![[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 08:44 pm (UTC)"I must have sent out 30 submissions." I know published authors who took 70-80 to get their first story. And those were one-time deals, not steady work like a newspaper comic is.
I'm no comics scholar, but based on publishing history, your first work is often not your best. You will often not sell it. You will look back on it years from now and laugh at how bad your first efforts were.
If they reject you, you need to pick yourself off the floor and write something else. Actually, you're best off if you're writing something else while you're waiting for the response to your first work.
And saying "Hey, we're not looking for cartoon animals right now" isn't anti-furry. It means that your work doesn't meet our needs. Newspapers want variety in their cartoons: a little something to appeal to everyone. It's pretty common in publishing to be told "We're not looking for X right now." This is why you suck it up and send them something else.
As I said before, I'm not educated on comic strips, but looking at the big names:
Charles Schultz of Peanuts started his career drawing 1 panel strips, particularly something called Lil' Folks. Peanuts apparently actually had a rocky start and he was also working on a sports comic called "It's Only a Game" at the same time.
Bill Watterson of Calvin & Hobbes started his career as a political cartoonist and was shortly fired because he didn't understand the local politics. He then got a job with "Target: The Political Cartoon Quarterly." When he did finally sell Calvin & Hobbes, he also apparently embarked on a quest to change comics as they were currently published, so I don't think that initial sale was all that easy. He wanted to do experimental things, and that's hard to get someone to take a chance on.
Gary Larsen of The Far Side published his first work in a small local paper. Then he published his work in another small local paper. It was only after he thought he might break even if he could get just one more contract that he became successful and famous by selling to the San Francisco Chronicle.
I'm sure I could go on and find other stories. I know Dr. Seuss was a political cartoonist before he was an author, but I don't know what he did before that.
Essentially, the guy is whining that working in the arts is hard. And, let's face it, working in the arts during an economic collapse (or anywhere for that matter) is hard.
But no, furries ruin everything. It's totally all about them and not about the fact that people aren't interested in his current work or that publishers simply have no space to take on a new strip.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-29 10:43 pm (UTC)The fact that this kid is running a regular webcomic and has for nearly a decade is nothing to sneeze at, but damn, he's ruining it by being a spoilsport and whining about not being "professionally" published. Seriously, kid, set up a Kickstarter, start a Patreon, do something other than bitch and moan and blame the furry fandom for what is really a lack of effort on your part.
I realize I'm preaching to the choir here ;)
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 12:44 am (UTC)Her mother pushed her and pushed her to send in the doodles, and so she finally did so to get her mother off her back. And it sold on the first try. Shortly thereafter she was in 150 newspapers making $50,000 per year.
I have a love/hate relationship with the Cathy strip. But I suspect she was accepted because her viewpoint was new and she was making comics about situations that were unique to her generation at a time that women of her generation needed a voice. I do respect that.
So, you can try that route, but that kind of chance doesn't happen often.