I'm probably a bit naive about this, I just got the idea for this topic watching of all things...Huckleberry Hound (Yeah, late night and Boomerang).

For all who do "furry" comics here - The prominent one I'm thinking about is 2s A Company ...

Anyway, does anyone know the origin of this type of comic? Does it come from cartoons like Yogi Bear, Huckleberry Hound and Top Cat? What is the official genre name for this style?

I believe they, as a people, prefer the term "anthropomorphic".

Cartoons have always been associated with personifying animals as humans. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem with "furry" is that it takes those animals and MAKES THEM human. Yogi acted human, but to the real humans he was still a bear and he lived in a cave within a forest. Furry material takes animals and puts them in the role as humans or completely replaces humanity all together.

I have a blinding, furious hatred of furry comics because it's like sprite comics; they're boring, terribly written, and only appeal to people's furry fetish. This is almost a rule. There are exceptions (like 2's a company is well written) but for the most part they are bad. My mind was scared by seeing comics where furries are sexualized so I'm pretty biased against the subject matter.

Furries can yiff in hell.

I'd attribute a lot of it to Walt Disney: Robin Hood for example.

Doctor Shadow
I'd attribute a lot of it to Walt Disney: Robin Hood for example.

OH YES!!! Good point! Disney did a great deal of "furries" back in the day. I remember owning that album as a kid (Robin Hood). Just when and where it all started...the anthropomorphic genre.

angry_black_guy
...they're boring, terribly written, and only appeal to people's furry fetish. This is almost a rule. There are exceptions (like 2's a company is well written) but for the most part they are bad.

Generalizations are fun, aren't they?

I have a furry comic, but I haven't got a fetish for it. I'm human. I have a thing for humans. Does this mean people with zombie comics have a zombie fetish? Alien comics have an alien fetish? Honestly, people can like whatever they want so long as they don't push it on me... and as far as most furry comics I've seen have gone, they don't push yiff on me.

I don't want you to change your opinion. I just want to let you know that there are less people with a furry fetish in the genre than you think.

And to get back on track...

Anthropomorphism is basically giving animals human-like traits. Something as simple as the animals being capable of speech can be considered anthropomorphic. As for its origins... I'm not all too certain. It could have been originated by humanity's spiritual connections with animals or even how we use animals for symbolism.

Or, like everyone else has said, Walt Disney and cartoons like Yogi Bear and Bugs Bunny.

Speaking of origins... You've also got Beatrix Potter's old children's books with talking rabbits in waistcoats and what not.

I have a great dislike for those who call themselves Furries - mostly because every single one I have encountered has been an example of utter craziness bordering on the creepy - but I have no problem with furry comics, as long as the anthropomorphic animals don't become blatantly human. Some people simply find animals easier to draw and stylize than humans are.

I'd also add: the Wind in the Willows to that as well.

I don't dislike furries, however I do dislike the complete and utter nut-job furries I've met. Like any sub-culture you have the good ones, you have the bad ones, just like the human race itself.

You know, a lot of people dislike furries, but I know an artist who enjoys drawing animals in anthropomorphic styles, and trust me when I say that this artist merely enjoys doing it, not for any other reason. I think most furry comics have a bad rap because of the yiff crap, and that's not fair.

What do you guys think about Purgatory Tower possibly one of the greatest comics on all of DD in my not-so humble opinion? That's got furries of a sort, but it's also a blast to read and a ton of fun.

But I digress. The original point of this post was quite different.

I think we can look back through history and find examples of animals, rather than humans, being used to tell the story. I wouldn't use something like Aesop as an example since he used animals purely as animals, but both Beatrix Potter and the Wind in the Willows are good examples.

Eh. I never heard the word "furry" until I wandered into DeviantArt and the other strange alleys of the internet.

When I was a kid, it was just cartoons with varying levels of anthropomorphism. I had no problem with it. They were cartoons. It was more fun than people doing things to tell a story. I think I grew out of it, though. I liked less and less anthropomorphism as I grew up. At this point, I get pretty irritated at Animal Planet any time they describe animals' motivations and actions with human attributes (especially the documentaries that they market as "reality shows" ).

I never really thought of the term "furry" applying to any of those kinds of cartoons, but I guess that's because it's a new word to me. When I hear it, I don't think of animals with human behavior -- I think of humans who look like animals. There's a distinct difference to me.

Steely Gaze
What do you guys think about Purgatory Tower possibly one of the greatest comics on all of DD in my not-so humble opinion? That's got furries of a sort, but it's also a blast to read and a ton of fun.

But I digress. The original point of this post was quite different.

Perhaps I'm strange, but I've never thought of Purgatory Tower as a furry comic - to me, the characters of PT are less animals-with-human-attributes and more humans-with-animal-characteristics. Meh.

But then, like I said, I don't dislike furry comics. It's the stark raving mad people who are unfortunately numerous in the furry subculture I have a problem with.

Frostflowers
Perhaps I'm strange, but I've never thought of Purgatory Tower as a furry comic - to me, the characters of PT are less animals-with-human-attributes and more humans-with-animal-characteristics. Meh.

I have to agree with you on this point. PT seems much like a comic where the characters have animal characteristics - much like those comics where the characters have cat ears, tails and pointy ears for no clear reason.

I love the early examples of anthropomorphism in literature many of you have stated. All things considered, I suppose you can turn to ancient cultures are the real origin of "furries".

Bugs Bunny, Chewbacca, Roger Rabbit...Over The Hedge. I never read enough of this genre to see the "creepy" factor in it.

Purgatory Tower isn't really intended to be a "furry" comic, although it's not one of those comics where people have cat ears for "no clear reason", either. =p Either way, I know it gets labelled as "furry" a lot, although that wasn't really my intention with it.

Anyway, I don't think there's really a way to pinpoint the exact "origin" of furries. If you really want, you can label 99% of Egyptian gods as "furry". They've been around for a long time in popular media (a lot of good examples have already been named here), but they've only been recently labeled as "furry", mostly thanks to the internet.

I think it's unfair to label people who draw furry comics as fetishists - of course some are (and it's usually pretty obvious from the content of the comic when someone is), but most aren't. Some people just find the designs more interesting than purely human characters, some people have plot-oriented reasons for having characters be anthro.

People have been anthropomorphizing animals and inanimate objects since they lived in caves. I don't see what the big deal is. It's only the fetish aspect that has recently cropped up that really creeps people out. Or do people really have issues with Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz?

One of the characters in my own strip could be considered "furry", but that's only because he's a talking cat in a suit and top hat. My strip is a fantasy story with fantasy elements, I don't consider it a "furry" strip at all.

I wonder if ancient Egyptians thought their goddesses were sexy?

They must have. You see the zonkers that they have on their cat goddess statues?

silentkitty
Purgatory Tower isn't really intended to be a "furry" comic, although it's not one of those comics where people have cat ears for "no clear reason", either. =p Either way, I know it gets labelled as "furry" a lot, although that wasn't really my intention with it.

Thanks silentkitty for your good humor about this, as well as everyone else who chimed in recently. I apologize for the cat ears comment :P - I've seen a few comics here where the characters have the features, yet I haven't found anything to explain WHY they have them - almost like a partial-animal (Lupine or Feline)

The thought just hit me while flipping through and catching a cartoon on TV -anthropomorphic animals and their impact as a genre in comics. Not sure if its origin is discussed much here on DD. The idea of anthropomorphic characters telling a story, whether serious or comical...Even if during the ancient times, be it paleolithic or Egyptian - I thought it would be cool to hear everyone's thoughts on how you think it got started. Especially from those who actually draw anthropomorphic comics.

Since the topic of "fetishes" come up (Gee, I wasn't even going there with that) - Perhaps the term "furry" is directed towards such a thing. That sounds like a TOP DRAWER topic.

Thought for sure I'd here 2s A Company's take...Great discussion though!

mlai
I wonder if ancient Egyptians thought their goddesses were sexy?

They must have. You see the zonkers that they have on their cat goddess statues?

Sehkmet, Bast, count me in!

I've done furry/anthropomorphic superheroes since the early 1980s. It's just interesting to blend animal elements with people.

An excerpt, just for fun:

angry_black_guy
Cartoons have always been associated with personifying animals as humans. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem with "furry" is that it takes those animals and MAKES THEM human. Yogi acted human, but to the real humans he was still a bear and he lived in a cave within a forest. Furry material takes animals and puts them in the role as humans or completely replaces humanity all together.

I have a blinding, furious hatred of furry comics because it's like sprite comics; they're boring, terribly written, and only appeal to people's furry fetish. This is almost a rule. There are exceptions (like 2's a company is well written) but for the most part they are bad. My mind was scared by seeing comics where furries are sexualized so I'm pretty biased against the subject matter.

Furries can yiff in hell.

Not all Furry artists are into the perverted things that you are talking about.
I guess I could consider myself a Furry artist. Since that's practically all I draw. But if you took a look at my comic right now (Not that much but still), you would probably change your mind. :P

The problem I have with most 'furry' comics is that there's no point to the furry part most of the time. If the creator made everyone human there'd be virtually no difference. The only time I can really get into an animal-people comic is if their animalness (or peopleness) is a vital part of the story or something like that- like it's a humanish world dictated by animal motives, etc. It isn't that I have anything against furries, it's that I have something against wasteful design. :) A person with a fox tail for no reason to me is just as dumb as a person with a second nose for no reason.

the anthromorphic stuff I like is when the creatures have their own cultures that's kind of different than most humans but they still live in a human world. I remember a cartoon long ago that were about rats and roaches in DC. I loved the comic Mouseguard and the movie Watership Down(you've got to watch it, not only does it have awesome British accents but violence! in a kids movie! God Bless the UK!)

Anyways they creatures have their own culture and lives and they always have to realize their is danger outside. Movies like Robin Hood yeah I liked it but really I don't see why you have to draw them that way.

Someone
Anyways they creatures have their own culture and lives and they always have to realize their is danger outside. Movies like Robin Hood yeah I liked it but really I don't see why you have to draw them that way.

Actually, there's another reason to draw characters in animal form even if they are behaving 100% human in a human world, and that is symbolism. I realize most of the *bad* "furry" artists simply draw animals that they like or think are cool (like wolves, lions, etc.), but sometimes, characters are drawn as animals in order to represent certain traits those characters possess.

Disney's Robin Hood was a good example of this. The prince was a lion. His sneaky companion was a snake. The ridiculously large and impoverished family were rabbits. They weren't behaving as animals in an animal society, but there was sense to the character designs. They were used to represent traits. Foxes are wily. Bears are strong. The animated portion of Bedknobs and Broomsticks does a good job using animals like this too. Take a look at the opposing teams of their football/soccer game.

angry_black_guy
I have a blinding, furious hatred of furry comics because it's like sprite comics; they're boring, terribly written, and only appeal to people's furry fetish. This is almost a rule. There are exceptions (like 2's a company is well written) but for the most part they are bad.

Please reconsider two furry comics: Lackadaisy and Cantena (the website is evidently down right now, but it's a real comic, I swear! Lackadaisy has a great story with brillant art, and Catena is just so cute and fun to read. I've never big a big fan of furry comics, either, but these two are the grand exceptions.

Ziffy88
the movie Watership Down(you've got to watch it, not only does it have awesome British accents but violence! in a kids movie! God Bless the UK!)

WOW - There's a movie I haven't seen since I was a kid! Great flick - rare gem!

Ziffy88
Anyways they creatures have their own culture and lives and they always have to realize their is danger outside. Movies like Robin Hood yeah I liked it but really I don't see why you have to draw them that way.

When Disney did Robin Hood using anthropomorphic characters, it had to be from the creative mind of someone who favored that. We all know the legend didn't originally have an anthropomorphic premise - Perhaps it was done that way for marketing purposes, or maybe, in those days of Bugs Bunny, Yogi Bear and such, anthropomorphism was a novelty that was used to draw in children.

Used Books noted that it was crafty how each animal was an analogy to the characters in the story (Robin Hood being played by a "crafty" fox).

So many interesting slants here. Those who do anthropomorphic comics seem to take the same stance here too.

skoolmunkee
The problem I have with most 'furry' comics is that there's no point to the furry part most of the time. If the creator made everyone human there'd be virtually no difference. The only time I can really get into an animal-people comic is if their animalness (or peopleness) is a vital part of the story or something like that- like it's a humanish world dictated by animal motives, etc. It isn't that I have anything against furries, it's that I have something against wasteful design. :) A person with a fox tail for no reason to me is just as dumb as a person with a second nose for no reason.

I'm the same, or if the race design in question features anthro races. I have one world where there are a few anthros but the population is mostly human, however I picked Hestonia for the webcomic since it has a primarily 'human' element to it. I've got quite a fondness for anthro designs as long as they fit in the whole theme of a world's design, it's the moment that there's no rhyme or reason to it that I just switch off.

When I talk about anthro as well, I'm not talking cute either. I'm talking something like this:

My current storyline---and this is NOT to plug it, but because it seems appropriate---introduces a bunch of sentient animals that are by no means "furries". The only thing upped is their intelligence--twelvefold. Parrots and elephants can talk, (although elephants prefer to send Morse Code through their stamping) chimps have to sign or type, (some do outsourced tech support) etc.

It's been very fun so far, but I've done a lot of research to make sure I stay true to the animals' nature, and ---once you get past the premise---try to stay "realistic". That's what I miss in MOST "furry" comics---there is no sense of the animals' nature. KEVIN AND KELL does a nod to working ecology and the difference between predator and prey species, but it's a rare exception. --Al

An Origin of furries?

Hmmm... well, I personally think Disney and WB had a hand in the creation of them. I'm not sure where the whole "yiff" thing came into play (and I wont lie... I sort of draw it too...), but I personally find Disney to be a huge inspiration for almost every furry I ever met.

I mean, yeah sure, the whole anthro animals thing goes as far back as the Egyptian Empire and I'm more than willing to say that they had the original hand in the creation, but the turning point really was in Disney's hands. I'm fairly certain that if him and Warner Bros. never started making "talking animals", furries wouldn't exist.

(Oh, and, sorry it took me so long to answer to this thread... I've kinda been avoiding the forums... don't know why)

blntmaker
I'm probably a bit naive about this, I just got the idea for this topic watching of all things...Huckleberry Hound (Yeah, late night and Boomerang).

For all who do "furry" comics here - The prominent one I'm thinking about is 2s A Company ...

Anyway, does anyone know the origin of this type of comic? Does it come from cartoons like Yogi Bear, Huckleberry Hound and Top Cat? What is the official genre name for this style?

In all actuality, furries and anthro are two different things.

Wiki
Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena. Animals, forces of nature, games, and unseen or unknown sources of chance are frequent subjects of anthropomorphism.

A furry is just a fan of anthro. Click Here For Info On Furry Fandom [en.wikipedia.org]

Anyway, I'd have to agree with Priest Revan.

The whole anthropomorphic scene dates back to the Egyptian era.

The originator of bringing them into a mainstream format would be Walt Disney & The Warner Bros.

The reason why the whole furry thing has a bad reputation now-a-days is because most things you see are a bit lackluster. Also with what SteelyGaze said ''the yiff crap''.

Purgatory Tower is a perfect example of good Anthropomorphism.

Here's my personal thought on Anthro vs Furry.

If your comic primarily uses "talking animals", I consider that a furry comic... if it's anything other than an animal, but still not human, it's an anthro comic.

Basically, my comic is a furry comic while Purgatory Tower is an anthro comic.

I think we remember today that Disney did the mainstream thing first, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. There were popular comic strips around before Disney, like Krazy Kat; fiction like Alice in Wonderland and The Island of Dr Moreau (for a truly creepy version of furries); and way before that in the form of fables and fairy tales. In all of those the fact they were animal-ish was an important part of their being. The police character was a tough bulldog, the White Rabbit was frantic and flighty, the animals in fairy tales were chosen for their animal traits.

Disney didn't do anything different with the idea of anthro animals other than to animate them. In fact, compared to the earlier versions, there's no reason for Mickey being a mouse other than maybe someone liked the drawing. I feel that's true for a lot of Disney characters actually. There's a bit there- Goofy is sorta doglike I guess. Warner Brothers at least uses their characters' animalness more symbolically. Foghorn Leghorn struts around, Bugs outsmarts people, Taz is crazy and destructive, etc.