# Is Furry Fiction Science Fiction or Fantasy By Default?



## Miles Marsalis (Nov 26, 2018)

I've read some fiction with anthropomorphic characters over the past few months, both house-published or self-published, and realized that all of the titles are filed under science fiction and fantasy. However, in the self-published furry fiction I've read, the stories would largely be considered literary fiction in genre if not for the presence of anthropomorphic animal characters. These stories contained real life struggles and experiences presented in a plausible manner. This led me to ask should such fiction automatically be lumped in with more fantastical writings or should there be a conscious recognition of such stories?

I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

EDIT: Yeah, I messed up the polling question. You get the general idea anyway.


----------



## Jarren (Nov 26, 2018)

I vote yes, just because of the nature of the characters.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 26, 2018)

Yes, I'd argue Furry is by default Sci-Fi and/or Fantasy. Humanoid anthropomorphic species with animal traits? It doesn't exist outside of fiction. 

Although you can apply real life struggles, experiences, views, +++, to a character, the character itself isn't real and never will be.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Nov 26, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Yes, I'd argue Furry is by default Sci-Fi and/or Fantasy. Humanoid anthropomorphic species with animal traits? It doesn't exist outside of fiction.
> 
> Although you can apply real life struggles, experiences, views, +++, to a character, the character itself isn't real and never will be.


You could argue that the anthropomorphic species act an allegory or analogy in some stories. Authors might use the "furry" aspects of the story to embellish the storytelling.


----------



## gamermaid (Nov 26, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> It doesn't exist outside of fiction


Yes, but there's also not a secret treasure map on the back of the declaration of independence, but we don't consider National Treasure to be Scifi/Fantasy. ;p
Same with the Da Vinci Code. There doesn't exist outside of fiction a french waif descendant from Jesus traipsing about the Louvre, but that book is firmly mystery thriller.

I think it really depends on how the anthropomorphism is handled and what the main theme of the story is. If it's set in the far future where furries are the product of genetic experimentation, fine, call it SciFi. If your story takes place in ancient Egypt where your furry main is a demigod catgirl mothered by Bastet, okay, that's clearly fantasy. But if you're focusing on telling a murder mystery that just happens to have furries instead of humans, then call it mystery.

Not that the two can't overlap, but, for example, I would call Disney's Robin Hood fantasy because it is a retelling of the legend, not because Mr. Hood happens to be a fox.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (Nov 26, 2018)

You do realize you can edit your polls, right? 

I feel like Science Fiction and Fantasy, as well as fiction in general, are such big categories as to not be entirely helpful. Used to be fantasy was just tolkien-esq sword and sorcery, but it can encompass so much more now. Same with Scifi. And the stories you can tell with each surpass just neat visions of the future or fantastical tales of adventure. Not to mention the willy nilly combining of the two further bleeds out any meaning either category has (THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING, DAMN IT). So where do furries fit? Who fucking knows. 

Furry fiction is just that... furry fiction. Specify in the tags what story you're telling and call it a day.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 26, 2018)

I love how the vote is worded lol.

Its fantasy alright. The broader definition of fantasy including all things fantastical.
With the right story and plot, i'd say it could go under the science fiction catagory as well.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 27, 2018)

Unicon said:


> You could argue that the anthropomorphic species act an allegory or analogy in some stories. Authors might use the "furry" aspects of the story to embellish the storytelling.


Indeed. The source material may be real, but the setting and/or characters are fictional. Whether that is Sci-Fi and/or Fantasy depends on the setting, I suppose. 

Space-faring anthro species? Sci-Fi and Fantasy.
Antho species set in the Medieval Age? Fantasy and Historic.



gamermaid said:


> Yes, but there's also not a secret treasure map on the back of the declaration of independence, but we don't consider National Treasure to be Scifi/Fantasy. ;p
> Same with the Da Vinci Code. There doesn't exist outside of fiction a french waif descendant from Jesus traipsing about the Louvre, but that book is firmly mystery thriller.
> 
> I think it really depends on how the anthropomorphism is handled and what the main theme of the story is. If it's set in the far future where furries are the product of genetic experimentation, fine, call it SciFi. If your story takes place in ancient Egypt where your furry main is a demigod catgirl mothered by Bastet, okay, that's clearly fantasy. But if you're focusing on telling a murder mystery that just happens to have furries instead of humans, then call it mystery.
> ...


Yes, and that content have humans in them, not a fictional anthro species. If you swapped it out the Fantasy tag would be included. You don't need to only have one tag/category for it.

Robin Hood have been told in different ways, Disney's way being one of them. The source material is real, the setting and/or characters are not.


----------



## HistoricalyIncorrect (Nov 27, 2018)

Fiction, yes! Science fiction or fantasy? I would not really agree on that. I am writing historical fictions mostly and fantasy sometimes and I can see a few differences yet not really that many. When it comes to fantasy then I do not have any lore yet on how did the anthros became dominant but when it comes to historical fiction? For most of the time, the evolution went a similar way to Human evolution and kingdoms develop the same way as they normally did only with anthros instead of humans.

Of course, this is a bit fantastical and scientifically fictional but for me, those two terms are more of the setting other than a detail like this. Fantasy for me involves magic while Science Fiction for me means a futuristic and advanced setting. I tend to focus on realism and correctness only with anthro's instead of humans, cultures are not changed much. Politics and battles stayed almost the same but I also enjoy to use the anthropomorphism correctly. As my main character is a bobcat then he will be better at climbing and running than a wolf for example but that also limits as he is panicky afraid of a water. This little detail also connects well to the Polish culture as they have never had a proper fleet, unlike the Avian Brits which are not afraid of a water as they can simply fly.

In conclusion, I agree on a fiction but not any specific one, it only depends on the author' preference.


----------



## RyuuTenno (Nov 27, 2018)

Reading through the replies to this question, and the interestingly worded options, I have to agree with a few previous posters.
It's primarily fiction.

Given the designs of things, just adding something new, doesn't necessarily make it instantly Sci-Fi, or Fantasy. If you really wish to get technical, then, yes, in a way, everything classified as 'Fiction' is in fact fantasy, just, thrown into different periods. So, in essence, you could get detective fantasy (Sherlock Holmes for example), classic medieval fantasy (Lord of the Rings), and futuristic fantasy (2001: A Space Odyssey)[and don't ask why I chose that over something like Star Wars or Star Trek for examples, idk either]. Here, the term fantasy, simply refers to the basic made up worlds of a person's imagination. I mean, normal conversations pull up things like, 'fantasizing a luxury life, with a mansion and a sports car', etc.



Spoiler: tl;dr



But, going back a little bit: just because, people wish to add such things as anthros of any kind, cannot deem it to be strictly sci-fi or fantasy. Because, the ancient legends, now, yes, are classified as fantasy, but, what were they at their height? I mean, you get things like the Minotaur of the Labrynth, yet, it could be viewed, as just basic fiction (or even religion in certain cases) for the people at the time. So, in this regard adding anthro characters, simply just reinforces that the stories are simply fiction.
For it to be considered fantasy, it should consist of magic (not a requirement, but certainly a good indicator for it), typically castles, and other medieval structures and overall feel. But, honestly, wouldn't these fantasy worlds, still technically be considered sci-fi if viewed in the right light?

Lines start getting blurred when we look at both, Lord of the Rings, and the Star Wars sagas. LotR is fantasy, as it has magic, and wizards, etc, but, it's key aspect is more dark ages/middle ages. SW on the other hand, while sci-fi, still can be seen as fantasy, due to the existence of the Force. (And, yes, there's stuff in there to say the force is "alive", but, that's not the current argument.) But, LotR is set on a separate world: Middle Earth, in this instance. This leaves us with a rather interesting question, does this separate world make LotR sci-fi? And, I feel, in a way yes, but, again, certain requirements should be met for it to constitute being either sci-fi or fantasy.

So, to help clear everything up: fantasy: has magic (most times), typically set in a medieval/dark ages/middle ages/early renaissance era, which I feel is the bigger requirement for it to be fantasy over the existence/use of magic; and science fiction: has a lot of technology, space expansion of at least one major group of people (also not a major requirement), and, imo, the higher levels of technology, is what I feel should be a classification of sci-fi. i-Robot, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, etc. are of this classification, even if they're set in earlier times (i-Robot being the relative exception of course).

Unfortunately, however, the classifications, can still be quite broad, so, it's more of the basic feel the author intends for their readers to fully understand that the story is either sci-fi, fantasy, or, even, just basic fiction. Harry Potter is fantasy, yet set in the modern day, so, this alters what fantasy is really.



Forgive such a long post here (was most definitely, not intending for it), but, imo: fiction, is just fiction. With, or without anthros, it's still fiction. So, if you want it to be fantasy, make sure it feels like fantasy. Want sci-fi? Make it feel like sci-fi. Would rather go the detective route, and make a story of an anthro wolf that's a lot like Sherlock Holmes? Go ahead! Anthros, and new creatures, aren't the requirements for a story to be considered fantasy, or sci-fi, it's the atmosphere of the story that tells us, if it's fantasy, sci-fi, mystery, etc.

And, another quick example: Family Guy. Brian's a anthro dog, who knows how to drive. So, is Family Guy sci-fi, or just basic modern fiction?

Edit:


Yakamaru said:


> Yes, I'd argue Furry is by default Sci-Fi and/or Fantasy. Humanoid anthropomorphic species with animal traits? It doesn't exist outside of fiction.
> 
> Although you can apply real life struggles, experiences, views, +++, to a character, the character itself isn't real and never will be.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding this a little (clarification is appreciated)? But, essentially, all characters are fictional (with a few exceptions). So, applying all of these ideas, regardless, is still on a fictional character, whether human or not.
I think the basic reasoning behind why the anthros are throwing things off, is simply because, when there's humans involved, we have a point of reference. But, without any instance of a human being in some stories, we essentially 'disconnect' and can't see some of the problems the same way. Please note however, that, this isn't a blanket statement saying 'everyone' can't connect to the characters, this is an idea, that was presented in a book I read sometime back about creating sci-fi worlds. They raised the argument, that the story with just pure aliens wouldn't be as relatable to people, if there wasn't at least 1 human in there for any kind of referencing point (anchor basically).
Imo: as long as the anthros can still be viewed as people, regardless of how they look, then the stories are just basic fiction, unless the author has assumed a sci-fi or fantasy (or other genre) feel to it.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 27, 2018)

"Science fiction" and "fantasy" each evoke fairly particular expectations regarding setting/worldbuilding. I could see an argument for calling all stories with furry characters speculative fiction, but if they don't otherwise fit into the SF/F genres, filing furry fiction as either will just mean it gets marketed to readers with expectations the story won't meet. That's not good for anyone.

It's not as simple as saying "well it contains creatures that don't exist in the real world", either. Some well-known work that I can't recall ever seeing filed under SF/F:
HC Andersen's _The Little Mermaid_
Mary Norton's _The Borrowers_
Jonathan Swift's_ Gulliver's Travels_
Astrid Lindgren's _Draken med de röda ögonen_, _Bröderna Lejonhjärta_, or really half the things she's written

Stephanie Meyer's _Twilight _I seem to recall is a bit of a toss-up whether it gets filed under SF/F or not.

All of the above contain creatures that very definitely do not exist in the real world. At least two or three Astrid Lindgren books explicitly include dragons, along with other fantastical creatures. Most of them are for younger audiences, yes, but not all; the main reasons for that are 1) I read a lot of YA fiction and this is a total top-of-my-head list, and 2) adults are boring and less likely to accept fantastical elements the way younger audiences do (or at least editors think that's the case, and if you can't get past the editor, you're not getting published at a publishing house).

Hell, there's already some mainstream accepted, non-fantasy, published content with anthropomorphic characters out there:
Kenneth Grahame's _Wind in the Willows_
Pretty much anything Beatrix Potter
Art Spiegelman's _Maus_ (while this one is arguably a biography, not fiction, it's damn well anthropomorphic and well received)
Again, Jonathan Swift's _Gulliver's Travels_, though admittedly not the best-known of the travels

Super top of my head, but you get the point.


----------

