren't hurting anyone AND they aren't any of your business; if you judge someone based on what they do in the bedroom you're basically an asshole (and a voyeur. Seriously, why do you care?). This entire statement sounds like someone trying to justify being against gay marriage (because, you know, those gays make you uncomfortable), and it just reeks of entitlement.
Actually, entitlement is a good word for the whole post, because the entire thing is just sitting there gleaming with it. Oh no, I can't get published because I draw furry art! Uh, so...if you want to get published by the company that rejected you specifically for the cartoon animals, draw something else. You've literally drawn yourself into a corner, and instead of opening your talents and drawing other things, you are blaming the fandom you have boxed yourself into.
To quote my friend Venter: "Remember kids: If you treat the fandom as a stigma, strangers will too."
Another bit from the article, reflecting on what I just said:
"You could argue that it was silly of me to not bend to the pressure and just make Peter & Company an all-human cast, but that is precisely the problem. There shouldn’t be anything WRONG with cartoon animal characters, nor should there have to be a plot-specific reason why these animals can walk and talk."
So far, outside of that one letter saying they weren't accepting comics with cartoon animals at the moment, I really doubt this a problem that's been encountered too much...well, unless this guy is listening to the assholes on the internet, which he probably is. Again, limiting yourself to one genre/fandom/style and then bitching about that genre/fandom/style being the reason you're not popular/can't get published/whatever he's bitching about is quite possibly the most moronic thing I have ever heard.
TLDR: Tabbie's opinion on the "Furry Problems" post is basically her making masturbatory gestures and rolling her eyes.
ANYWAY, I think I've run out of steam on this whole thing, but I just felt like bitching about it, and that's what LJ is for. Everyone is free to chime in your opinions on both the original post and my opinions on it...which is also what LJ is for!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-07-29 08:28 pm (UTC)AH HAHAHAHA
I love when stuff accidentally does that.
anyway, I have noticed with a lot of furry artists that this is part of their identity. They are FURRY artists and it is part of their identity, as is that outsider status. it's all furry or nothing!
There is most certainly a demand for content featuring anthropomorphic or animal characters. Things released just so far this year in movies that are pretty solidly furry:
The starred ones are in the top ten for movie gross so far this year.
And Guardians of the Galaxy and Ninja Turtles are out in a week.
If you do a soft definition of anthro characters where its characters with animal characteristics or non-human characters with human like characteristics, there's only two movies in the top ten for gross this year that DON'T include some type of anthropomorphic or talking animal character. (Noah and Captain America: the Winter Soldier- I expect Guardians to knock Noah off the list shortly)
Newspapers and comics have sort of been circling the wagons and sticking with more of the same thing that works for several years as their business model undergoes serious seismic changes. So trying to get into that market is pretty hellish. Newspaper strips in particular are HARD but if you actually look at sunday comics, most markets the front page is Peanuts and Garfield and a third strip (here's its For Better or Worse, so the front page is TWO comics that are no longer producing new panels. DEATH TO THE NEW). Inside you find several other strips featuring talking animals. so they aren't exactly missing, but they tend to be very similar. don't fit the mold, don't get the syndication. Nobody wants to rock the boat.
Comic shops tend to be a little more diverse but you had serious shifts in distribution that made it DAMNED HARD to break in there. Diamond Distrributors pretty well has a monopoly and if they don't carry you, too fucking bad.
Traditional book publishers are in the same kind of publishing funk of the big boys largely only accepting manuscripts from known authors. If you do see a breakout, many of those were effectively writing for a smaller publisher and then recruited from there, like a sports team recruiting from farm team.
Now that said, you still see loads of anthropomorphic characters in those medias but you rarely see 100% all talking animal casts. But by far one of the most requested childrens series I get is 100% animal cast. (Erin Hunters "The warriors") Looking at the required summer reading for the schools I see four things there that are considered great lit with talking animals... but are almost never included in discussions about "furry." (The Metamorphosis, Animal Farm, Watership Down, and the more recent The ARt of Racing in the Rain)
So a lot of "furry" artists confine themselves to this very narrow corner of total furry purity and thus aren't being included in the mainstream of pop culture.
I'll leave longer comment about comics, books, and the furry ghetto later, but I need to go to the Arts Council meeting in my furry as all hell t-shirt you gave me and talk about my upcoming gallery show of furry as all hell art aimed at the general public. :P I'm taking my furry ghetto and getting it all over their serious art stuff!
no subject
Date: 2014-07-29 10:46 pm (UTC)As I said in my post: masturbatory gestures, eye rolling. I dunno what crawled up this kid's butt, but he's apparently just REALLY PISSED OFF that he can't get a publishing deal and he has to blame it on those goddamn furries!
Also hooray furry ghetto invading serious art stuff! I need to work on getting my various sexy furry pin-ups into art shows just to fuck with The Man or whatever I'm supposed to be fucking with these days.