What makes a story with fuzzies not "furry"?

[Dusty]

I have never once heard anyone complain that Star Fox Adventures was too furry, except by people who have said that the whole series is, but they don't count. I think the only complaint I hear is a completely valid one: that it was an unexpected genre shift. I don't even think Krystal counts as an attempt to be "furry," since while she felt tacked on, if you look back at the game's development, she was originally a major part of the game until she was shrunk into her current role when the game turned into a Star Fox game. The fact that she's as hot as she is is only because that's what everyone does with damsels in distress these days, human or otherwise. So no, I don't think there was any furry pandering going on with that game. Just Nintendo fan pandering.

This is off-topic, but for what it's worth, I loved Star Fox Assault. To each his own.

My love ended after 64.... I WANT VINTAGE STAR FOX But on topic, maybe its not consider furry because at least 1/3rd of the fans arn't furries? I think its been pretty well established what makes a comic "furry."

[Two_Twig]

My love ended after 64.... I WANT VINTAGE STAR FOX

With Starfox I tend to stick with the old school because I loved Starfox64 too. Like, a lot. Without a doubt one of my most cherished childhood games.

All Starfox games after that sort of went over my head because I didn't own a Gamecube. I heard Adventures wasn't bad but I took it in stride, the only part I didn't really understand the whole dinosaur planet theme. It jarred me a bit, but I didn't really mind it or Krystal.

Then Assault came out. Again, no gamecube, but by this point the artwork itself was starting to take it's toll on me. The character design in adventures annoyed me a little, but assault took it to a whole different level. Fox looked like a plush toy, Falco went from being a intentionally vague visage in Starfox 64 (rude but cool) to this... thing (He looks better in Brawl though), Krystal stayed relatively the same and I guess the rest did too. I think I still would have looked past all that but when I started to familiarize myself with the internet at that point in my life, the things I ran upon that I wish I hadn't when I looked up Starfox games finally did it for me. I stopped seeing Starfox as the epic sci-fi space shooter and started to see it as... a "furry" thing.

It was kind of depressing really.

So, to stay on topic without sounding like I'm going off on a tangent, the internet community is what played a large role in shaping my view on the concept of "furries." While I admire the art style, which to me feels like a pleasant reminiscent nod to ye old days of mother goose tales and such, its gets to be too much once people start to put direct emphasis on that aspect, rather than to the story, with I think has already been said.

[Sleet]

But on topic, maybe its not consider furry because at least 1/3rd of the fans arn't furries?

A vast majority of the fans aren't furries. Most have never even heard of furries. There probably isn't a single "mainstream" work that has as much as 25% of its fandom being furries.

[Dusty]

But on topic, maybe its not consider furry because at least 1/3rd of the fans arn't furries?

A vast majority of the fans aren't furries. Most have never even heard of furries. There probably isn't a single "mainstream" work that has as much as 25% of its fandom being furries.

I was just going off the forum poll my bad xD But still Rick is clearly doing something right if a measurable number of his fans arn't furries when his comic has all the outward appearance of a a furry comic.

[Sleet]

Ooh, Housepets!. I thought you were talking about Star Fox. Well this isn't exactly "mainstream," so it probably has a good number of furry fans. The poll suggests that we're 69% furries, but considering there are no doubt plenty of fans who don't come here, I'd say the number is somewhere around 50%.

[Jack]

he wasn't fuzzy, was he?

[Dusty]

Ooh, Housepets!. I thought you were talking about Star Fox. Well this isn't exactly "mainstream," so it probably has a good number of furry fans. The poll suggests that we're 69% furries, but considering there are no doubt plenty of fans who don't come here, I'd say the number is somewhere around 50%.

But the fact that its fan base is something like 90% furry indicates its had mainstream success and mainstream potential

[Kyderra]

I never had a N64, so I haven't played starfox sadly, however, reading trough some information:

Krystal was originally a creation of Rareware in their unreleased game “Dinosaur Planet”
Back then, Krystal was an orphaned, 16 year old cat girl

http://krystalarchive.com/articles/whoiskrystal/
it's a fun read

[exranio]

i consider anything with anthros to be furry . in the fact that is has furries but not that it was made for furries there's no official definitions for any of this. So as far as I'm concerned by my definition even though houspets isn't made for for furries sense the comic generally revolves around furry characters it is a furry comic.

[Anthroguy101]

The furryness of any work of fiction containing anthropomorphic animals is in the eye of the beholder. [/story]

[Ebly]

Well I don't really know what to say on this beyond that I agree with you, but I generally say that furry is just another way of saying anthropomorphic, and the merits of each work should be determined on a case-by-case basis



but i can say they tend to be horribly 'furry' *giggles*

[Shyanne]

I think furries (myself included) can take almost anything that has to do with animals and view it as furry related, as for others who aren't furry I dunno.

[Ebly]

others who aren't furry

Hi!

[Shyanne]

lol see what this comic uses is personification, which is giving human characteristics to nonhuman things. not furries, just animals acting as humans. Now Rick is smart for doing this cause it appeals to furries and nonfurries alike assuming they dont kill each other. similar successful comics have done so too. Garfield, Mutts, hell have the comics page has talking animals. and everybody wins.

[Sleet]

lol see what this comic uses is personification, which is giving human characteristics to nonhuman things. not furries, just animals acting as humans. Now Rick is smart for doing this cause it appeals to furries and nonfurries alike assuming they dont kill each other. similar successful comics have done so too. Garfield, Mutts, **** have the comics page has talking animals. and everybody wins.

I'm very curious as to what it was that got censored.
It helps that the characters have a reason for being animals, unlike many furry comics where the characters might as well be humans.

[Shyanne]

it bleeped out my H.E. double hockey sticks? lol it was supposed to say H.E. double hockey sticks half....and then the rest...

[Sleet]

Oh, I thought it was a comic that for some reason was filtered here.

[Liam]

What comic is called [synonym for pandemonium], exactly?

[Psykeout]

how about this rule of thumb: if they use the word "animal", not furry.
yes/no? (rule of thumb means think genarally. don't show me one odd example and be like "Your WRONG!")

[Ebly]

I'm going to have to say 'no'. Just because the author has not actually used the word 'furry' within the writing does not mean it is not furry.

[Liam]

'Cause we know what specific works are or aren't better than their creators do, eh?

[Sleet]

Death of the author and whatnot, eh?

[Liam]

And the dimwits at TVTropes strike again.

If they had made their homework they would know that's not a concept, but an essay by Roland Barthes. His ingenious idea was essentially to exclude the author's views and thoughts about their work, meaning that anybody can read all kinds of nonsense he can think of into any given work and it would be legitimate according to Barthes. You see the problem?

Creators of fiction always had an intention for their works and if we don't listen to what they say it is all discussion of their works becomes futile.

[Sleet]

And the dimwits at TVTropes strike again.

If they had made their homework they would know that's not a concept, but an essay by Roland Barthes. His ingenious idea was essentially to exclude the author's views and thoughts about their work, meaning that anybody can read all kinds of nonsense he can think of into any given work and it would be legitimate according to Barthes. You see the problem?

Creators of fiction always had an intention for their works and if we don't listen to what they say it is all discussion of their works becomes futile.

By reading that and not editing in your correction, you just indirectly became one of the dimwits. ;3

They actually do mention that it was introduced in Roland Barthes' essay. It's still a concept. It just originated with the essay and is named after it.

For the record I think the whole idea of death of the author is nonsense.

[Liam]

By reading that and not editing in your correction, you just indirectly became one of the dimwits. ;3

They actually do mention that it was introduced in Roland Barthes' essay. It's still a concept. It just originated with the essay and is named after it.

Their failings have to be delivered to posterity, not that future generations get the impression they were any good at what they were doing.

They just linked to Wikipedia's article, obviously without reading it, otherwise they had known it's not the name of the concept.

By the way, what has this to do with furslees?

[Sleet]

They just linked to Wikipedia's article, obviously without reading it, otherwise they had known it's not the name of the concept.

What is the name of the concept then? It sure beats "The concept discussed in the Roland Barthes essay, The Death of the Author."

Also, they don't just link to Wikipedia.

It has been joked (with delicious irony) that Roland Barthes, who actually wrote the Trope Namer essay, has probably had to say "No, that's not what I meant at all!" at least once while discussing it."

It's relevant to the topic because the idea that a work can be furry without its creator calling it furry can arguably be a subset of this idea.

[Haru Totetsu]

Hmm....

What we create and how we interpret it, that's what makes it so dear to us.
How we see it is the truth of what it is and so long as we treasure it, that is all that truly matters.
The way others view it is their own buisness, but only we see what we dream as what it is meant to be.

Basicly, it doesn't matter. How you view something is what makes you, you just as how I see things is what makes me who I am. People choose to accept a general idea is because, they're happy with things how they are. Only those that dream things as what they see it can be true to what they say. If someone chooses to view something as acceptable and another sees it as unacceptable, that's just them expressing themselves all we really need to know is; what they say is what they believe or what they've been told to believe.

[Teh Brawler]

others who aren't furry

Hi!

Also hi!

[Liam]

What is the name of the concept then?

Barthesian deconstructionist criticism.

[Ebly]

What is the name of the concept then?

Barthesian deconstructionist criticism.

Sinder?

[Sleet]

What is the name of the concept then?

Barthesian deconstructionist criticism.

If that's actually what it's called, it's not like TV Tropes uses the academic names for everything, so I see no problem with it.

[Liam]

If that's actually what it's called, it's not like TV Tropes uses the academic names for everything, so I see no problem with it.

It's the trope's name, yes, but they also explicitly say that's the concept's name, what is incorrect.

It's relevant to the topic because the idea that a work can be furry without its creator calling it furry can arguably be a subset of this idea.

Remember the "Who's a furry?" topic where it was agreed in consensus that since furries themselves are unable to exactly define what's furry it's up to anybody to decide individually if he's furry or not?

Well, according to this logic nobody other than the creator can decide if his work is furry or not.

[Sleet]

I'm not necessarily endorsing that position, I'm just identifying it.

If that's actually what it's called, it's not like TV Tropes uses the academic names for everything, so I see no problem with it.

It's the trope's name, yes, but they also explicitly say that's the concept's name, what is incorrect.

It just says "death of the author is ______." That's how pretty much every page is worded. They don't claim to be naming anything at an academic level.

Like I said, if you see something false, you can always edit it, otherwise you are partially responsible for the falsehood. The site relies on people who know what they're talking about.

[rickgriffin]

On any serious analysis level, Death of the Author is crap--but I think what the essay was trying to formalize is that there are always schools of thought (or fanbases) that WILL do it regardless.

This is especially the case when we don't actually know the author's real thoughts on the subject, but also the public perception of the work can commonly trump what the author claims it to be about. Though even in this case, you have BOTH the 'canonical' interpretation and the 'fan' interpretation.

If any case, 'Furry' is often a fan interpretation of the work rather than something deliberate done by the author (given that the author was not specifically trying to appeal to a solely furry audience). But if this is the case, which defines the furry genre--how the fandom perceives it or how its canonically treated by the author? Or worse, is it both at the same time?

[Sleet]

I don't think the author should have the final say, or else, to make a parallel to another looked-down-on genre, someone could create what is very clearly a science fiction and then simply say it's not and suddenly it's not sci-fi anymore. Or, speaking strictly hypothetically, a big-name movie could be made with a massive CGI budget and several completely computerized main characters and environments and the director could get away with saying it doesn't count as animated. Strictly hypothetically.

But at the same time I think what the author thinks is more important than what a random fan thinks. I'm just not sure the author's thoughts matter more than what all the fans think. A genre being a simple classification tool rather than an artistic theme, I don't think the author should be able to single-handedly classify his or her own work if everyone else is going to call them on it.

EDIT: a parallel to (American) politics: if you make a story with fuzzies, you become the president and the fans become congress (which I'm treating as one house for simplicity). They can pass the "your story is furry" bill, but you can refuse to sign it into law. But if you do, they still can override your veto with a larger majority and your story is furry even if you don't say it is.

[GameCobra]

But if this is the case, which defines the furry genre--how the fandom perceives it or how its canonically treated by the author? Or worse, is it both at the same time?

I can guarantee it's the Fans.

I personally never knew the word existed or what it even meant before i discovered the internet. Personally, i don't think there's a real meaning behind the word either. The word beforehand just sounded like a word best described for someone that loved their pets alot. When you look back at certain comics that you grew up with and notice how everyone suddenly starts labeling certain things like Bucky O'Hare or Duck Tales as Furry shows, i personally don't get that furry feeling that people try to label the shows. To me? they were just children shows and you watched them because animals are just, quite frankly, less boring than humans. They are more expressive.

But another thing i wanted to point out on this topic: I showed my book to friends, co-workers and family and they don't see it as a Furry comic. The notion i get from them is that they think of the comic as amusing in a sense that it's a comic about pets. If you were to so much mention Furry to them, they just get confused. But then it occurred to me that the people i show the comic to are well around the same age as me and don't read comics, but after showing it to them they liked the idea behind it.

[Teh Brawler]

COBRA WHY THE NECRO YOU SO SILLY

I have read through the arguments and cannot think of anything more to contribute other than what I've already said.