I mentioned this on another thread but I think it warrants it's own topic.
I find that when anyone describes my comic as a "fury" comic, I keep wanting to go "No, it is not just a comic about stupid talking animals! It is an epic fantasy with a long reaching plot and well thought out characters etc".
But if someone says it is a fantasy comic, I am fine.
And technically I suppose it comes under fury comic because yes they are all talking animals folk.
Am I being weird?
Angry-black-guy compared this to calling a comic a manga comic, as if all comics drawn in that style are lumped into one heap.
Should I want to be called a fury comic writer? Or should the term bother me?
I just made them animals so it is easy to tell which culture is which and because I think Animals of Farthing Wood and SWAT Kats are two of the best cartoons ever!

To expand on what I said in the last topic, you can't change people's opinion of you through words alone and as an artist you shouldn't go through great lengths to be something your not.

As a rule of thumb, if your comic contains anthropomorphic talking animals it will be dubbed a "furry" comic just like if a comic has anime-styled characters it will be dubbed a manga regardless if you want to or not. Genres are weird like that and your fans will always lump you in whatever category they think is appropriate regardless if you think otherwise.

The furry comic genre is distinguished I think from a comic full of anthropomorphic animal characters set in a kind of fantasy/historical background, as most comics one would call "furry" are no more than talking animals doing exactly what everyday humans do (perhaps sometimes in a cuter way). In your case I think it's not so much that you're reacting to a stigma as it is that your comic doesn't really fit into "furry" genre, or at least that wouldn't be the first one you think of.

There's probably a stigma there in general with the word "furry." I have no problems with the genre so I try not to let that stigma stand in my own head, but there's certainly nothing wrong with being called furry, especially if someone's just calling it as he sees it.

On another note, it's up to you to define what your genres are, so if you say your comic's not a furry comic, then it isn't.

(PS I obsessed with SWAT Kats when I was a kid. lol.)

SWAT Kats rule!
They truly live up to their billing as the radical squadron (even though their squadron only had one plain!)

Going back to the actual topic, rather then just gushing over my childhood cartoon favourites, I think Senshuu makes a good point ragarding how the genre is defined.
Also I think most "fury" comics are drawn in a particular style (sort of mangaish 90 percent of the time), which Harkovast is not (it is just drawn the way I always draw everything. So I dont think harkovast fits what most people would immediately think of when they imagine a fury comic.

But Angryblackguy is also correct that it does not actually matter what I think about the title. People will call it whatever they want. And as long as they are reading the bloody thing, why should I be concerned with the exact way they define it, as long as they like it?

I don't know much about "furries," except that they see themselves as relating more to animals than people, so any story that uses animals (especially different degrees of anthropomorphized animals) as main characters will appeal to that group.

There are stigmas for ALL genres, because there are stereotyped fanatics within them. It doesn't matter what genre your comic fits, because, ultimately, when it has that label/description, some will want to check it out, and others will avoid it at all cost. For example, a superhero comic. I do not like superheros at all, and will not even look at any in that category.** Other people love superheroes and will look at any superhero comic they run across. -- So, if your comic fits loosely into that genre, even if it is unlike the typical comics within the genre, having it labeled as such will immediately turn some people away and draw others in.

If people can put your comic in a category -- even if you don't think it "fits," it makes it much easier for you to gain an audience. Each genre has its own fanbase. Even if your yourself are not a fan of that genre or a member of that fanbase, you can get your link to them if your comic holds any appeal to that group at all.

When it comes down to it, categorizing comics is done by the audience, not the creator. Do what you do and listen to your readers for what "market" you're comic appeals to them. -- Don't alter your story or art to "appeal" to that group, but use that information to focus your advertising.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

**I currently follow two superhero comics on DrunkDuck. I avoided them for a long time because of their categories but was drawn to them through other avenues. They are not what I expect (and loathe) from that genre.

My definition of furry is sexualized crude animal drawings that reflect whatever oddball fetish the artist contained at that point(their 'fursona' as a less personal way to get away from reality and wear diapers and hump cats), See exhibit (A):


But that's just my personal explanation, some people just say 'talking animal comics'.
So Angry_black_guy with Happy_white_avatar is spot on. :)

Skullbie, holy monkey lovin Jebus, what the hell kind of evil satan comic was that?
Argh! I need to go and bleach my own brain!
I read it, I wish I could unread it, but I can't!
I am going to have nightmares about the one going "he wets his pants". *shudders*

Usedbooks, don't you ever want to wear your underpants on the outside and beat up criminals?
No? Ah well.
Before you say you don't like super heroes, have you read Watchmen? (Before the new movies comes and ruins it by being poo).

Yeah, that's the stigma I was talking about. Basically, there's 2 kinds of opinions on furry material:

1: talking animals (generally in place of humans)

or

2: Base wish fulfillment (generally sexual in nature) with animals as the humans. Usually the main character is a self insert of the writer.

Pretty much every genre carries its own negative stereotype so the important thing is to find what you're good at and stick to it. Furry or not, you're writing an epic fantasy so your writing should be the focal point. If you have good writing, no one will care that you're using talking animals. Just look at the Redwall series; furry all the way but well loved by millions of people.

Do a google search for Blacksad. You'd be surprised at how good some "furry" comics are.

harkovast
Before you say you don't like super heroes, have you read Watchmen? (Before the new movies comes and ruins it by being poo).

I don't know it.

Basically, I like down-to-earth characters, weak people, people I can relate too. I don't like most anime, fantasy, or science fiction for the exact same reason. I don't get into the whole "power" thing (including "magic" ). I used to call myself an anime-hater, but in fact, I do enjoy the art styles. It's just the plot genres I don't like. (There are a few anime series I adore. Lupin III is one of my favorites.)

Also, I don't like corny catch phrases, superhero names, or the detailed, muscly stereotypical "American" art styles either. Lots of things spring to my mind when I picture a "superhero" comic. (Just like things spring to people's mind when one says furry or sprite or yuri or manga...)

usedbooks
Basically, I like down-to-earth characters, weak people, people I can relate too.

Actually, that's what Watchmen is about. What would happen if ordinary people, in the real world, became super heroes. Only one of them even has powers at all.

If your comic has furry characters, it's going to be categorised as a furry comic. No point fighting it!

I'm in the same boat, but with regards to super hero comics. For a long time, I wouldn't categorise Shades as a super hero comic, for two reasons:
(i) I didn't want to put off people who would normally avoid that genre (I believe there's a lot more to it and that some of its other elements would appeal to non-fans of the genre); and
(ii) I believe many readers who do like the genre might be disappointed that it doesn't read like a typical DC/Marvel title.
Instead, therefore, I always used to tick the action/adventure box (if given an option).

For all that, however, it does contain people with superhuman abilities and it does specifically address questions concerning the role and outlandish costumes of those people. Ultimately, therefore, I can call it what I like but, to the majority of people, it will always be a super hero comic.

As I say, there's no point fighting it. People will pigeon-hole you. It's what people do!
;-)

Used books, definitely read Watchmen, it is as down to earth as you can get.
It basically take the super hero genre and chops it into small bits without mercy!

Angry black guy- I am going to devote the rest of my life to doing my best to stay in category 1!

Dajb okay, people can call it furry, as long as that does not mean they expect the characters to wear nappies or whatever the hell else goes on in skullbies nightmare comic!

AFAIK, "furry" refers to stories putting slice-o-life characters in provocative/ controversial sexual situations, except the characters are drawn in the style of Disney animals. It's a narrow subgenre. I think the term first started with those types of indie comics. The term has since been expanded/ corrupted to try to be all-inclusive, but its most famous representatives are the sexually-themed comics.

The broader genre would be anthropomorphic comics, which includes Disney/WB characters. Even Watership Down fits here.

So, no, you should not call your own comics "furry comics." Call it "anthropomorphic comics."

Thanks mlai, I am much more comfortable being compared to water ship down (which rocks, by the way).

Yeah, as mlai said it all started with Disney fan art. I'm pretty sure Disney's Robin Hood started the craze and if you look at early furry work you'll notice that the designs are almost all copied off the original Robin Hood characters.

Early Disney also inspired modern anime. It eventually evolved in its own unique way during the early 80s but the further back you go you'll notice that anime and manga borrowed heavily from Disney and MGM cartoons with their big expressive eyes and their circular, almost "noodley" design.

mlai
AFAIK, "furry" refers to stories putting slice-o-life characters in provocative/ controversial sexual situations, except the characters are drawn in the style of Disney animals. It's a narrow subgenre. I think the term first started with those types of indie comics. The term has since been expanded/ corrupted to try to be all-inclusive, but its most famous representatives are the sexually-themed comics.

The broader genre would be anthropomorphic comics, which includes Disney/WB characters. Even Watership Down fits here.

So, no, you should not call your own comics "furry comics." Call it "anthropomorphic comics."

Yup. That's what I was thinking off.
All anthro is being called "furry" now by people who don't know... But I'd never call a non-furry comic "furry", no matter what species the characters are :)

Real "furry" always tends to be very kinky in strange ways... Look at Jack for instance. That can be very hardcore at times, but it doesn't seem as freaky in its normal style as when a guest artist draws it in a much more Disney style like way it is on its current pages.

Unfortunately there's not a very comforable term for anthropomorphic comics. It sounds kind of scientific, and technically could apply to talking milk cartons or any humanized non-human thing. 'Furry' is an easier-to-use term that implies specifically talking animals, and I think is used fairly broadly because of that. Unfortunately there's a subgroup of furry that most people want nothing to do with and so dislike being grouped with, but there's no term for 'talking animals but not about sex or wish fulfillment'.

My main problem with furry (in the generalized, talking-animal sense) comics isn't that there's a subgroup doing disturbing and hilarious things in it, it's that for the most part, people who do talking animals have absolutely no reason for using them other than that they thought a cat person might be cool or something. Anthropomorphising animals, like all other character design, should be a writing and design choice that justifies itself in the story. Maus used it to help abstract the concepts behind the story and 'genericize' the characters enough that anyone can empathize with them. Usagi Yojimbo uses it to personify characteristics as a kind of visual shorthand. Tom and Jerry are animals because that's the whole point. Mickey needed to be singular and not resemble a familiar human, but still able to feel and act in the place of a human.

So what really bothers me about most anthro comics I come across is that in most cases, the basic story or characters would be exactly the same if the characters were human. To me it just shows bad writing. (And in effect, the writer in that case is stigmatizing themselves.)

Skoolmunkee I feel like you have just verbally kicked my ass! I dont think that was directed at me in particular, but I am still going to have to mount a defence of some kind!

In Harkovast, there are (at my last count) approximately 26 different cultures, each one with it's own outfits, weapons, life style, religion etc (not counting the Nameless nations of the West).
Obviously, that is a hell of a lot to expect the audience to keep track of.
In order to make it easy for people (especially people just coming into the story) to tell what is going on, I made every culture into it's own species.
So when the "medieval europe" guy meets the "ancient greek" guy, you can tell who is who by their species straight away, because they are also the "cat guy" and "bird guy".

Now I could have tried to invent entirely new creatures but that would be very difficult (they would have looked incomprehensible and weird, or just looked like humans with bits glued on like elves or klingons) so I based them on animals.

And yes, the fact I think they look cool in armour is a factor, I don't deny it! But their non-human status is a very useful story telling tool.

Another reason is that Harkovast is meant to be another world- not earth in the past or future, not alternate earth, a completely seperate world. It does not contain any real world animals let along real world people! They don't ride horses for example. Putting in real world humans would detract from this.

Further, though they are largely like humans, a lot of them get special powers and there is a whole things about them all being tied to the magic their world is based on which comes out later. While technically this would have worked with humans, I think it fits to have amazing powers that humans can't do (such as those Darsai spirit swords, or having wings) be used by non-human characters.

And they look cool!
If Shogun was a human he would not be nearly as awesome-FACT!

(PS- I have now made peace with whatever people want to call my comic. As long as they read it, I'm cool. Though I will always describe it as a fantasy epic, the fact that characters are all animal based is just window dressing.)

I like this topic because it reads the same as when the Science Fiction authors used to split hairs with the Fantasy authors over which category name should dominate their group category. In most retail book stores everything is still lumped together under the name of Science Fiction although non Science Fiction dominates.

I am not making light of the subject. It took me quite some time to figure out how to classify my own strip. I finally had to narrow everything down to the minimal possibilities and then start the coin tossing. Comic strip/fantasy it is . . . but is that accurate? I don't know.

I know that I did not think of Harkovast as having anything to do with the furry genre until this discussion arose. I thought of them as odd looking human beings in dramatic situations. I suppose that any classification that gets the name out there and brings in a loyal fanbase, is probably a good classification.

Generally, I have the same opinion of Skoolmunkee on the subject regarding animals in place of humans. In Blacksad, the comic I mentioned earlier, animals were used as a metaphor for human nature.



John Blacksad, the main character is a black panther who served in WWII; because he's black, he's the target of racism in his homeland but he also doesn't get any respect among the other black animals because of his white maw. Each species of animals usually gather together to form their own groups (like a bar exclusive to reptiles) and an animal's nature is used as a stereotype for their personality.

Basically you have this typical 1950s world with regular humans depicted as animals for extra effect. The story is actually better off using animals because their traits and actions are almost indistinguishable from humans.

Also, that panther looks kick ass in a trench coat.

It's a shame Blacksad is so hard to find in English, I've been wanting to read it for years.

Harkovast, my comment wasn't directed at you in particular. :) I have to admit I haven't had time to read your comic yet though it's on the list to check out. Although in a general sense, you were included in the 'you draw a comic with animals' sense.

I think that using animal-people as a visual categorization for different cultures is a good reason. It's a type of shortcut that's reasonable in something like a comic, which needs to convey information quickly and visually. Making them all human but different colors and features (like real life) you'd have run out of easy ones after 5 or 6, and had other baggage besides. :) Tying them to skill sets etc strengthens the whole classification thing.

Oh gawd, imagine if I had used real world human races?
That would have been a game of "lets see how quickly I can offend someone".

Skoolmunkee, I'll assume you haven't read Harkovast because you like to save the best for last...
What?
That could be the reason!
It's possible!
I can believe what I want!
Stop judging me!

I don't see anything wrong with furry comics. One of my favorite comics Nature of Nature's Art is anthro. http://nofna.com/

Don't care for the adult junk, but if you write the anthro in the story to have meaning and importance to the character development and plot it could enhance the comic.
It could be.. like writing stories about aliens. 8O

I dunno, I am wondering if I have made a rod for my own back.
If the admins on DD don't like talking animals, my odds of getting featured are not looking good!
(Am I allowed to say that? Or is this like big brother where we shouldn't discuss the secret voting process?)

harkovast
Oh gawd, imagine if I had used real world human races?
That would have been a game of "lets see how quickly I can offend someone".

You could have different races that you made up.

Custard trout, do you mean made up races of Humans?
Because I dont think that would work.
If I make them dark skinned (even if their features are not like those of black africans) anything I have them say or do is going to be taken as a statment about black people. (case in point, King Kong got a lot of stick for its fierce savage, blood thirsty natives even though they were not really like any real world race. The fact they had dark skin was enough to hit peoples buttons.)
And if I make them colours that humans normally aren't (like blue and green) then they are not really humans anymore so I might as well make them something else.

Also, as I said, Harkovast is not earth, or any version of earth, so it seems more appropriate that it have its own interesting inhabitants.
Even so, I am sure if it gets popular enough some of the races will be compared to real world races and people will read in metaphors I did not intend.
I still think it is wise not to give them extra ammunition though!

harkovast
I dunno, I am wondering if I have made a rod for my own back.
If the admins on DD don't like talking animals, my odds of getting featured are not looking good!
(Am I allowed to say that? Or is this like big brother where we shouldn't discuss the secret voting process?)

I don't think any of us said we don't like talking animals :) Just that we don't like bad writing, which is a much bigger net than anthro art. I'm sure there have been plenty of featured comics that have had animal-people in them. Furry comics are a pretty small subsection of DD comics though, and of those, a lot of them have more flaws than just poor writing logic.

I disagree also with the 'make your own races of humans'. There's only so much variation if you want to keep them distinctly human and that means getting into already-established ethnic territory. Making up creatures or aliens would have been pointlessly difficult. Animals was a good choice. The characters in Harkovast seem pretty human to a degree though- the social patterns (medieval, etc), the anatomy is overall upright human, emotions follow human patterns etc. So I kind of disagree with the 'not anything like Earth' thing :)

I didn't say it was nothing like earth! Just that it isn't earth or any version of earth (like future earth where animals took over or some other planet of the apes crap).
Okay, let me rephrase- the races are meant to be something enough like humans that we can all relate to it, but different enough from humans that it gives it all a nice exciting fantasy feel (without resorting to using elves and dwarves and bloody annoying hobbits).
If they didn't have two arms and two legs and stand upright, working out the specifics of how their culture functioned would be a massive head ache.
Interestingly, I did originally invision a race of talking wolves who were literally just talking wolves with magic powers (not standing up right or having hands), but it just led to too many problems and complex considerations regarding what exactly they could and couldn't do (basically they couldn't do much compared to the other races. That is why I got rid of them).
If their attitudes were totally alien the story would seem meaningless, so like all the best non-human creatures in fiction, they instead personify variations on the human condition, but often to an exaggerated extent compared to what humans would actually do.

Finally, I'm glad we've made clear that no one is saying they don't like talking animals. Because round where I come from....THEM'S FIGHTIN WORDS!