# I'm writing a "paper" on what a "furry" is... need feedback.



## Fesworks (Oct 13, 2008)

Hello. I'm compiling a paper on what a furry is... (though there are multiple) at least to me and my interpretations. This is far from being completed, and is heavily based on my opinions.

I am only up to the first part of my research as I go over different types of animal characters in art (so I have a long way to go).

My end goal is to differentiate the different types of Furries and such (especially the line between Yiffers and Furries), mostly as clarifications to non-furries.

I expect some drama, but I hope not too much from here. Like I said, this is mostly from my personal views and interpretations, since Furry Sub-Cultures have seemed to be quite divided during my knowledges of various groups.

Also, this first part (see attached document) does not even really get into much more than furry characters in art and literature.

Also, to answer the question of why I'm bothering to specify labels:

"Really, labels are not everything. However, sometimes people just love to wax philosophicallyâ€¦ and argueâ€¦ and sometimes people just have nothing better to do."


EDIT: I should clarify that I am not, nbor will ever claim to be "an authority" of the topic.


----------



## thebeast76 (Oct 13, 2008)

Now, are you writing this for a school project?
Either way, I'd leave out certain bits like

_Think Calvin & Hobbes, duh._

Other than that, I would consider making a table of contents, or a small syllabus to explain how the various ranges of anthropomorphism are arranged.


----------



## Prowler (Oct 14, 2008)

you have a great paper started, is this for a school project or just for yourself/fun? 
PM sent...


----------



## Fesworks (Oct 14, 2008)

No, this is designed as a dissertation or thesis I'm just planning to put online. 

I'm still doing research, and there is much to cover.

Part 1 is research and preliminary writing.

Part 2 is finding proper examples of everything.

Part 3 is finalizing outline, layout, and writing.

Part 4 is an additional goal to add visual example, but only things with permission, or Creative Commons or Public Domain items or parody of other copyrighted things.

Part 5 is an advanced goal to actually turn it into a sort of comic.


----------



## Fesworks (Oct 14, 2008)

Oh! Also, I'm looking for people to help me find proper examples, especially webcomic examples. But really, as many examples people can find (literature, cartoons, movies, comics, webcomics, etc...) will be all the more helpful!

I'm hoping for active feedback when I post about things. I'm still a bit "on the outside" as far as Furry Fandom goes, so research is still a big part of this!


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 14, 2008)

The first thing you will want to try to do is eliminate bias with your opinion. That means try to cover the topics without inflecting your own bias. I know that is hard to do since I've tried myself, multiple times.

Hmmm....I can send you something that might prove helpful. It's been a while since the piece was written and probably could stand to go through some changes since I've learned quite a bit between then and now. Look for a PM that I am sending your way.


----------



## Fesworks (Oct 14, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> The first thing you will want to try to do is eliminate bias with your opinion. That means try to cover the topics without inflecting your own bias. I know that is hard to do since I've tried myself, multiple times.
> 
> Hmmm....I can send you something that might prove helpful. It's been a while since the piece was written and probably could stand to go through some changes since I've learned quite a bit between then and now. Look for a PM that I am sending your way.


I'd prefer to be open in my position, so people are not suspicious of any angle and what not.

Also, what thing you sent me. Who is the author? Where was it posted? I'd need to properly credit it.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 14, 2008)

Fesworks said:


> I'd prefer to be open in my position, so people are not suspicious of any angle and what not.
> 
> Also, what thing you sent me. Who is the author? Where was it posted? I'd need to properly credit it.



The author is me. I posted it in my journal on Gaiaonline where I go by a different username.

You can find location here: http://www.gaiaonline.com/journal/journal.php?mode=viewarchive&post_id=17153991&u=1624666

I wrote it a while ago but I feel no reason to edit it since no one looks at journals anymore. If you are going to reference it I would prefer you to reference it by my Gaia username, and not my FA username.


----------



## Fesworks (Oct 14, 2008)

Will do!

Looks like I have a new sub-section to add. "Zoomorphic", as well as one or two other categories. My next update on this probably won;t happen until next week.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 14, 2008)

Fesworks said:


> Will do!
> 
> Looks like I have a new sub-section to add. "Zoomorphic", as well as one or two other categories. My next update on this probably won;t happen until next week.



Ah, just a note. I went back and edited a few things here and there for relevancy and typos. So if you are going to reference it might be good to go to the original article with the slight, minor changes made.


----------



## Fesworks (Oct 14, 2008)

kay


----------



## sashadistan (Oct 20, 2008)

I am currently writing my dissertation (on a cpmpletely seperate subject, though my VR work is on furry culture), and I think you hardest job is going to be to cite everything (since that is THE most important things for a dissertation). Also you really need to find some books on Anthropomorphic history and psycology. See if you can use World Cat which is an online listing for most libraries around the globe, and was really useful for my research. Tutors tend not to like too many internet references. Here's hoping that you get a nice tutor.

If you have any questions, fell very free to PM me, even just for general advice. I know what you're going through.

What exactly is your title, do you know yet?


----------



## Fesworks (Oct 20, 2008)

Well, I should say that this is not for school of any kind, and I used the word "dissertation" for a lack of a better word ( i think), but yes, finding references... or more importantly, EXAMPLES, is going to be the hardest part. People like examples. Especially for the general audience, example reelating to cartoons, books, and movies are especially important.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 20, 2008)

I think it would be prudent in your paper to point out that just because something they see fits what we call a "Furrie character", that does not mean it is in fact a furrie character.

If you have been on FA long enough you will see there is always an on-going debate between those who think it is perfectly find to label all anthro animals furries, and those who think it is not okay.

So you might tie that into it somehow so you don't end up with something accusing everything that is anthropomorphic and animal of being furries.

Also I saw read your thing, and to some degree all those terms you came up with listing from 1 to 15 are a bit, unnecessary? That is how it seems to me.


----------



## Fesworks (Oct 20, 2008)

Yea, that list may need some work, and design something more generalized. It's going to be a big project for me. Wording is everything.


----------



## cassandrarising (Oct 21, 2008)

You need to make clear what the thesis of your paper is.  One piece of advice I give my students is that if you haven't answered the question "Why should the reader care?" on the first page, you've lost them.


----------



## Fesworks (Oct 21, 2008)

cassandrarising said:


> You need to make clear what the thesis of your paper is.  One piece of advice I give my students is that if you haven't answered the question "Why should the reader care?" on the first page, you've lost them.



I suppose, since I'm posting it online, if someone came to the site, they'd care a little bit 

But yea, you do have a good point  Thanks


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

I have to agree with Cassandra....I didn't pay attention to the lack of thesis due to how it is online but then again, it will look more professional, and better if you do have a easy to point out, well made thesis.


----------



## Quiet269 (Oct 21, 2008)

I wouldn't suggest you even attempt it 

Seriously, it is soo many different things to soo many different people


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

I disagree with Quiet....I tend to do that a lot.

Anyway, if you want to put in the effort, than you go for it. You're at a good start anyway.


----------



## cassandrarising (Oct 21, 2008)

Fesworks said:


> I suppose, since I'm posting it online, if someone came to the site, they'd care a little bit



But what drives traffic to your site?  What is your intended audience?  

If traffic will be driven only by links on pre-existing furry sites, then your information is redundant.  If it will be linked in a way to attract non-furs, then what can you provide them?  Will they care about minutia? 

Target your writing, and it will hit its mark.  Write for everyone, and no one will notice.


----------



## seekerwolf (Oct 27, 2008)

What a furry is, same as any human being some dress, some don't, extention of ones desire to be something else i.e self expression.Nothing different than "ordinary" human beings same character flaws.


----------



## Fesworks (Oct 27, 2008)

cassandrarising said:


> But what drives traffic to your site?  What is your intended audience?
> 
> If traffic will be driven only by links on pre-existing furry sites, then your information is redundant.  If it will be linked in a way to attract non-furs, then what can you provide them?  Will they care about minutia?
> 
> Target your writing, and it will hit its mark.  Write for everyone, and no one will notice.



The intent is for those who actually want some insight. People who are going to judge and "don't wanna hear otherwise" would not be my target. Why write for those that are closed-minded and want to cut people down based on stereotype, etc...



seekerwolf said:


> What a furry is, same as any human being some dress, some don't, extention of ones desire to be something else i.e self expression.Nothing different than "ordinary" human beings same character flaws.



That is yet another section I'd need to write, though my focus is moreso on art and fictional character portrayal. FurSuiters, and those that identify with their "animal-selves" (or something similar), is a different section.

Though re-reading your post, I'm not sure what you are specifically driving it... In art, Furry is also just another style of character medium. Like if someone did something on Aliens or Talking Appliances or Toys


----------



## Trpdwarf (Nov 4, 2008)

Hey...how is this going?


----------



## Fesworks (Nov 4, 2008)

I have not had a chance to do any more writing, since I'm super busy with webcomicking and a number of website stuff.... among other offline things. However, with the suggestions that I have recieved, I'm going to essentially rewrite most of what I have written. Including fixing the intro to indicate the purpose, and also redoing my huge list into something more simple, and more easily digestible.

In short, I have a lot of mental writing I'm doing. I should probably hit more of this paper next week.


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 9, 2009)

I think I've been looking at this all wrong. Certainly character types can be broken down, but that is really not what I need to go into.... Though, personally, I do enjoy categorizing things (favorite thing to do in science class in high school).

ANYway, I posted on my FA account in my journal, and decided to post it here:

________________________________________________

Ok, I do basically know what a furry is, and it ranges from a character on paper, all the way to people that dress up as animals.

In fact, I'm kinda doing research... since I don;t think there is really anyone of "authority" on the subject since it's a broad community of people with varying opinions and preferences.

Please note, I claim no "authority" on the subject, and these are based off of my observations.My initial analysis are as follows:

*Furry Characters:*
Tend to be "human raplacements" for a given world, rather than simply upright animals. Though from "talking normal animals" to "human replacements" it is sort of a grey slide-scale of what may actually constitute a "furry" proper.

Personally, I'd say that any creature that is a Humanoid, Anthropomorphic (defined as given human qualities) Animals, would technically fit the bill of a "Furry Character".


*Furry Fan*
This would be a real-life person that is a fan of Furries. Be it of art or literature, or the mere idea of the possibility of gene splicing (or just aliens) to having a feal-life Furry. I would not extend this definition to any more than this.

*Spiritual Furry*
This would include those that have more of a spiritual affinity to animals or animal spirits. Even if they feel their own being or spirit is more akin to that of animals than that of humans. This may also be where nay-sayers would say that "Furries think they are animals." I'd say that may be the case for some people, though perhaps not as literally.

*Fursona Furry*
Some people make their own "Fursonas" or virtual/fictional representations of themselves as an animal or furry character. This would be a translation of the spiritual aspect or the fan aspect, into the character aspect. This may or may not extend beyond a simple avatar.

*Role-Playing Furry*
This would be like the Fursona aspect, or more acting through to other people. People role-play all of the time online. How many people do you think actual portray themselves as they actually are online? There are even people who play D&D or other human role-playing games (online as well as offline.. some more seriously than others). Well, this is a Furry version of that. It could be as simple as pretending to be a animal cartoon character, or even role-playing in a more animal-like fashion.

*Fursuiting Furry*
I would even include simple ears and tails at the beginning of the spectrum. Going all the way up to a full-on furry costume. This can incorporate the simple fan, all the way through the spiritual role-player. Though this does not necessarily all fursuiters are the same. In fact, they are varied just as much as this list shows.

*Yiff Furry*
This would be your more sexual and perverted form of furries. From role-playing to dressing up, really, it's not much different from other human sexual perversions. It's just another aspect of sexual desires and intrigue. As far as perversions go, one can find 'much worse" perversions out there than a humanoid, anthropomorphic animal being.... then again, you could probably find a furry version of THAT too!

Really, the Yiffy Furries have a whole community of their own too, with sub-divisions of description and what not, but I never really went farther then an overall look.


*Other Thoughts:*
The whole idea of what a "furry" is could be from humanizing an animal form, or animalizing a human form. It could also be related and compared to alien fantasy. I think that people (and critics) get so hung-up on the sexual portion of Furry Fandom because Furries (as beings) would litterally be a "perversion of nature" because they would be unnatural beings. 

Vampires, Werewolves, Monsters, or Aliens... they all have very perverted or sexualized aspects as well. And humans indeed are very sexual beings themselves. So they may like to explore the biting, scratching, tentacles, or probing.

It's only natural that the sexual aspect of Furries is to be approached. It's also only natural to ridicule Yiffers because people will automatically associate it with bestiality... which, for the most part, it really isn't. Show me a real-life dog with human speech, cognizance, personality, oh, and walks upright.

Furries should be no exception. Whether its an innocent fan to a full-on yiffer. Fantasy will be fantasy, and no one should be able to tell you that you can have thoughts or desires.... Of course, that being said, for ANY sexual desire or fantasy, as long as long as participants are all legal, and willing participants, I have no problems really.

Furries are characters, fans, and a community. It's all pretty much like every other sort of fandom in existence. And like any other fandom, if you don't like it, well, just walk away. But don't run! You might look like prey!


Thoughts? Corrections? Perspectives?



Officially, I'd like to add that I personally don't approve of/care for Cub Porn, Real or Fake Pedophilia, Real or Fake Bestiality (humans with real animals), or Real Rape. (I understand Rape fantasies and domination as a desire... as a rapist OR as victim.... though there is a fine line.) But this isn't the place to argue these things. I just wanted to clarify.


----------



## haynari (Jan 12, 2009)

You have to mention that only like 2% of our fandom is dreaded and is usually what we get stereotyped for as well. oh nvm i see that you did


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 13, 2009)

So you are still on this. I have to strongly contend your bit:



> Personally, I'd say that any creature that is a Humanoid, Anthropomorphic (defined as given human qualities) Animals, would technically fit the bill of a "Furry Character".


Remember the old commercial where a dog is running around because he smells what he thinks is bacon and is convinced it is bacon, and eats it and thinks it is bacon, but in reality it is Beggin Strips?

That is how it is within our fandom. Yes something may look furrie but that doesn't mean it is. Technically, all things anthro animal in nature are simply anthro animal in nature. The concept is called Anthro Animal. Furrie is a variation made for a certain group of people.

To put it in perspective taking something, that already is the name for an idea or concept....finding you like it and creating your own group to promote it, does not make it yours exclusively.

Could you take Anibus from Egyptian Mythology, created by the egyptians for the egyptians, found that you liked it, then turn around and change the name of what it is, which is a deity associated with a religious group, and say, "It's furrie now". Then you get it associated with sexual fetish's and so forth.

...makes no sense right? Sure it shares the humanoid animalistic anthropomorphic qualities of furrie characters but it's an egyptian deity. That is what it is, and that is what it always will be, nothing more, and nothing less. It's not our place to change that...if you look into history Anthropomorhpic Animals...the concept has a huge long history all the way back to the when the Sumarians first came into being in Mesopotamia, I think it is. So I guess what I am saying is be careful with what you feel, and what is actually true or right.

Too many people who try to research the fandom let bias and personal feelings get in the way. So what they see is not what they wil state because they will only interphet what they want to see. Ensure you are objective...

Anthropomorphic Animals in art has a very deep history going nearly all the way back beyond the Egyptians to the Sumarians. Although the Egyptians refined it. It's not exactly our place to take a concept and make all of it relevant to us just because it influenced us and we like it.

Also this:


> *Furry Fan*
> This would be a real-life person that is a fan of Furries. Be it of art or literature, or the mere idea of the possibility of gene splicing (or just aliens) to having a feal-life Furry. I would not extend this definition to any more than this.


There is no point in having this bit here. A person who is a furrie fan is a fan of the furrie fandom, not just a fan of the art of literature. Anthro artists are fans of art and literature dealing with anthropomorphic animals but that doesn't make them a furrie fan. You need to think sometimes about the implications of part of what you say on not related people who share similar interests.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 13, 2009)

Next bit to talk about is this:


> *Fursuiting Furry*
> I would even include simple ears and tails at the beginning of the spectrum. Going all the way up to a full-on furry costume. This can incorporate the simple fan, all the way through the spiritual role-player. Though this does not necessarily all fursuiters are the same. In fact, they are varied just as much as this list shows.



Ears and tail are not specific to the furrie fandom. So I have a bit of an issue with putting that as part of the fursuiting. When people say fursuit they are not thinking ears and tail. In fact if you go into a fur con and try to attend the parade with just ears and tail you won't be allowed join. So in away trying associate just ears and tail alone with fursuiting is very very misleading.

What makes a fursuit is covering your body to alter how you look entirely. The fursuit community if you go the places that cater to us, revolve around suit building...not wearing just ears and tails although that does exist and happen within the community, at furmeets and such. Ears and tails are accessories like my furry hat from pawstar. Once you start building up an actual costume it becomes a fursuit.

You throw on a partial with good clothes you look like an anthro animal. The same goes for the full body. You throw on just ears and tail it is more like anime. Or anime characters more accurately. Such as Neko's, you know, cat people.

Furrie art really does seperate completely from that which you mostly see in Anime, going so far as to alter the same much more than just giving it ears and tail. Therefore the suits seperate as well. So you might want to rethink that one.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 13, 2009)

Last point to deal with:



> *Spiritual Furry*
> This would include those that have more of a spiritual affinity to animals or animal spirits. Even if they feel their own being or spirit is more akin to that of animals than that of humans. This may also be where nay-sayers would say that "Furries think they are animals." I'd say that may be the case for some people, though perhaps not as literally.



It seems a bit silly to take the time to put this in here. You don't need this many little subsections. We may have people who are spiritually included towards spirituality based around animals and not humans. That does not mean that it is directly related or a part of the fandom, no more than gaming is part of the fandom.

Otherkin who are furries are simply the same as gamers who are furries. That part them is not directly related to the sub-culture. There were therians long before furries came around, and many therians who are furrie were that way long before becoming a furrie. It's the same way with Otherkin too. They are not as old as Therians...but they can be Otherkin long before they become furrie. Taking and related that part of them to the fandom it just makes no sense. It is not a direct result of the fandom, neither a direct branch of the fandom. It is just something that is there, like gamers.

To wrap up my thoughts you should look into grouping like things together.

For example Fursuiting furries and and furrie characters can go together under "Furrie art". I hope my feedback is helpful.


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 13, 2009)

*RE: Furry vs Yiffy*


I needed to separate this part from what I was going to post first, because it was getting to mashed together.

Also, I don;t ever mean to tell you or anything that they are wrong (sometime I come off as doing so, unintentionally), What I'm doing is giving you my reasoning and understandings. I'm trying to gain full perspective, and I believe it helps in discussions if people know where I'm coming from. Then people can correct my misunderstandings.

But You got a lot of good information here! So I'm going to be thorough so I don;t miss/neglect anything.



Trpdwarf said:


> Could you take Anibus from Egyptian Mythology, created by the egyptians for the egyptians, found that you liked it, then turn around and change the name of what it is, which is a deity associated with a religious group, and say, "It's furrie now". Then you get it associated with sexual fetish's and so forth.



First I want to say/ask that just because something is furry, does not mean it is associated with sexual fetishes and such, correct? I've heard of plenty of people that calim furry, but not the sexual stuff... There HAS to be a difference.

Just because something is furry, does not mean it is sexual or perverse. As with ANY fandom, they all have their misconceptions, and prejudices against them for various reasons, by various people.

Kinda why I put "yiff" in it's own category too... Though I should mention that all of the categories I, well, made up, could easily be mixed together, all or in part.

So anyway, my thinking is:

Anthro Animals > Furry > Yiff

just like (for simple analogy):

Polygons > Rectangles > Squares


Thoughts?


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 13, 2009)

Great! Some feedback! It may take me a while to go through this, but I'll look at each point here eventually.

@ haynari... Huh? Um, k 

Also, to clarify, i'm not sure how some people are using the word "anthro". I know some people will use it alot to infer humanoid beings, though at it's root it means (i believe) to give human qualities to. Like the Brave Little Toaster. Those are anthro appliances.... So It's just a clarification for me, since I know some people use "anthro" in a different way and I'm not sure about how they may be meaning it.

*RE: Furry Characters*



Trpdwarf said:


> So you are still on this. I have to strongly contend your bit:
> 
> Remember the old commercial where a dog is running around because he smells what he thinks is bacon and is convinced it is bacon, and eats it and thinks it is bacon, but in reality it is Beggin Strips?
> 
> ...


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 13, 2009)

*RE: Fursuiting*



Trpdwarf said:


> Ears and tail are not specific to the furrie fandom. So I have a bit of an issue with putting that as part of the fursuiting. When people say fursuit they are not thinking ears and tail. In fact if you go into a fur con and try to attend the parade with just ears and tail you won't be allowed join. So in away trying associate just ears and tail alone with fursuiting is very very misleading.



Right on the Ears and Tail thing. I guess I was lumping it into a "scale" or precursor.. which would be unfair.... of course, for the, um, poorer or less-skilled fur fans, that may be all they can afford... so, again, INTENT behind it may be key, right? 

But yes, You totally make sense, and I get what you mean.



Trpdwarf said:


> What makes a fursuit is covering your body to alter how you look entirely. The fursuit community if you go the places that cater to us, revolve around suit building...not wearing just ears and tails although that does exist and happen within the community, at furmeets and such. Ears and tails are accessories like my furry hat from pawstar. Once you start building up an actual costume it becomes a fursuit.
> 
> You throw on a partial with good clothes you look like an anthro animal. The same goes for the full body. You throw on just ears and tail it is more like anime. Or anime characters more accurately. Such as Neko's, you know, cat people.



There could still be a scale here, depending on the intent and desires, but yea, unless there is a suit (or partial), you could not really count it. But I could still make a clarification that for some people, ears and a tail, or sometimes face painting, could be an personal extention in furry fandom as well... It does not really fit my categories (which were simple and non-permanent section anyway), but it would still be worth nothing that some fur fans will "alter their image" or such, in ways such as this... 

Though, again, just because someone does the ears or face painting, does not mean they are a furry... but it still may be an "extension" for some fur fans.

Would you agree? Am I somewhat correct?



Trpdwarf said:


> Furrie art really does seperate completely from that which you mostly see in Anime, going so far as to alter the same much more than just giving it ears and tail. Therefore the suits seperate as well. So you might want to rethink that one.



This goes what what I said previous, but I separated it because I don't even think I was thinking about anime as much... but it is a good example for another clarification or separating furry and non-furry things, while looking similar.


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 13, 2009)

*RE: Spiritual Furry*



Trpdwarf said:


> It seems a bit silly to take the time to put this in here. You don't need this many little subsections. We may have people who are spiritually included towards spirituality based around animals and not humans. That does not mean that it is directly related or a part of the fandom, no more than gaming is part of the fandom.



The subsections are for clarification. I submit that all Furries, or fur fans, relate to every little piece possible under furry fandom. Just like any fandom, there are several different sub-groups. Even some that don't get along with one another and "give the fandom a bad name", etc... mainly outsiders tend to generalize and lump all people under a fandom as the same thing, and usually under limited and "what I heard" (aka, not actually researched) knowledge.

So I submit that sub-sections are important, but also know that I am not being definitive nor restrictive in any of my clarifications.





Trpdwarf said:


> Otherkin who are furries are simply the same as gamers who are furries. That part them is not directly related to the sub-culture. There were therians long before furries came around, and many therians who are furrie were that way long before becoming a furrie. It's the same way with Otherkin too. They are not as old as Therians...but they can be Otherkin long before they become furrie. Taking and related that part of them to the fandom it just makes no sense. It is not a direct result of the fandom, neither a direct branch of the fandom. It is just something that is there, like gamers.



I didn't even know the word "Otherkin" until I looked it up right now, and your thing on gamers was confusing me too. Though your explanation of Otherkin is good input for me, and I should look at it a bit more. And yes it does change what I've previously written under the subject.

As far as your mention of gamers... I dunno, it still confuses me a bit... I mean, I know there are tons of different types of gamers... typically broken down in genre, and a variety of other factors,... But I'm not here to talk about gamers' sub-culture. Just because one is a furry does not mean they can't be gamers, I know that... Or just because you are a gamer, that doesn't make you a furry? I dunno, that all seems very obvious and odd to bring up unless I'm missing something.

Clarification: I used to be a huge gamer (mostly Nintendo), until a few years ago (no time really).



Trpdwarf said:


> To wrap up my thoughts you should look into grouping like things together.
> 
> For example Fursuiting furries and and furrie characters can go together under "Furrie art". I hope my feedback is helpful.



Mostly what I was dividing were different aspects or hobbies that Fur Fans would possibly be into. Though some restructuring is definitely in order.

I hope I get some more feedback from others, as well as confirmations and further explanations on the stuff replied back to your replies, for further understanding.

So far things are looking good! Thanks for spending time to help me out with this!


----------



## haynari (Jan 13, 2009)

what i meant by the 2% was the furries who are into stuff like plushophilia and beastiality.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 13, 2009)

Fesworks said:


> *RE: Fursuiting*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Intent does not matter. You cannot magically just wish that your pair of tails and ears constitutes an actual costume especially when you cross over and want to use furry fandom terms such as "Suiting" or "Fursuiting."

Plus you run into the problem that you get when you call all anthropomorphic animal art and characters furrie. You force an assocation and sort of a exclusive dominance over it. Tail and ears is part of furry fandom and anime fandom.

I agree though that the tail and ears thing are an extension. They are a bit like collars. They are things furs will wear as part of their identity within the fandom. So you can do a side thing about things associated with the fandom but are not exclusive.


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 13, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Intent does not matter. You cannot magically just wish that your pair of tails and ears constitutes an actual costume especially when you cross over and want to use furry fandom terms such as "Suiting" or "Fursuiting."
> 
> Plus you run into the problem that you get when you call all anthropomorphic animal art and characters furrie. You force an assocation and sort of a exclusive dominance over it. Tail and ears is part of furry fandom and anime fandom.
> 
> I agree though that the tail and ears thing are an extension. They are a bit like collars. They are things furs will wear as part of their identity within the fandom. So you can do a side thing about things associated with the fandom but are not exclusive.



Oh, I didn't still mean to include them in "Fursuiting" proper.

And, oh! Collars! I forgot! .... Also not Furry exclusive  

Good point on the "forcing association".


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 13, 2009)

Fesworks said:


> *RE: Spiritual Furry*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What I meant is that some subsections are unnecessary which is why I brought the gamer bit in. Many many furries are gamers but you don't create a subsection for gamer furs right? That is because that is just part of them that has nothing to do with the fandom.

The same goes for Spirituality. That would go under things associated with the fandom but not a direct part or branch of it, like ears and tail. There is no spiritual asepct of the fandom but many furries are part of a spiritual practice surrounding animalistic spiritualities. Ranther than give it it's own subsection which is misleading you should instead put it in a catagory that covers the non-exclusive things within the fandom.

If you had people who are otakukin within the gaming community and you wanted to explain the gaming community would you make a sperate subsection for "Spiritual gamers?" I don't think so...so that is where I am going with this.

Moving on, I need to explain something to you so you don't make the same mistake so many other people do when dealing with Otherkin and Therians. Too many internet sources here are nothing more than bits of info put together by people who don't understand the subject but don't care because bastardizing one form of long standing spirituality is worth gaining some semblence of legitimacy. The only person to write a book about it didn't do enough research either...but then again the entire book was "Bleh". Found it Barnes and Nobles...read the beginnings of each chapter and had to put it down. It was like...why the hell did he write it?

Therian /=/ Otherkin

I could explain the whole controversy but you are better off sending a PM to Zeke Shadowfyre who is a Therian and a Furrie. I told her about this and she welcomes you to drop her a PM anytime. She's been a Therian for most of her life....and knows more than most about the Otherkin invasion into Therian Spirituality. Give her a PM and she will have much good information to tell you.

You might also contact Shenzi. She's another Therian that is not a faux therian.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 13, 2009)

> If I am gathering everything you said correctly, What you've mostly been saying in this section is that "intent" and "desires" (so-to-speak) of a given character plays largely into what a furry-like character actually is....
> 
> This separates the real "Furry Character" versus a "Humanoid, Anthropomorphic Character"... even if they may look exactly the same?
> 
> ...



That would be correct that intent and desire plays a big role. Take for example the art I have for my dragon charrie. I commissioned a dragon character concept art from a person who is not a furrie. She is on a site that does not cater exclusively to furries and her host site is Deviant Art.

Now while she has anthro peices in her gallery...the only peice that is furrie is the one made for me. That is because it was made for a furrie. If I were not a furrie and simply wanted the concept sketch because I am a huge dragon fan who likes to commission artists to make different dragon peices....than that same peice of art that is furrie would not be furrie. Look exactly the same but intend and desire have to go into it.

There are several furries who have a hard time understanding this. They don't understand just becuase it look similar to our art does not make it part of us. It's like, you have to desire to cater to us, in order for it to be furrie. But for the artists to be a fur artist, they have to be part of the fandom and mostly, if not exculsively catering to it.

Golden wolf is a Therian who is an Anthro Artist....and while she will make stuff for furries if they ask, she herself is not a fur and a lot of her work is not furrie.

As for the last part...it is very wordy. It is true that anthro animal characters that furries create, and by that line furrie characters are human replacements. I would see it more accurate to say that furrie characters are imaginary personas of ourselves based on us, but taking on an imaginary element of alien species that take both human and animal aspects and meld them together. The replace us as what we might be if that imaginary world were to exist where humans evolved to have various animalistic features. That is still too wordy.

It's like, just imagine all animals alive evolved the way humans did to have our sentience, and our dexterity, and therfore our ability to build, destory, create, love, ect. So what animal human thing would you be? Does that make sense?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 13, 2009)

Fesworks said:


> Oh, I didn't still mean to include them in "Fursuiting" proper.
> 
> And, oh! Collars! I forgot! .... Also not Furry exclusive
> 
> Good point on the "forcing association".



Oh okay. Cool.

Collars tend to have bells or dog tags on them. They are not meant to imply submission or ownership so much as to associate a person with the fur fandom. Furs will often take regular dog collars from stores and wear them...and have a dog tag engraved with their fur name on it. It can be used as a way of submission or ownership to another furrie but it has other implications as well.

It's more a fashion accessory when you get down to it, for furries. I personally wear collars, because I like them. I like to coordinate them to work with my clothes so instead of standing out like a sore thumb they just sort of blend in. I own three different ones, a black one with a little bell, a red one with a little bell, and black one that is thicker, and has a large tarnished copper bell. It represents a furrie part of me that I am willing to wear.

Now how I wear my collars is not going to be the same for others. Other accessories are hats with ears on them, which is something shared by the anime community. It might help to look into www.pawstar.com to get some info on that.

Pawstar actually sells accesory tails too.


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 13, 2009)

*RE: Otherkin, etc... *



Trpdwarf said:


> .. words...



Point(s) taken... though I don't think I'd be investigating this part as much.

Though I'm sure I could compare all of this to some pagan religions as well (though I won't go into it).


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 14, 2009)

*RE: Intent and Definition*



Trpdwarf said:


> That would be correct that intent and desire plays a big role. Take for example the art I have for my dragon charrie. I commissioned a dragon character concept art from a person who is not a furrie. She is on a site that does not cater exclusively to furries and her host site is Deviant Art.
> 
> Now while she has anthro peices in her gallery...the only peice that is furrie is the one made for me. That is because it was made for a furrie. If I were not a furrie and simply wanted the concept sketch because I am a huge dragon fan who likes to commission artists to make different dragon peices....than that same peice of art that is furrie would not be furrie. Look exactly the same but intend and desire have to go into it.



This is tough for me since not even every furry art is based off of a real person, nor are multiply based off of one person. A lot of your clarifications are at a personal level.

Let's do this: Find my a very accurate (not general) word to describe the exact same characters, only one is a furry and the other is not. "Funny Animal" does not count to me because it's more than that, and may not even be funny. "Anthro Animal" is WAY too general. I've used "Furry" to describe characters... though you are talking about Fursonas... not general, fictional characters or beings.

If there is no current word for it, and if I can't call them Furs or Furries, then that means we need a new word.



Trpdwarf said:


> There are several furries who have a hard time understanding this. They don't understand just becuase it look similar to our art does not make it part of us. It's like, you have to desire to cater to us, in order for it to be furrie. But for the artists to be a fur artist, they have to be part of the fandom and mostly, if not exculsively catering to it.
> 
> Golden wolf is a Therian who is an Anthro Artist....and while she will make stuff for furries if they ask, she herself is not a fur and a lot of her work is not furrie.



I think we are going the wrong direction. I can understand these difference between Furry and Therian and such... but so far WHAT a FURRY is... is not being answered.... Like I did before, I seperated "Furry" into Character Types, People, and a Fandom.... mostly because the word "Furry" has been used to describe all of those individually.

What about the people that are... um, for a lack of a better word... "the norm"? A "non-furry" that basically draws a furry comic. A comic that is nearly indistiguishable from a Furry comic by a self declared furry. The character type used is the exact same. There HAS to be a word for that. If not, Due to the natural law of evolving language and definition, I'd basically say that "Furry" extends to that character type.

(Like how "Irony" eventually adapted it's definition to how people constantly misused it?)

Or am I off my rocker??? That or I (and many other people) am completely missing something.

Also, I understand and know that non-Furries may associate with Furries in various ways, while not being Furries... I get it.



Trpdwarf said:


> As for the last part...it is very wordy. It is true that anthro animal characters that furries create, and by that line furrie characters are human replacements. I would see it more accurate to say that furrie characters are imaginary personas of ourselves based on us, but taking on an imaginary element of alien species that take both human and animal aspects and meld them together. The replace us as what we might be if that imaginary world were to exist where humans evolved to have various animalistic features. That is still too wordy.
> 
> It's like, just imagine all animals alive evolved the way humans did to have our sentience, and our dexterity, and therefore our ability to build, destroy, create, love, ect. So what animal human thing would you be? Does that make sense?



See, you again go on a personal level. 

'Tis why I separated "Furry Character" and "Fursona".

From the hundreds of Furry Webcomics out there, 90% of their casts are potentially not furries by this reasoning... that can;t be right. It goes back to that evolving language again. If enough people utilize words for something (despite original meaning), that word's definition gets amended.




Still, in general, you are saying a "Furry" (as a real person/fan of the fandom), is a fan of the idea of if animals evolved in shape and intelligence like humans had.... as if animals were that of "people".... right?

This Fandom can be expressed in ways exclusive to itself; incorporating or borrowing from another fandom, ideology, or belief; or even be incorporated or borrowed from another fandom, ideology, or belief.



And, this next part is what I'm getting from you:

There is no such thing as a "furry character" unless it is directly the personification of a Furry fan.




(I might be sounding a bit snippy here, but this kinda goes against a lot of things I've gathered through the community).


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 14, 2009)

Fesworks said:


> *RE: Intent and Definition*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmm...shouldn't have muddles fursona and non-fursona characters together...which is what I did. Perhaps I should have worded that better. and seperated it so it seemed less personal. 

What I was going for is that even if something is not based around an individual actual person, it is still based on people. The capabilities of people. The thoughts and emotions of people. That is why you see comics where furry/furrie characters can do things that in the real world is pretty much exclusive to humans.

But what takes it to the next level is....as to your challange...furrized? It's a furrized character? Not only does it share the traits of the concept of anthropomorphic (human like) animals....but it was targeted towards a specific audience on purpose.

Oh...I didn't mean that you couldn't tell the difference. I was referencing...and should have put that in there...something you see sometimes within the fandom. Something worth noting that is a little bit of a problem. What we are talking about here, you and me are on the same page. However some others, as a warning, do not feel this way which brings up the point of slight contraversy. Take that as you will. Part of it stems to a bad wiki edit...which I can link you to if you want it.

As for the next part...people have been drawing comics like that for a long time...I think. The word again I came up with is "Furrized". A comic has to be furrized before it is furry/furrie. Does that make sense?

Again I should have seperated the two but really to me, there is little difference between fursona and furrie character. At the end of the day, they both are based on people, if not individuals, at least part sof people that make them what they are. It is worth bringing up...that some writers and comic artists base their furrized characters on people they know. When I started writing  Genology....I got all my friends together and posed the question to them what they would be if they were an anthro animal. Based on that I got characters with the personalities of real people....but had the fictional identity of anthro animal characters...the entire series if I ever finish will be catering to the fur fandom effectively making it a "Furrie Book" series.

With the Furry Fan part...it is something like that. When I was back on Gaia for 4 whole years deep in the whole furrie thing that started up on Gaia with trolls...and people who had legitimate problems against the fandom I came upon this thing where you had peope who were fans of us...us furries but where not furries. At the same time they were sympathizers. The were not part of us. But they like what we do, and they don't think it's fair what the trolls and the non-trolls were saying about us. So that is where I come from when I say what I do about furrie fans. In dealing with people who call themselves furry/furrie fans it has usually been peopel who are not so much fans of anthro art, but fans of the fandom itself. It was very confusing when I first saw this.

It comes down to I think people like us...but often are unwilling to fully incorperate as part of us due to the bad stigmas...and the fact that they have other interests that already take up a good majority of their life. So they appreciate our costumes, and our art, and our presense but are not part of us due to various reasons.


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 14, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Hmmm...shouldn't have muddles fursona and non-fursona characters together...which is what I did. Perhaps I should have worded that better. and seperated it so it seemed less personal.
> 
> What I was going for is that even if something is not based around an individual actual person, it is still based on people. The capabilities of people. The thoughts and emotions of people. That is why you see comics where furry/furrie characters can do things that in the real world is pretty much exclusive to humans.



This is were I get that "Human Replacement" so-to-speak. So basically, Furry Fandom stems from the idea of Humanoid (upright human-like form), Anthropomorphic (human qualities) Animals living and behaving like human people do... basically speaking



Trpdwarf said:


> But what takes it to the next level is....as to your challange...furrized? It's a furrized character? Not only does it share the traits of the concept of anthropomorphic (human like) animals....but it was targeted towards a specific audience on purpose.



Maybe I'd go with "Furrizized" or "Furryized" 



Trpdwarf said:


> Oh...I didn't mean that you couldn't tell the difference. I was referencing...and should have put that in there...something you see sometimes within the fandom. Something worth noting that is a little bit of a problem. What we are talking about here, you and me are on the same page. However some others, as a warning, do not feel this way which brings up the point of slight contraversy. Take that as you will. Part of it stems to a bad wiki edit...which I can link you to if you want it.



Personally, I decided that if the creator doesn't want to call them furries, leave it at that 




Trpdwarf said:


> As for the next part...people have been drawing comics like that for a long time...I think. The word again I came up with is "Furrized". A comic has to be furrized before it is furry/furrie. Does that make sense?
> 
> Again I should have seperated the two but really to me, there is little difference between fursona and furrie character. At the end of the day, they both are based on people, if not individuals, at least part sof people that make them what they are. It is worth bringing up...that some writers and comic artists base their furrized characters on people they know. When I started writing  Genology....I got all my friends together and posed the question to them what they would be if they were an anthro animal. Based on that I got characters with the personalities of real people....but had the fictional identity of anthro animal characters...the entire series if I ever finish will be catering to the fur fandom effectively making it a "Furrie Book" series.



Yes, I know some people who aren't furries and essentially have furry characters... Though they say they are not furry characters, despite fitting "Humanoid (upright human-like form), Anthropomorphic (human qualities) Animals living and behaving like human people do." .. Like Project ADAM, where the author basically says that animals where the best choice for the characters, and he only really sees them as animals.... despite being Humanoid (upright human-like form), Anthropomorphic (human qualities) Animals living and behaving like human people do. Hence the dilemma. I recall him saying "Well, technically it may be a furry comic, but I just see them as animals." I had talked to him a lot before... I'm not 100% sure if we agreed on this, but I recall suggesting that "It's not a furry comic, but a comic that has furry characters in it." ... which I believe sounds good for some people.

Another example of character seperation from the fandom as a whole.

So I guess these would be Furrized, Furrizized, or Furryized characters 



Trpdwarf said:


> With the Furry Fan part...it is something like that. When I was back on Gaia for 4 whole years deep in the whole furrie thing that started up on Gaia with trolls...and people who had legitimate problems against the fandom I came upon this thing where you had peope who were fans of us...us furries but where not furries. At the same time they were sympathizers. The were not part of us. But they like what we do, and they don't think it's fair what the trolls and the non-trolls were saying about us. So that is where I come from when I say what I do about furrie fans. In dealing with people who call themselves furry/furrie fans it has usually been peopel who are not so much fans of anthro art, but fans of the fandom itself. It was very confusing when I first saw this.
> 
> It comes down to I think people like us...but often are unwilling to fully incorperate as part of us due to the bad stigmas...and the fact that they have other interests that already take up a good majority of their life. So they appreciate our costumes, and our art, and our presense but are not part of us due to various reasons.




This is all good information! But the problem for accuracy is that this is all sorta unreferencable. Well, to an individual like yourself, I can reference, but I think a lot of fandoms are hard to pin down documentable occasions and one mostly has to take the word of who they talk to.

Do you know anything about the initial history and evolution of the fandom... and any references that may possibly exist (or where I could go to find them?)

In any case, Since you seem to know a lot on the subject:

*I run a webcomic podcast. We've been planning... or, I, rather, have been wanting to do a furry episode for since before we started (almost 60 episodes ago), there's a lot of good information being discussed here.... you would you be willing to come on the show to talk about, essentially, what we've been talking about?*

Though we can still discuss more here, of course


----------



## Attaman (Jan 14, 2009)

Sorry to just jump in here, but:


Fesworks said:


> What about the people that are... um, for a lack of a better word... "the norm"? A "non-furry" that basically draws a furry comic. A comic that is nearly indistiguishable from a Furry comic by a self declared furry.


  They're still labeled non-fur.  The only differentiations often made in the community for non-furries are "Non-Furry" and "Anti-Furry".  If you stretch it enough, you'll also get "Troll" (The less intelligent variety of Anti-Furry) and "Potential Furry" (A non-furry who could be 'corrupted').

The word for the webcomic is the same as it would be if the characters weren't furry.  For an instance of a comic that goes through the "It's Furry!" "No it's not!", Slightly Damned.  The author is an admitted non-Furry, and has stated her comic as non-Furry.  However, many people try to label Jakkai (which are seemingly based off another fictional animal more than anything real) and Demons (which just have appearances all over the place) as 'Furries' because, well, they can talk and have Fur.  But regardless of whether it turns out it actually is a Furry Comic or not, it's still a Fantasy Comic.




> The character type used is the exact same.


  Wookie.  It's a large fur / hair covered animal that walks on two legs and it can speak (if barely understandable).  You call it a Furry, people are going to throw a fit.  

The point of that was that just because it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it doesn't make that thing a duck.  



> There HAS to be a word for that.


  Non-Furry Comic Writer?



> If not, Due to the natural law of evolving language and definition, I'd basically say that "Furry" extends to that character type.


  Or they could just be anthropomorphic beings.  Or just [species name].  I would have put [alien name], but that implies they must be alien.  

For a final example:  Do you classify Bowser as a Furry?  He's a talking, walking, hand-possessing, Turtle / Dragon.  It may look similar, but it doesn't mean affiliation.


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 14, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Sorry to just jump in here, but:
> They're still labeled non-fur.  The only differentiations often made in the community for non-furries are "Non-Furry" and "Anti-Furry".  If you stretch it enough, you'll also get "Troll" (The less intelligent variety of Anti-Furry) and "Potential Furry" (A non-furry who could be 'corrupted').
> 
> The word for the webcomic is the same as it would be if the characters weren't furry.  For an instance of a comic that goes through the "It's Furry!" "No it's not!", Slightly Damned.  The author is an admitted non-Furry, and has stated her comic as non-Furry.  However, many people try to label Jakkai (which are seemingly based off another fictional animal more than anything real) and Demons (which just have appearances all over the place) as 'Furries' because, well, they can talk and have Fur.  But regardless of whether it turns out it actually is a Furry Comic or not, it's still a Fantasy Comic.



It comes down to being able to accurately describe the character type, more than anything. Demons, Aliens, other races... While looking similar (in some cases), to a ... traditional(?) furry comic, they are noticably different in context... again, despite the similarities in character design.

This, I believe, is where people like myself start using the word "Furry" to describe a character, however, it may not be fitting to the Furry Fandom as a whole, or to the original meaning.

I'll admit, that this is probably wrong. I resubmit that there HAS to be a word to describe this character type, and "Anthro" does not help at all because that is so general that Garfield falls under that category too, and also The Brave Little Toaster, and THAt is VERY far from what we are talking about.

"Anthropomorphic" means, merely, to give human qualities too. Even "Anthro Animal" is WAY too broad, and would include the Rabbits from Watership Down to a degree.

"Furry" is the closest in meaning to describe these character types, however, it's apparent that it is no correct to use for all instances. Right now we have a defining character type, without a word to describe it.... just a definition.



Attaman said:


> Wookie.  It's a large fur / hair covered animal that walks on two legs and it can speak (if barely understandable).  You call it a Furry, people are going to throw a fit.
> 
> The point of that was that just because it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it doesn't make that thing a duck.



To work with the analogy given, then what is the name of this "fowl creature"?

I'm not trying to pick apart furry fandom in this case, I'm looking for a correct word or description of the similar beings NOT in the fandom.




Attaman said:


> Non-Furry Comic Writer?



I was talking about characters, not the people that made the characters.




Attaman said:


> Or they could just be anthropomorphic beings.  Or just [species name].  I would have put [alien name], but that implies they must be alien.
> 
> For a final example:  Do you classify Bowser as a Furry?  He's a talking, walking, hand-possessing, Turtle / Dragon.  It may look similar, but it doesn't mean affiliation.



They _are_ anthropomorphic beings... they _all_ are... that is the most, broadest definition you could use to describe them asside from "beings".

We have "Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, order, Family, Genus, and Species" used to describe things. You could look at it like:

"Beings, Anthropomorphic, Speaking, Humanoid, something, something, something, Furry"
... for a crude example.. the point is that "Anthro" is far less specific than "Furry", and I'm referring to "Furry", proper.

They way it has been explained to me, Furry Characters/People would be like a race of beings, like humans. Role and Placement of these characters in a world/story are important... in other terms, context.

Take Inverloch. I, personally, would call that one humanoid, Animal race, furry-type characters.... which in context is probably not accurate to call them furries... but rather call them, well, there does not seem to be an accurate word to describe characters like that.

For the case of Freefall, where you have a genetically engineered character that is basically like a furry, in context, well, she is not. Despite her character type/design.

In the case of Super Mario Brothers, well, the context is a magical kindom where, well, practically everything is anthropomorphic... from the bombs and mushrooms, to turtles and walls of rock. Asside from those aspects, (and if you extend "Furry" to all animals, birds, fish and reptiles, etc...), You could call the Koopas Furries, _kiiiiinda_. They ARE a race indeed. But of course, in context they are not "Furries, proper"... in my opinion, the koopas are closer to the "Funny Animals" defintion used to describe, Looney Tunes or Hanna Barbara  animal characters. Where you have animals still mostly in their roles as animals, but kinda play out like humans in many aspects... almost a "lower race of people".

(For similarity, but in a better relationship, I plug Housepets)

So there is a grayscale of character description and usage, and on this scale Disney characters would be closer to "furry, proper" than Looney Tunes would.

So to actually answer your question, No, Bowser and koopas would not be "Furries" as far as the fandom is concerned (despite some Furry people adapting them into fursonas or furry characters).



I don't know if I'm making sense at all. It seems like the discussion has turned away from Furries, and is going into character design, description, and definition. I think I pretty much have a handle on what it is to be Furry or a Furry... but the discussion has gone down another path.

Which seems to be "This isn't a furry... but what is it?" .. but we only have either broad words to barely describe it, or long descriptions.

Essentially what I used to classify as a furry character, should be classified as something else... I'm not here to place labels onto people or their characters, of which they don't themselves categorize them (if at all), and there probably is no simple answer, or words that can be presently used, other than a case-by-case basis and consider context.


I'm not trying to be a pain!


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 14, 2009)

Fesworks said:


> This is were I get that "Human Replacement" so-to-speak. So basically, Furry Fandom stems from the idea of Humanoid (upright human-like form), Anthropomorphic (human qualities) Animals living and behaving like human people do... basically speaking
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah okay. Now I get where you are going with that. It makes sense then to call it a human replacement.

As for the creator thing...I think that is the best way to go. It is better to let the creator to decide....they own the character anyway.

Furryized looks better on the eyes than the other.

As for initial history...I think I might know a good place.

Check this out: http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Search?search=timeline&go=Go

Does that work? It gives you sort of a time line. There is another one that is really good but I have to find it again.

Wait...found it: http://yarf.furry.com/chronology.html

Also...I can reference you to a really interesting closed thread on Gaiaonline: There are several many interviews there by furries: http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/general-discussion/furry-interviews-v-2/t.25384053/

That depends. What exactly is a web-comic pod cast? Also I don't know what it would entail. I'm not exactly internet savvy with that area. Tell me what is required to be able to do it...computer wise and I might be able to work something out.


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 14, 2009)

I'll check those out for sure. Thanks 

I'll send you a PM


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 14, 2009)

Fesworks said:


> I'll check those out for sure. Thanks
> 
> I'll send you a PM



Huh....you might need to create a generic account in order to access that one thread.

As for the PM...I'll be waiting.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 14, 2009)

I was looking at your paper so far and i feel the part where you use Watership Down as a way top describe translated normal animals would better be switched with something like Homeward Bound....the movie. That is just a person opinion though. Watership down did have some animal doing very anthro things. Such as the part that had that wall built to look like Elirah...I think that was the name.


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 14, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> I was looking at your paper so far and i feel the part where you use Watership Down as a way top describe translated normal animals would better be switched with something like Homeward Bound....the movie. That is just a person opinion though. Watership down did have some animal doing very anthro things. Such as the part that had that wall built to look like Elirah...I think that was the name.



Wow, I don't remember that part... In fact, I don;t think I remember most of it.... I have not seen it since grade school (over 15 years ago maybe?) I think I need to see it again


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 14, 2009)

Fesworks said:


> Wow, I don't remember that part... In fact, I don;t think I remember most of it.... I have not seen it since grade school (over 15 years ago maybe?) I think I need to see it again



It's been a while for me but I grew up loving it.

In that though cats and dogs still do exactly what cats and dogs normally do just translated. Unlike Watership down where you have some anthro elements.


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 14, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> It's been a while for me but I grew up loving it.
> 
> In that though cats and dogs still do exactly what cats and dogs normally do just translated. Unlike Watership down where you have some anthro elements.



Oh, I mean I never watched Homeward Bound... I don;t think... I was talking about Watership Down.

I also remember that one with the mouse and the motorcycle. OH! Remember Secret of Nymh? I think that was explained by some Lab Rats that escaped and taught other rats, etc.... otherwise I think the rats would be like regular rats, like the cat is a regular cat.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 14, 2009)

Oh....find it somehow. Watch it. It's a perfect example of normal animal being translated. It's also a good movie....there is a second one too. It's by Disney I think but they had actual animals and humans and stuff so it is real action and not cartoon.

Oh...that is one I have not seen yet. I've seen the first one of Secret of Nymph....and yeah, pretty much the rats and a few mice were injected with something that made them smarter, one figured out how to read and pull a level and they all escaped.

Then one of the mice found MS. Frisby....the female...had kids....and one came down with an illness that another mouse could fix but the kid could't leave the house which became a problem when the farmer was going to till the yard.

EDIT: The part i spoke of in Watership Down is in the book. It might not be int he movie, I don't know.


----------

