![[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: 2014-07-31 12:41 am (UTC)I dunno, to me, the whole thing read as a case of sour grapes. "I didn't get accepted to one of the most difficult fields of publishing to get into because my art is furry and the furry fandom can't stay out of the spotlight as weirdos." Don't get me wrong: it was well-written...though, truth be told, he's been editing it as more comments critiquing the post have been made; I wish I'd copied the original when it was posted.
Eh, I got my own bitching on the subject out of my system with this post. I wish him luck getting published, but I still don't think you should blame something that is completely out of your control -- and more than likely, always will be -- for your perceived lack of success. *shrug*