# I know this is a furry website, but...



## Thou Dog (Nov 25, 2009)

I've been working with this conceit that if your story works as well with 100% human characters, if you delete all references to nonhuman traits or attributes and replace them with perfectly human ones and it still reads just as well, you probably should involve only humans. Otherwise, the furry aspect is just a quirk that distracts the reader from whatever the real point of the story is.

Does this make sense, or am I being needlessly picky? (Or both?)


----------



## Aurali (Nov 25, 2009)

Thou Dog said:


> I've been working with this conceit that if your story works as well with 100% human characters, if you delete all references to nonhuman traits or attributes and replace them with perfectly human ones and it still reads just as well, you probably should involve only humans. Otherwise, the furry aspect is just a quirk that distracts the reader from whatever the real point of the story is.
> 
> Does this make sense, or am I being needlessly picky? (Or both?)




Yes, this is a very aggravating thing to me in most furry stories, however, I actually tend to write in ways that make the "anthro" characters actually have to fit.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 25, 2009)

Conservation of Detail generally applies here:  Unless the characters' species is plot-relevant, why even mention it at all?


----------



## Poetigress (Nov 25, 2009)

Makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Atrak (Nov 25, 2009)

Thou Dog said:


> I've been working with this conceit that if your story works as well with 100% human characters, if you delete all references to nonhuman traits or attributes and replace them with perfectly human ones and it still reads just as well, you probably should involve only humans. Otherwise, the furry aspect is just a quirk that distracts the reader from whatever the real point of the story is.
> 
> Does this make sense, or am I being needlessly picky? (Or both?)




I'm going to be needlessly picky and correct you  . I'm assuming you meant concept, not conceit? ^^

Oh, and makes sense to me. When I write anthro, I automatically make their animalistic part necessary to the plot.


----------



## Sarhea (Nov 25, 2009)

At on time, I may have had to argue with this.  I would have gone on about artistic freedom and how I can write however I like.  But then I came up with a serious idea that I really liked and began to write it.  When I pictured the characters in my head, they were anthros.  I drew them as anthros, because that's what I'm good at drawing.  I got over 120K words into this story, and there are still many hundred more words to write.  I set it down for a while when some crap was happening.

I've recently gone through and read the entire work in progress.  One thing I have noticed-I can probably count on both hands the number of times I even mentioned tails, ears, or other animal characteristics in my characters.  It got me to thinking.  I mean really what was the point to them even being anthros, other than I can't draw humans?  There was no point-the whole thing seemed stupid.  So now, I'm changing that story's characters to humans as it should have been all along...and you know what?  It strangely has made it easier to write...go figure.

I used to be guilty of writing anthro characters just for the sake of writing anthro.  But no more, well, not for my serious writing.  It turns out that writing human characters is not so bad after all.


----------



## Thou Dog (Nov 25, 2009)

atrakaj said:


> I'm going to be needlessly picky and correct you  . I'm assuming you meant concept, not conceit? ^^
> 
> Oh, and makes sense to me. When I write anthro, I automatically make their animalistic part necessary to the plot.


I meant conceit, although I may have misused it: an arrogant idea that I'm perhaps a bit overly attached to?


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 25, 2009)

Yeah.
I don't know if it has to be entirely plot-relevant, though, Strata.  I think at the very least it should be relevant to your character's personality and how he reacts to things, and in that case it's more a world-building mechanism than a plot point.  And I see nothing wrong with that.  If you make it too big of a plot point, you run the risk of making the story only about race, which everyone knows is just bloody done to death in anthro fiction.
But either way, yeah, it's pretty silly to simply every now and then point out that he has a tail and call that good enough.  That kind of thing only works in animation (Ã  la Disney's Robin Hood, where everyone is an animal but you don't know why).


----------



## Thou Dog (Nov 25, 2009)

The best furry stuff I've read is not intended to be Furry, it's just someone's idea of a cool story with social or political commentary. Poul Anderson's "Ensign Flandry" is a great example. It has very attractive, amorous catgirls, noble and artistic dolphin people, and some rather nice if combat-obsessed crocodile people. But it's mostly about political drama within the Imperium, and between the Imperium of Man and the Merseian Empire. It's basically a Bond novel in space. (Only downside is, the Emperor of Man is gay. This wouldn't be the least problem, except the author clearly HAAAATES gay people.)


----------



## duroc (Nov 25, 2009)

I tend to feel a little mixed about this subject.

Yes, it's great when a writer discovers a way for anthropomorphic characters to be relevant in what he or she is writing; where it not only effects the characters and the plot, but it really draws the reader into the story with its originality.  Those moments are quite special, and I've seen a few people around here really make that work with some brilliant ideas.  

But I can also enjoy a very well written story that has anthropomorphic characters, and there may not particularly be a good reason for them to be that way.  Does it make the story more engaging if there's a reason?  Absolutely.  Does it make the story any less enjoyable if there's not a good reason?  Not in my humble opinion.

But I do think a writer should at least strive to create original, memorable concepts that make their anthropomorphic characters stand out.  If not, then no harm, no foul.  You start over and try, try again.


----------



## Poetigress (Nov 25, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> But either way, yeah, it's pretty silly to simply every now and then point out that he has a tail and call that good enough.  That kind of thing only works in animation (Ã  la Disney's Robin Hood, where everyone is an animal but you don't know why).



It also works in satire, but yeah, that's about it.


----------



## Scarborough (Nov 25, 2009)

I feel ... kind of the opposite of that?

As in, if the story isn't harmed by inclusion of anthro characters, then the anthro characters are probably fine.

I mean, sometimes it's difficult to say whether or not certain details are necessary in a story. In Flannery O'Connor's stuff, race was ridiculously important, because she was writing around the time of desegregation. But in David Foster Wallace's stuff, sexual orientation seems almost like a footnote. The characters could, in most cases, easily shift genders and the story would be no different. Does that mean that Flannery's stuff was better than DFW's, or that it was wrong for DFW to include sexual orientation in a lot of his work? Not necessarily.


----------



## GraemeLion (Nov 25, 2009)

I agree.

Readers relate generally to what they know.  It seems like a lot of fiction I've read in furry have the fur spray painted on to human bodies.  If you aren't going to convince the readers that these are furs, what's the point in having them be furs?

I'm not saying you can't write what you want, but you have to think about the audience and the larger message you're trying to get through.  If you want to have anthros, but no one ever remembers it, are you doing it just out of some misguided devotion?    Is it a fear that you're not "furry enough" if you don't make everyone of your characters furry?  

Everything in a story is there with a purpose.  Everything has a reason.  Fiction is, in a larger sense, "hyper-real."   If characters aren't furry for a reason, or their furriness is not important to the story, then it doesn't need to be mentioned or used.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 26, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> I don't know if it has to be entirely plot-relevant, though, Strata.  I think at the very least it should be relevant to your character's personality and how he reacts to things, and in that case it's more a world-building mechanism than a plot point.  And I see nothing wrong with that.  If you make it too big of a plot point, you run the risk of making the story only about race, which everyone knows is just bloody done to death in anthro fiction.


"Guidelines", not "rules".  Yeah, I agree.



> That kind of thing only works in animation (Ã  la Disney's Robin Hood, where everyone is an animal but you don't know why).



Not to mention animation is a visual medium to begin with, writing isn't, and having to paint a 1,000 word picture of a character takes more effort than as a picture itself.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 26, 2009)

I am totally guilty of skinning humans in furry outfits basically. But it is fun because I like talking the anthropomorphic characters and 'growing them up' into something more serious and cynical.

More so, it does add a change in flavor because you still have to considder the minor details. They could be changed to fit human characters but the furry traits are still there.

A simple example are two male characters of mine, a wolf and a snow leopard, married and the wolf married in with two biological sons of his own. So naturally the snow leopard step father looks absolutely nothing like his step children. At one point, one of the boys is dating the a girl, the girl looks at the boy and then the snow leopard, realizing it was his father and remarked 'Wow! You didn't even get any spots from him or anything!' thinking the two were somehow biologically related but the boy took on few traits of the snow leopard. ...To which she turned kinda red realizing the boy has two fathers and only one he's related to. She just remarks 'Well, you'd look cool with spots. You could dye them in. My brother did that, he dyed blue flames into his tail, mom was pissed!'

They're little details but they are explicitly furry details and I have a blast using them.


----------



## VÃ¶lf (Nov 26, 2009)

Well it depends... I think the defining parts of an anthro story can be a little "fuzzy" sometimes. Obviously a human dosen't have a tail, but plot-wise, I'm not sure about as a reader-writer myself :/

*Edit; no pun inteded w/ "fuzzy" XD


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 26, 2009)

I only have one on-going story that can count as what some people on here have called humans in fur coats.  I'll admit, I could just as easily write my characters as humans for the story.  Hell, I base all the locations on real places, make references to real events, and sometimes involve real people.  

Of course I started writing this one particular story when I was younger and I've just gone back, reworked it and added to it.  Maybe if I actually thought it was good enough to publish, I'd change everyone to be humans.  I wouldn't dare submit the story for consideration with my characters as they are, because I know people wouldn't know what to think of it if they saw a cover with anthro characters standing around near the Jersey Turnpike.

But regardless, that's just how I write anthros.  In my mind it doesn't really matter if they have an acute sense of smell or whatever.  If that were the case than it just seems like a crappy plot device just to advance myself through some corner I wrote myself in.  I would actually enjoy a story more that was more realistic in human terms that featured anthros, than having some magical race of people that look like dogs who live in the enchanted land of "Whogivesafuckia"

I could go into why it seems irrelevant that people draw or write their creepy fetishes with anthro characters, but that's a different topic.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 26, 2009)

> If that were the case than it just seems like a crappy plot device just to advance myself through some corner I wrote myself in.


Well, you obviously don't want to do that.  Same reason you wouldn't do it for vampires or demons or any other kind of non-human character.  That doesn't have anything to do with anthro writing; that's just avoiding bad writing in general.
Generally, you give them some extra positive traits, but take away others.  In my NaNo novel, for example, I have a character who's a cricket, so I gave him cold blood, he doesn't sleep, he can't speak, he's not particularly bright, and he can't go underwater because he respires like most insects.  But he's quite sturdy.  So for every plot device that comes from his sturdiness, there are a dozen that make life harder for him.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 26, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> *snip*



Well then again that's just the way two separate writers think.  To me, species doesn't dictate what one character's traits are.  Maybe I might make a character relate to their supposed ethnicity, but other than that it holds no consequence.

You obviously go into much deeper consideration as to why certain characters are what they are.  Not that I think that's wrong or anything, I just personally focus more on a character's actions and disposition to show whether they're strong, nimble, or whatever.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 26, 2009)

*They allways existed* is a logical explanation to why they exist. 


... why do birds exist? IDK they just do.
... why do HUMANS exist? IDK they just do.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 26, 2009)

VÃ¶lf said:


> Obviously a human dosen't have a tail, but plot-wise....


RL humans don't, but fictional humans can still be fair game.  Remember that, as a word, "human" is the name we give to _ourselves_.

Aww, now I'm wondering how a story plays out featuring quadropedal animals that use the same word we do when talking about their _own species_.



M. Le Renard said:


> In my NaNo novel....


Speaking of Nanos, in my last year's novel my main character (or "MC") got turned into a fox at one point, but he didn't realize anything even happened to him (and I didn't reveal it to the reader, either) until another character grabbed him _by his tail_ and made him take a good, hard look at himself, e.g. counting the # of fingers on each hand (paw), checking for his clothes (nope, not wearing any, just skin and fur), and so on.

Yeah, not strictly related, but if I wanted to I could have easily had my MC referring to himself as a "human" and the reader would be hardly any wiser until I broke the illusion.

Got to love a good narrative misdirect....


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 26, 2009)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I just personally focus more on a character's actions and disposition to show whether they're strong, nimble, or whatever.


But then... if you're going to do just that, what's the point of having them be animals? is the question.  Personally, I figure if I'm going to do furry writing of any value (instead of just playing around, like what I mostly do for this site), I like to explore the animal aspect of it.  Because otherwise it seems like there's pretty much no point.  
It's like if you take an otherwise perfectly acceptable cake but then layer it in sprinkles.  You know?  The cake already tastes good, so why dress it up any more?  You haven't changed anything except that now it's too sweet for a lot of people to enjoy.  For what you've done to work, the sprinkles have to work together somehow with the cake to enhance the flavor, rather than just coating it to hide the cake.  I mean, it's not like you're fooling anyone; everyone knows it's still a cake.
Right?


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 26, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> The cake already tastes good, so why dress it up any more?


Sometimes it's not about the taste but the look, because that's what hooks people at first.  If the characters being animals instead of humans doesn't _detract_ from the story, maybe it's already served its purpose?

I remember trying to write a fanfic set to the plot of FF7, except swapping in MLPs for humans.  Writing it out was . . . weird, but very fun.  (and What Do You Mean, It Wasn't Made On Drugs?)


----------



## Atrak (Nov 26, 2009)

Thou Dog said:


> I meant conceit, although I may have misused it: an arrogant idea that I'm perhaps a bit overly attached to?



Then you want this:

I've been working with this conceited idea that if your story works as well with 100% human characters...


----------



## GraemeLion (Nov 26, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> Sometimes it's not about the taste but the look, because that's what hooks people at first.  If the characters being animals instead of humans doesn't _detract_ from the story, maybe it's already served its purpose?
> 
> I remember trying to write a fanfic set to the plot of FF7, except swapping in MLPs for humans.  Writing it out was . . . weird, but very fun.  (and What Do You Mean, It Wasn't Made On Drugs?)



But why put something into a story that serves no purpose at all?  I mean, there are a million things you can add to a story that wouldn't detract from it.  In my opinion, if there's no distinction and no real purpose and no obvious reason for them to be anthros, why mention it?  What's the point?  Furry readers might like that little bit of information, but mainstream readers will always see the characters as human, no matter how many spots or stripes you spraypaint on.


----------



## Tanzenlicht (Nov 26, 2009)

atrakaj said:


> Then you want this:
> 
> I've been working with this conceited idea that if your story works as well with 100% human characters...



Actually a conceit is already an idea.

2. 	something that is conceived in the mind; a thought; idea: He jotted down the conceits of his idle hours. 

It was used correctly, just not in the way most people are familiar with.


----------



## Scarborough (Nov 27, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> But why put something into a story that serves no purpose at all?  I mean, there are a million things you can add to a story that wouldn't detract from it.  In my opinion, if there's no distinction and no real purpose and no obvious reason for them to be anthros, why mention it?  What's the point?  Furry readers might like that little bit of information, but mainstream readers will always see the characters as human, no matter how many spots or stripes you spraypaint on.



Because it's a more difficult question to answer.

That's like asking why, in the Harry Potter series, the author has to be so detailed about the wands' lengths/woods/cores. Or why, in A.M. Homes's _This Book Will Save Your Life_, one of the characters is Middle Eastern. Neither of those add to the story; should those details have been removed?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 27, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> *snip*



And others would argue that the sprinkles just add another layer of awesome to that cake and there will inevitably be people who either like it with or without sprinkles, or those little candies that people put on it, or with that gel icing.  And even then, some people don't even like cake at all.

You analogy only works if there's an accepted line where everyone can agree that something is desirable or has purpose and everyone agrees that something just goes over the line to the point where it's completely undesirable.

Granted none of you have probably read anything I've written and I could very well be biased to my own work, but I'd like to think that regardless of the fact that I use characters that happen to be anthros in one story, the characters are still engaging.  And I think that's really where I'm trying to go with this is that in the long run, it really doesn't matter what someone or something looks like as long as the character is engaging.  If you read "Dr. No" would you really care or at least stick in your mind that James Bond was a dark haired guy from Scotland or a blond, blue eyed guy from Wales or if he was some humanoid ferret or whatever?  No, you care about the fact that he kicked a bunch of ass and got the girl in the end.

I'll admit the "humanoid ferret" part is a little extreme, but in my case I'm posting a story on a furry art site and it'd be ridiculous if the story didn't include anthro characters.  And as I've already admitted, this was a creative decision I made when I was younger and I've just kept working on the story since.  If I were to have started the thing now, I probably wouldn't have gone the route I did, but for whatever reason (either clinging to my youth or just being too damn lazy) I haven't gone back and changed their appearances and don't plan to unless the aforementioned chance of maybe getting the thing published arose, which in all likelihood has the same chance as me becoming a Chinese fighter pilot (point to whoever gets the reference).


----------



## GraemeLion (Nov 27, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> Because it's a more difficult question to answer.
> 
> That's like asking why, in the Harry Potter series, the author has to be so detailed about the wands' lengths/woods/cores. Or why, in A.M. Homes's _This Book Will Save Your Life_, one of the characters is Middle Eastern. Neither of those add to the story; should those details have been removed?



Because, eventually, it had a point.  In the Potter series, what the wands were made of had a very distinct meaning in the story.  It actually meant something.  Different Houses used different types of woods and different animal .. parts.  If you followed who used what wands, you'd see a subtext to the story that wasn't present before hand.  In short, she had a reason for it.  

As for A.M.Homes, I've not read that particular book, so I cannot say.  However, I bet it does have an important meaning as well.   Perhaps she is trying to play off reader conceptions of middle eastern people?  Sometimes when an author puts things into a story, it doesn't have meaning for any character, but it does have meaning for the audience.


----------



## Scarborough (Nov 27, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> Because, eventually, it had a point.  In the Potter series, what the wands were made of had a very distinct meaning in the story.  It actually meant something.  Different Houses used different types of woods and different animal .. parts.  If you followed who used what wands, you'd see a subtext to the story that wasn't present before hand.  In short, she had a reason for it.
> 
> As for A.M.Homes, I've not read that particular book, so I cannot say.  However, I bet it does have an important meaning as well.   Perhaps she is trying to play off reader conceptions of middle eastern people?  Sometimes when an author puts things into a story, it doesn't have meaning for any character, but it does have meaning for the audience.



Bad example; Term_the_Schmuck has a better one.

Furthermore,


GraemeLion said:


> But why put something into a story that serves no purpose at all?  I mean, there are a million things you can add to a story that wouldn't detract from it.  In my opinion, if there's no distinction and no real purpose and no obvious reason for them to be anthros, why mention it?  What's the point?  *Furry readers might like that little bit of information*, but mainstream readers will always see the characters as human, no matter how many spots or stripes you spraypaint on.


Furry readers might like that little bit of information. Which makes the detail at least slightly valuable.

Or, including furry characters might be an attempt to bring furry culture to the mainstream, much like how including homosexual characters (esp. in Miranda July's stories) attempted to bring homosexuality to the mainstream. Or it could be an artistic statement like, e.g., animals have human-like feelings, too.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 27, 2009)

Term_the_Schmuck said:
			
		

> You analogy only works if there's an accepted line where everyone can agree that something is desirable or has purpose and everyone agrees that something just goes over the line to the point where it's completely undesirable.


Then let's say instead of sprinkles, it's jalapeÃ±o-flavored sprinkles.  Some would appreciate it, but most would wonder what the fuck you were thinking.
Character is important, yeah, but so is not confusing the reader.  Unless you're purposely trying to, in which case it's okay.  Maybe sometimes the point of anthros is just to make the reader go, "Why is this person a ferret?"
I'm just saying that context is important in a story.  You don't just put in details because you think they might be cool.  You should have a legitimate reason for it.  I mean, you wouldn't write a flaming zeppelin into a story just because it's a neat thing to write about, would you?  Same goes for anthros, in my opinion.  Or aliens, or zombies, or anything else.


----------



## Lazarus (Nov 27, 2009)

I think it depends on your intentions as a writer whether to have something anthro in or out. It's an aesthetic choice and therefore something that the author has to make a determination on if we look at stories as visually as we do.

One of the best usages I've read was in "House of Leaves" by Mark Z. Danielewski. Albeit not a furry book, his main character keeps reminding the reader to "Forget about the Minotaur" through the entire book, which causes the reader to want to dive deeper into this request.

I guess it just depends. Are you using it for an affect on the reader or are you just doing it for the hell of it? Either way, it's the author's call ultimately that decides.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 27, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> But why put something into a story that serves no purpose at all?


Bluntly, sometimes the purpose is to make the reader ask stupid questions like that.

But to be fair, it's not really a stupid question, it's just that the author _doesn't need to answer it_.


----------



## Thou Dog (Nov 27, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> jalapeÃ±o-flavored sprinkles


This idea is excellent beyond words.


----------



## Atrak (Nov 27, 2009)

Tanzenlicht said:


> Actually a conceit is already an idea.
> 
> 2.     something that is conceived in the mind; a thought; idea: He jotted down the conceits of his idle hours.
> 
> It was used correctly, just not in the way most people are familiar with.



No, concept is an idea. Conceit is a noun, but it means that you think highly of yourself.

So if he wants idea to be the noun, he has to change conceit to an adjective and include the word idea or a synonym.


----------



## Scarborough (Nov 27, 2009)

atrakaj said:


> No, concept is an idea. Conceit is a noun, but it means that you think highly of yourself.
> 
> So if he wants idea to be the noun, he has to change conceit to an adjective and include the word idea or a synonym.



*con-ceit* [...] n. [...] *4.a.* The result of intellectual activity; a thought or an opinion. *b.* A fanciful thought or idea. [...] [ME, mind, conception < AN _conceite_ < LLat. _conceptus_. See CONCEPT.]

The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd ed.

"Conceit" has the same derivation as the word "concept" in this usage. Only some definitions of conceit imply thinking highly of yourself.

Further uses of the word "conceit":

http://miller-mccune.com/science_environment/scientists-need-to-get-out-more-1599


> They decry the decline of science coverage as newspapers downsize and point out that the journalistic *conceit* of "balance" is not useful in this arena.


http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/mind_games/


> The *conceit* of the game is simple, if woefully unscientific: After assessing your initial â€œbrain ageâ€ with a brief series of mental tasks, the program runs you through a gauntlet of basic exercises like reading comprehension and sudoku before measuring you again.


http://www.slate.com/id/2139027/


> Did the failure of Cargo lie in its *conceit* or in its execution?
> Back in March of 2004, the answer seemed obvious. Brilliant *conceit*, brilliant execution.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 27, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> *snip*



Well as I apply what I guess we can now refer to as the "jalapeno sprinkle test," to me the presence of anthro characters still doesn't really make or break the story.  I can understand if you want to have some rational behind choosing to use anthro characters, and I'd probably tell someone who is writing them into a story to have some sort of reason to be in there if they were taking their writing seriously as something they'd want to see published on paper.

That's just not the way I'm approaching this one particular story.  I'm not going to have some character be a cat and make them territorial and conniving just because they're a cat.  If I were to apply that same logic to human characters, then whenever I wanted a smart, but slightly nonathletic character, then I'd make them Asian, whereas if I want an asshole jock, I'd make them black or a tall, blond haired white kid.

If I'm going to put out a story where I'm suspending people's beliefs that there are anthros, I don't see why I need to constrict myself to writing their tendencies and actions to coincide with what's typically seen of said species.  Further, I don't like the fantasy or sci-fi genre's as much as some of the people on here, so I don't feel the need to go through some lengthy explanation on how anthro characters came to be or throw in the anthro characteristic to some mystic tribe nonsense.  I write in the real world. I love writing stories on urban life and the effects of modern war on otherwise innocent people.  It's just that this one story I've written that happens to have anthro characters.  Go figure.

Now why throw them in at all?  Well again, that's just how the story progressed.  Sure it could confuse the average reader, but then again, I'm posting the story on a FURRY site.  That alone throws out any sort of confusion because any and all art is expected to have something to do with anthro characters.  And I guarantee you more than half of everything that's posted on the main site has content that doesn't have to include anthros (or much of anything else shown for that matter), but does so and is accepted because that's what's expected on the site.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 27, 2009)

Pfff... the lazy "I'm just writing it for the furries" excuse.
You're right, though.  Furries just want them to be furries, and don't particularly care why.  And I've written stuff like that myself for this site.  Which is fine, because that's the audience.  Furries like jalapeÃ±o sprinkles.
So far as personality is concerned, comparing it to different races is a kind of shallow approach.  Humans are humans are humans.  We all have the same forms, organs, senses, everything, so we all perceive the world in essentially the same way.  But I can't help but think that a sapient creature that isn't human would have a somewhat more exotic way of looking at things.  It wouldn't dictate their whole personality, but it would probably affect it somehow.  At least for the little things, like taste for certain foods or what kind of music they'd enjoy, things like that.  I love to play around with these kinds of things.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 27, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> Pfff... the lazy "I'm just writing it for the furries" excuse.



No, at this point I'm more writing it for myself.  But if it has any chance of being read, chances are it'd be on the main site.  And as I've already admitted, it's not my best work and it's just something I fall back on, not really something I'm devoting my life to here.  There are other things that are more interesting to me at this point, like a short story on the Chechen Revolution in the 1990s.

And like I said, there's nothing wrong with you writing that way when it comes to anthro characters.  I'm just pointing out my view on the subject and if I were to take the same kind of logic that you take with those characters, we'd come out with two very different kinds of stories, as you could probably tell by now.  

Truth be told I don't like writing using anthros and would never do it outside of the one story I'm writing.  The story is pretty much the only reason why I'm around these parts; not that anyone reads it, but it gives me an excuse to post here when I'm bored.  =P


----------



## panzergulo (Nov 28, 2009)

Most interesting thread. I have pondered about this question myself sometimes.

I don't really mind people writing anthropomorphic characters as just regular human in traits and set of mind and then just gluing fur on their skin. I don't know why, but I generally can't see my characters as human at all... I know most of them are very human in mind, but when I picture them with my mind's eye, all I see are these furry characters. I blame all comics I read in my childhood...

In some of my prose the species of the characters works as a world-building element. Sometimes the species just reflect the personality of the character (eg. wolves work well in groups, succeed well in tasks requiring group work, feel more comfortable when in a group with clear hierarchy; felines are more individualistic, more narcissistic, work better alone or in small groups; etc) but often, especially in my earlier prose this whole thing of giving the characters different species is very artificial and superficial element.

But then again, as most of my readers are furries, and this way of writing keeps me writing, who cares? When one of my readers wrote in their comment: "Your wolverine characters seem to be always the most eccentric", I stopped worrying. I have a style of furry writing where species denote personality and sometimes cultural background. And I'm happy with it as it is.

And I have pretty much the same opinion about all furry writing I read. I have read a great (unfinished) novel here in FA, and the use of furry characters in that work is totally superficial element, but it doesn't really take away from the story. In some stories the writer makes huge, elaborate backstories to justify the use of anthros in some sort of fantasy/scifi coexistence with humans. In some stories they just are. Each to their own, or however you say it in English.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 28, 2009)

Funny, this issue would be solved if our writing just featured a relevant illustration every so many pages.  You really don't see this discussion brought up as seriously outside of the writing medium, probably cause writing isn't visual and anthropomorphic animals are a visual topic.


----------



## GraemeLion (Nov 28, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Funny, this issue would be solved if our writing just featured a relevant illustration every so many pages.  You really don't see this discussion brought up as seriously outside of the writing medium, probably cause writing isn't visual and anthropomorphic animals are a visual topic.



Its funny you mention that, Ashley.  I've picked up more than a few "furry books" in my time, and almost every short story has illustrations accompanying it.   If not two or three, at least one. 

I've noticed that it is almost a standard practice in furry writing.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 28, 2009)

GraemeLion said:
			
		

> I've noticed that it is almost a standard practice in furry writing.


Maybe what Ashley said is the reason for that.  Makes sense to me.
You could also use that as an excuse for why furry art is always more popular than furry writing on sites like FA.  Maybe more of us should hire artists to illustrate stories, then post the stories as .pdf's with the art included.  That would probably garner more views.


----------



## Poetigress (Nov 28, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> Maybe more of us should hire artists to illustrate stories, then post the stories as .pdf's with the art included.  That would probably garner more views.



More views, maybe, but more downloads and actual reads? Posting as PDF does get you into the same old problem of most readers wanting to read on FA instead of downloading.

Financial issues of commissioning aside, I personally don't feel that furry fiction is as dependent on illustration as most people seem to think. A good illustration can pique interest in a story, but a bad one can make the whole project look lame, and frankly, as a reader, I don't really care for interior illustrations all that much anyway, unless it's a children's book or something where the illustrations add to the overall physical impression of the book.

I just hate that either 1) we're insulting readers by assuming they have to have pretty pictures with their furry stories or they won't pay any attention to them, or 2) that's actually the case, and people really won't read unless there are illos. Either way, it strikes me as kind of sad.

I should note that _New Fables_ from Sofawolf Press uses very little in the way of interior art, and I don't think it hurts the presentation -- or the fiction -- at all.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 28, 2009)

Poetigress said:


> Financial issues of commissioning aside, I personally don't feel that furry fiction is as dependent on illustration as most people seem to think. A good illustration can pique interest in a story, but a bad one can make the whole project look lame, and frankly, as a reader, I don't really care for interior illustrations all that much anyway, unless it's a children's book or something where the illustrations add to the overall physical impression of the book.



I don't think it's an issue of interior illustrations, but having something to take up the icon space on the main site besides "Prose" or whatever definitely helps.  If I didn't have an elaborate pic as a "cover" for some of my stuff, anthro or otherwise, it probably wouldn't have anybody take a second look at it.  Granted this could also be a case of tricking the viewer to look at the pic and then go "Oh, there's a story here!" but sometimes that's the only way you're going to get someone's attention.



> I just hate that either 1) we're insulting readers by assuming they have to have pretty pictures with their furry stories or they won't pay any attention to them, or 2) that's actually the case, and people really won't read unless there are illos. Either way, it strikes me as kind of sad.



It may be insulting, but that's probably the case.  If your story isn't in a comic format, than you need to have some sort of illustration to keep their attention.  Do I think it's an ideal situation?  Absolutely not.  I'll agree with you any day of the week that stories should rely more on substance than pretty colors.  But then again we are living in a generation where people's attention spans can be measured in micro-seconds and instant gratification is demanded over lengthy commitments to a story.


----------



## Poetigress (Nov 28, 2009)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I don't think it's an issue of interior illustrations, but having something to take up the icon space on the main site besides "Prose" or whatever definitely helps.  If I didn't have an elaborate pic as a "cover" for some of my stuff, anthro or otherwise, it probably wouldn't have anybody take a second look at it.  Granted this could also be a case of tricking the viewer to look at the pic and then go "Oh, there's a story here!" but sometimes that's the only way you're going to get someone's attention.



I definitely think some sort of thumbnail is nicer than the basic "Story" icon and can do a lot more to catch someone's attention. That said, though, I've found that, in many cases, the nicer the thumbnail art looks, the worse the writing tends to be. :/ Catching their attention is only the first half of the game; keeping it is the second.



> But then again we are living in a generation where people's attention spans can be measured in micro-seconds and instant gratification is demanded over lengthy commitments to a story.



Well, it's all trade-offs. But in this case, I think I'd prefer to have fewer readers than to pander for a broader audience.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 28, 2009)

Well I'd say one possible cost effective solution to the 'get art' problem would be to get fans and hope that one of your fans is an artist.

...I've gotten fanart for my writing though I'm pretty sure no one likes my writing enough to say, yeild me one picture per chapter that I write.  Though it'd be sweet if that could work out.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 28, 2009)

Poetigress said:


> Well, it's all trade-offs. But in this case, I think I'd prefer to have fewer readers than to pander for a broader audience.



You'll never see me argue for more exposure through whoring myself out and writing crappy stuff than putting time, research, and effort into writing and getting even a fifth of the views.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 29, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> Its funny you mention that, Ashley.  I've picked up more than a few "furry books" in my time, and almost every short story has illustrations accompanying it.   If not two or three, at least one.
> 
> I've noticed that it is almost a standard practice in furry writing.


...And not just because those stories are more often marketed at younger audiences?  (Hell, I don't know, I'm wondering too.)



Poetigress said:


> More views, maybe, but more downloads and actual reads? Posting as PDF does get you into the same old problem of most readers wanting to read on FA instead of downloading.


I almost never browse stories on FA to begin with, and it doesn't help that most of the time when I actually DO find a story that feels interesting (judging by title/description) all I get when I try to actually view it is a "Download" link and .DOC extension.  I'm not spending ten seconds to fire up MS Word just to read some random blurb I downloaded on the Internet!  That's like -- I dunno, waiting for the stoplight to change when you should be able to make that turn (and legally) on a red light.

Bad analogy, I know.  Rant off.


----------



## Atrak (Nov 29, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> *con-ceit* [...] n. [...] *4.a.* The result of intellectual activity; a thought or an opinion. *b.* A fanciful thought or idea. [...] [ME, mind, conception < AN _conceite_ < LLat. _conceptus_. See CONCEPT.]
> 
> The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd ed.
> 
> ...




Very well, I concede  . It still looks wrong to me, but your logic and research are almost absolute. You win this argument  .

(Normally I wouldn't give up so easily, because I love arguing, but I'm really tired atm and don't feel like having to think about a reply -.- )


----------



## GraemeLion (Nov 29, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> ...And not just because those stories are more often marketed at younger audiences?  (Hell, I don't know, I'm wondering too.)



Some may be.. but much of it is just your typical convention sold items.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 29, 2009)

. . . never been to a 'con, can't speak from any experience on the matter.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 29, 2009)

It makes sense to me.  If you're at a con and trying to sell your writing you want to attract people's attention.  You need at least an eye capturing piece of art on the cover.  People are going along the tables skimming to see what catches their eye so you want to be one of those things.


----------



## Lazarus (Nov 29, 2009)

Good cover art is what catches my eye. Hence why the fantasy and sci-fi sections are avoided by me quite frequently. They're have those stereotypical covers that are just laughable. Make something aesthetically pleasing. If it doesn't look good to a reader, they aren't going to want anything to do with you.


----------



## Altamont (Nov 29, 2009)

I have to say I agree with the notion that anthros should be included in a story if it is relevant to the themes of stiry. For example, one story I'm working on is a short allegorical piece (dealing with oil) that probably wouldn't work at all if the characters were simply human. And another story I'm working on utilizes those animal characteristics to enhance and explicate the traits of the characters. I tried to write a couple of average-day type stories with furs, and it just didn't feel right. 

My girlfriend always asks me, "Why don't you just write with people?" And the opposite argument works as well. I think that as long as you can answer the question "Why did you make your characters anthropomorphic animals?", then the story is pretty justified.  That's not to say that furriness for the sake of it is wrong; I myself love a great many stories becuase they feature the anthros I relate to so well. But also, being a writer, I understand the drawbacks of including furries as well.


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 8, 2009)

Consider this:

1) There is a story about a detective (who is proclaimed as an anthropomorhic something) attempting to solve a crime about an elusive serial killer (another anthro) running rampant through the city killing anthros. Everyone exhibits rather human qualities and there appears to be no apparent reason for anyone to be anything but human (excluding the author's preference, if that is indeed the reason). Their animalistic qualities are not used at all, except perhaps sparingly to add a little variety here and there with quick little one-liners. Is the anthropomorphic aspect unneeded? Is it harmful? Should it be removed? If so, under what conditions?

2) That same story has been reworked and now when you read it, you notice the author has replaced a great deal, if not all, of the typical human reactions or observations (e.g. a quirking of the brow is replaced with animal equivalent body language, or using more important senses versus eyesight, like olfactory for a dog). These changes do not impact the story's progression or significantly alter interactions between characters. Even with this usage, there is no plot or setting relevant reason for the characters to be anything but human, and it is quite possible to change all of them to human without having to rework the story (simple edits are all that is required). The animal aspect of the characters have added some flavor and diversity to the story, but nothing beyond that. To ponder this, this case is simply a better executed version of 1). That is, the author has used their anthropomorhic traits for spice (albeit significantly "better") but not as the meat. Is the anthropomorphic aspect unneeded? Is it harmful? Should it be removed? If so, under what conditions?

3) The same story now has much of the character interactions/actions intensely revolving around their species (not to say they all act the same as per their species, but they act different from another of a different species to the point of imparting some cultural friction). Yet again as with 1) and 2), there is no reason plot-wise to have them be this way; they simply are.


A little food analogy for thought:

- In 1), the anthro aspect is like a garnish. It makes things prettier (or not) but does little else.
- In 2) the anthro aspect is like a spice. It (possibly) adds some flavor but it could be done without.
- In 3), the anthro aspect is like a sauce. It adds much more to the entree, but it still isn't the gist. (One can argue that a sauce is what _makes_ certain entrees, but that is going beyond the scope of this analogy.)

This is a rhetorical consideration. Feel free to discuss, but do keep in mind that the ideas represented above do not reflect my own opinions.

--
Pointing back to the food analogy, I personally feel that stories are much like a meal. The details (presentation/garnish/spices/sauces/side dishes/wines/what have you) of a meal very much depend on the meal as a whole. While there may be generally accepted suggestions or guidelines, there is no perfect recipe and plenty to be left to subjective interpretations. However, I'm not advocating an "anything goes" approach.

Really, there is only one thing I can say.  It's your job to figure out who's being fed. No one wants to eat an unappetizing dish (be it plain or disgusting) just as much as no one wants to read an unappetizing story. Adding in flavor is careful work and can be done "properly" and just as easily "improperly".


----------



## Scarborough (Dec 9, 2009)

As a sort of aside, I would recommend _The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil_ by George Saunders. Because imo, for the most part, the characters did not have to be weird machines. *shrug*


----------



## Altamont (Dec 9, 2009)

> Pointing back to the food analogy, I personally feel that stories are much like a meal. The details (presentation/garnish/spices/sauces/side dishes/wines/what have you) of a meal very much depend on the meal as a whole. While there may be generally accepted suggestions or guidelines, there is no perfect recipe and plenty to be left to subjective interpretations. However, I'm not advocating an "anything goes" approach.


 
I agree with Xipoid. There are so many stories that I have personally loved and read where the details of the story was what made it work. Take pretty much anything written by Stephen King for example; most of the time his novels are so gargantuan because of the amount of detail he injects in to the story. there are literally hundreds of pages of king's workd devoted to the minutiae of the characters' day-to-day (or moment to moment) activites. That doesn't mean I'm promoting a dickensian approach of description to the point of drowinging the reader in it all; but I really feel that the details of characters are what really makes them enjoyable and relatable.

So if their being furries makes them more well rounded and developed, then go for it.


----------



## Raska (Dec 27, 2009)

Me, personally, I find writing with human characters difficult. Sure, many readers would find human characters easier to relate to, but using anthro characters you can take certain liberties with how they react to certain situations and scenes. 

For instance, a wolf character - male or female - would be less likely to react in a sickened or frightened way when faced with a scene of murder or some other violent act. Wolves are carnivores, and no strangers to violence. They would see murder as criminal, because the death of any packmate endangers the hunting efficiency of the pack, and therefore endangers the pack. Even if your characters are anthro, sentient wolves, they would still see things in this manner. The violence itself wouldn't be blinked at, but the _murder_ would still be considered abhorrent. 

On the same token, a wolf character would see disloyalty or betrayal twice as badly as a human would, because wolves depend on their social structure and pack loyalty. 

What matters isn't the description of their bodies or the fact that they have tails, or pointy ears, or fur, or paws, but how you portray the fact that they're _not_ human. If your characters act and react the way a human would, if you don't show them with traits other than the fact that they have fur, tails, paws, etc., then yes, you probably should rewrite the story with humans. The devil is in the details.


----------



## ScottyDM (Dec 28, 2009)

Interesting points.

I see two issues:
Is the fact that your nonhuman characters are not human critical to the plot?
Have you done any species characterization beyond writing "the snow leopard" (or whatever)?

While it's nice to see #1, it's not a requirement for me to enjoy a story. Now if attempting to sell your story outside the furry fandom or kid-lit markets, you probably need #1 for your story to even be considered. And no, that does not mean your story must be about race.

I feel #2 is a necessity. Your snow leopard is a snow leopard simply because you typed those words? How ridiculous. If you want me to see a snow leopard then show me a snow leopard. I would assume your character would at least be: silent on his feet, hot in summer and comfortable in winter, and a strict carnivore.

I once read a short story where the author didn't seem to have a clue how paragraphs worked, but his fox character had a sense of smell. Despite the difficulty of reading that author's story, I enjoyed it and felt it was awesome.

Scotty


----------



## Atrak (Dec 28, 2009)

Very true. In my one of my stories, my character goes to eat supper with a wolf girl, and even though their world is pretty much exactly like ours, the meat was mostly raw and she didn't have utensils  . *shrug* I write like that automatically. I make carnivores more aggressive and territorial, and herbivores more meek.


----------



## Karali (Jan 5, 2010)

This is pretty much what I think about, OP, and it is why I can't take furry stories seriously. It seems like many furry writers add furries into a story for... No particular reason other than 'Oh I thought it would be fun'.

And I guess this is sort of a valid point, but, well, it's not something a serious writer should do. I admit I used to do the same thing, albeit not with furries, but with more anime-esque traits. I would give my characters blue hair or color changing eyes or oh god it's so embarrassing. I did these things in _eighth grade_, however, and have long since stopped. Because I realized that if all those details which may well distract the reader are only there because I think they're _just so cool_, there's no reason to add them in. It's just... Irritating otherwise. It's even more laughable when it goes unexamined and no explanation at all is given for someone to have naturally blue hair or why people decked out in fur would have any need for sweaters when they could go naked without any negative repercussions. 

What I would like to see would be a furry writer who actually gives a _good explanation _as to why their characters are anthros instead of _just because_. I would like to see an author of furry stories who actually examines how shit would go down if all of the living beings in an area were vastly different in size, physiology, and ways of thinking while still sharing fundamental humanoid features. Would there be drastic class differences? How would different-species relationships be handled; surely they would be far more serious than the way they are now in the human world where there are immense problems based just on skin colors. Would they all have different cultures? What kinds of inventions would they have; would a foxman who could run 35 miles per hour really need a car or train, and if beavers could build possibly-more-complicated dams why would they live in a house in the middle of a prairie, etc etc? These are the things I would like to see rather than the same old tired 'humans decked out in full-body fur coats just because it makes me hard'.

I have no idea if anyone has ever actually done something with a furry story that's as in-depth as I just mentioned. When I say furry I mean the kind of furry that originated in-fandom, not the kind that has an author coincidentally using animal characters for symbolic reasons, and not the _funny-animal_ type of characters in series such as in Redwall. So far, though, all that I've seen from this fandom is homosexual coming of age plots that would be completely cliche stories if not for the dog dicks slapped on everything. :U


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 5, 2010)

Scotty DM runs a website--www.anthrofiction.net--in which he promotes what he calls Anthro Fiction (as the url indicates).  This is more what you're talking about, which I guess some folks tend to believe is a separate genre from 'furry' fiction.
In any case, there are some authors on this site (myself included) who try to implement this kind of thing from time to time.  I enjoy it, myself, but I will say that it's not easy to pull off.  You have to be at least somewhat familiar with the behaviors of dozens of kinds of animals, their diets, ocular and auditory capacities, among a whole swath of other stuff.  Then you have to take all your knowledge and apply it to a world you have to build from scratch, keeping in mind how people think, how animals think, economics, religion, clothing design, house design and construction, etc., etc.
Really, when it comes down to it, that's why most furry writers don't do this kind of thing.  It's tough.  So instead they just go with what's familiar and tack ears and a tail onto it.  And since most furry writers are pretty amateur, I guess I don't blame them.  Hell, I've done it myself plenty of times, simply out of laziness.  Sometimes when you write a short story for a site like this, you don't feel like putting in 200 hours of research to get it exactly right and believable.


----------



## Poetigress (Jan 6, 2010)

Karali said:


> So far, though, all that I've seen from this fandom is homosexual coming of age plots that would be completely cliche stories if not for the dog dicks slapped on everything. :U



There are plenty of us who are aiming for more than that. As MLR has alluded to, whether we reach it 100% of the time is another matter, and there are a lot of different reasons why the kind of worldbuilding you're talking about doesn't show up that often in the fandom at large -- there's author laziness, as MLR mentioned, constraints of the particular story itself (length, theme, etc.), feedback from readers influencing what gets written/posted, a fairly high percentage of writers who are new to writing and/or simply writing for their own amusement, few opportunities to publish in the fandom, lack of readership of the few quality markets that do get started, and probably plenty more. 

To be honest, there's really not a whole lot of incentive in the fandom to write beyond humans in fur coats (one could argue that there's not even a whole lot of incentive to write well in the fandom, but that's a can of worms I'd rather not open), so all things considered, I think it's pretty remarkable that there _are_ writers aiming for something more thought-out.

The coming-of-age plot you're talking about is popular because it feeds into the personal experiences and/or wish fulfillment of a high percentage of both readers and writers in the fandom, so I wouldn't look for that popularity to change anytime soon. In the meantime, readers who want something different have to be patient and persistent, keep looking for the writers and venues who are doing things differently (or at least trying to), and most importantly, support them when they find them.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 6, 2010)

Karali said:


> all that I've seen from this fandom is homosexual coming of age plots that would be completely cliche stories if not for the dog dicks slapped on everything. :U


 
...Fuck.


----------



## Stratelier (Jan 6, 2010)

Karali said:


> This is pretty much what I think about, OP, and it is why I can't take furry stories seriously. It seems like many furry writers add furries into a story for... No particular reason other than 'Oh I thought it would be fun'.
> 
> What I would like to see would be a furry writer who actually gives a _good explanation_ as to why their characters are anthros instead of "just because".



I'll see that and raise you a story where the author does not give the reader an explanation, but for which such an explanation does in fact exist and a closer look/analysis of the setting will attest to it.  Or phrased in more simple terms, that the author took time to fully think through and develop all the "what-ifs" prior to writing/finishing the actual story.



Poetigress said:


> (...but that's a can of worms I'd rather not open)


Rule number one about cans of worms is you do not talk about cans of worms.


----------



## Karali (Jan 6, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> I'll see that and raise you a story where the author does not give the reader an explanation, but for which such an explanation does in fact exist and a closer look/analysis of the setting will attest to it.  Or phrased in more simple terms, that the author took time to fully think through and develop all the "what-ifs" prior to writing/finishing the actual story.


That would be pretty cool.

But only if it was apparent in the story itself that they did the thinking about it.


----------



## ScottyDM (Jan 7, 2010)

*Karali, I am thrilled you ask such questions.*

I assure you that not all furry fiction (a.k.a. anthofiction) is as bad as you've seen. If you want to see a better class of anthro/furry try http://www.anthrofiction.net/short_stories/index.php?contestID=2009_q4  You'll need a free account to view the stories. There is only about 16 hours left to read and judge the stories, but you can at least read them. However I hope you'll take the time to fill in a few ballots.

As for my own work, I'm starting to submit some of my stories for professional publication, so I'm not posting much on the Internet. One story I have out on submission in the grownup market has a squirrel as the main character. It's a humor piece.

If you want to see a turnabout with the typical anthropomorphic character, go to YouTube and search for "10th Kingdom". If you're lucky you'll find the whole thing in pieces (about 5 1/2 hours total). But you should at least find snippets. The character to focus on is Wolf. To be fair he's not so much anthropomorphic as he is lupipomorphic. That's were you take something non-wolfish (such as a human) and give it wolf characteristics. So he's a blend, except that he _looks_ human. Pay attention to his dialog, phrases, behaviors, attitudes, and the his body language.

IMO the character of Wolf is an excellent study in what to do right when you anthropomorphize an animal and turn it into a character. But in the typical furry/anthro story your character would have fur, ears, tail, etc.

Scotty


----------



## Stratelier (Jan 7, 2010)

Karali said:


> That would be pretty cool.
> 
> But only if it was apparent in the story itself that they did the thinking about it.



Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say.


----------



## Karali (Jan 7, 2010)

ScottyDM said:


> *Karali, I am thrilled you ask such questions.*
> 
> -SNIPSNIP-


Someone already mentioned your site a bit above, hah. I have to admit now that I've heard a bit about it it actually seems pretty neat and I think that I'll check it out. I am hoping that what I find won't be like the other examples of anthro fiction I've seen so far. =w=

And ah! 10th Kingdom! I remember that! I haven't seen it recently, but I do very much remember Wolf from it. And yes, that kind of character is sort of what I look for when it comes to the typical anthro character. Something a bit more believable than the 'humans wearing fur' kind of thing.


----------



## Stratelier (Jan 7, 2010)

I don't remember much about 10th Kingdom....


----------



## Jax (Jan 29, 2010)

I suppose just the fact that some of my characters are anthro will be too much for some. Where is the magic line that crosses into too human? My friend has written quite a few furry stories where certainly the characters were very human. I doubt outside of a few animal quirks they are much different than human, but the read is a better read for it.

My own material I would like to think is of species that has characteristics beyond human, although some of those traits may not be recognized as animals either. I think it would be a waist to build such a character and not focus on both the similarities as well as differences. In their case I will add interaction with humans helps contrast the two. I would believe though, being anthro, they would insist we have their traits rather than they having human traits. 

In the end you must write the character as you see them, as you feel them. I think it is important to be true to your own belief of what your character is inside and to avoid molding them because you think others will be dissatisfied with them. 

If all else fails...we are cuddlier!


----------



## ekobor (Feb 6, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> ...
> That's just not the way I'm approaching this one particular story.  I'm not going to have some character be a cat and make them territorial and conniving just because they're a cat.  If I were to apply that same logic to human characters, then whenever I wanted a smart, but slightly nonathletic character, then I'd make them Asian, whereas if I want an asshole jock, I'd make them black or a tall, blond haired white kid.
> 
> If I'm going to put out a story where I'm suspending people's beliefs that there are anthros, I don't see why I need to constrict myself to writing their tendencies and actions to coincide with what's typically seen of said species.  ...



I'd say that you are correct, but also wrong.

Stereotyping anthro or animal characters is just as silly as stereotyping human characters, you got that right for sure.

But what I think you got wrong is the effect a different species can have on behaviour. Not all cats are conniving, but they are territorial instinctually, just as humans are instinctually social. 
Ducks like water, horses like to run and graze, sheep are rather unintelligent and conformist. These are facts of their species. To ignore these facts is to make stating them as one of these species just plain silly. 

Not to say there can't be a duck character with a moderate or severe hydrophobia, but the point being that this would stick out as unusual. 

If you are going to make a character that is incredibly solitary by species, like a tiger, a social animal, then the least you can do is point out that this is unusual. If your characters have all the traits of humans, and no thought is given as to how this differs from what one would expect of the species, then there is no point if it is not mentioned.

Even just a simple "...one would expect Jim to be rather uncomfortable in the water, being part-cat as he was, but his people have actually always been sea-farers, differing from his feline ancestors." 

I'm not saying an anthro character can't have human traits, or even that they shouldn't. I just think that when writing one needs to make a nod to the expectations of the average reader, even if it is to deny those expectations.


----------



## Altamont (Feb 6, 2010)

ekobor said:


> I'm not saying an anthro character can't have human traits, or even that they shouldn't. I just think that when writing one needs to make a nod to the expectations of the average reader, even if it is to deny those expectations.


 
Exactly. Hell, the point of anthropomorphism _is_ to imbue the animals with human characteristics. Otherwise, they'd just be animals. But I think to counter-act the human quality of the anthros with their animal characteristics is just as important. It doesn't even need to be so much of a personal thing as sociological.

For instance, a character of mine (also my fursona ) is Altamont wolfe, a detective of sorts. He is a half-wolf, where in his world the wolves are a sort of tribal culture, faint echos of the old indians if you will, where everyone else is very much socially and technologically advanced. Being more tribla, the wolves' culutre is reflctive of the pack-mentality and customs that an average wolf would have, one of those being: Kill the weak for the good of the healthy.

Altamont was born with epilepsy (a real-life occurence among wolf pups). The tribe, as well as a real wolf pack, would have proceeded to let Altamont die to the crippiling nature his afliction would have on the pack. 

He was rescued and sent to the city, etc, but the point is that I have successfully given a logical and thematically relevant significance to his anthropomorphism: In a human culture he would have been just dandy, but his wolven heritage made his very being born a fatal mistake. i think this not only gives the anthro-ness a, you know, point, but it also serves to "spice up" the story and characterization.


----------

