'Omaha the Cat Dancer' reviewed by The Onion's A.V. Club
The Onion's A.V. Club has published a retrospective review of Omaha the Cat Dancer, recently re-released as a recompiled set. [Tmachine]
While Noel Murray notes the sex scenes on the NBM covers "border on the gratuitous", he praised the comic for rising above its steamy origins:
Omaha, on the other hand, became less about the sex and more about story over time—even after the book migrated to Eros. [During] the series’ heyday, Omaha sensitively explored devotion and jealousy and hypocrisy, via the ever-shifting relationships of the main characters. It was no masterpiece, but it was entertaining and more fun to read that about 95 percent of what was on the shelves at the time.
About the author
GreenReaper (Laurence Parry) — read stories — contact (login required)a developer, editor and Kai Norn from London, United Kingdom, interested in wikis and computers
Small fuzzy creature who likes cheese & carrots. Founder of WikiFur, lead admin of Inkbunny, and Editor-in-Chief of Flayrah.
Comments
That's a great review! One extra thing they could have mentioned, was that Omaha was partially and indirectly involved in the creation of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.
Nice review, very... INTELLECTUAL.
Omaha still looks TOO human to me.
That was an issue I had with it, too; though I suspect any "realistic" depiction would be creepier than pure fantasy.
Plus a) it's a bit of a soap opera, and b) as Noel said, the sex often seemed forced. I've only seen a few early issues, and the reviewer says b) got better over time, so I'll take his word for it.
Certainly there was an intent to link it to a long-term plot – and how much furry erotica did that then, or does it now?
Certainly there was an intent to link it to a long-term plot – and how much furry erotica did that then, or does it now?
Are you kidding me? Furries take their over-arching porn plots very seriously.
I've seen early chapters of a The Lion King fan porn epic rewritten so as not to contradict later episodes back on YiffStar when it was still YiffStar. And epic is the right word. The sheer amount of creativity gone to waste is staggering. And that's just one example.
Furries also write the god-damned angstiest porn on the Internet.
>Lion King pr0n
Kind of expected smth like that :|
Just because something is porn doesn't make it a waste. It's a waste if it doesn't achieve anything. No doubt the author enjoyed making it, so not a waste on that count. The readers probably enjoyed themselves too, not a waste either. They could have written a proper perhaps but how would that have been any more meaningful than their porn? After a few years (more or less depending on the story, although nearly certainly more for a book) it'll be forgotten.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
someuncomfortableface.jpg
Actually, by the definition of porn I'm using, it is, in fact, a waste.
My definition of porn includes "instant gratification;" once you're done with it, you're done with it. It's essentially disposable, after that. If you're halfway through the story/movie/whatever you don't finish the story/movie/whatever to see how it turns out. Maybe you feel a bit disappointed, but that's about it. Once the user is gratified, the porn becomes essentially disposable.
Getting back on subject, this is why Omaha the Cat Dancer is not porn. There is a story that you are supposed to finish; if at any point, for any reason, you put the comic aside without finishing it and without intent to finish it, the story fails.
I'm not anti-porn; it is not harmful in and of itself, and must be judged on its own merits, which are different from the merits of art. However, I do not believe porn merits the same protection as art; incest, bestiality, and yes, pedophilia, are perfectly acceptable subjects for art, but not porn.
I come from the perspective of a fan of horror and superhero comic books; both have been labeled "pornographic." In the case of recent horror movies labeled "torture porn," the directors in question refused to label there movies as such. Horror is a very exploitative genre, and that is a very exploitative label; for the directors in question to adamently refuse the label, even ironically, goes a long way to prove these director's artistic integrity, and therefore the need to protect their work.
And that's the thing; my argument against cub porn has a very easy out. All anyone would have to do to get me on their side would simply relabel cub porn cub "art," which is something nobody has done! The creators themselves don't just aquiesce to the label; they use it themselves, unironically!
The problem with cub porn is a big problem in and of itself, but it points to a bigger problem in the furry fandom; a failure to know the difference between art and porn, or, put another way, that which deserves protection, without question, and that which deserves protection, with question.
Oh, and at Mister Twister; congratulations on finding Flayrah while avoiding fchan, FurAffinity, SoFurry, InkBunny, YiffStar, Ychan, the VCL and half-a-hundred other furry sites for your entire life. Seriously, you were unaware of the existence of The Lion King porn?
Fess up.
Sarcasm does not work online.
I typed a great response but internet is being sucky and it got lost. :( First off, SoFurry = Yiffstar.
Just because porn is instant gratification doesn't mean that it is worthless or disposable. People do use the same porn more than once. I've read some stories multiple times, particularly when they have been gifts. There's no reason why evoking the emotion of lust is less worthy than evoking sadness or joy.
A story does give you a reason to continue with Omaha but after you're done reading it, then what? It's over and is essentially disposable. That's even more true with single pictures. The Mona Lisa is art but once you've looked at it, that's that. It's not even a particularly interesting picture.
You say that art and porn are different but you don't provide any justification for that. Why are they different? And why does art deserve more protection? I don't think there is any worthwhile distinction between them, and indeed I think many porn pieces are worth more than some art. Just because something is called art doesn't make it better than porn, or worthy of some sort of protection. Some art is nothing more than rubbish that's only notable feature is that someone was so taken with the title of art that they gave it more than the sneering dismissal it deserved.
Art does not deserve unquestioning protection or any protection above porn. All forms of expression should be protected so long as they do not harm or violate people's rights. And even then that protection must, like every viewpoint, constantly be questioned. There is a great danger in not questioning. If art deserves protection then questioning that should not be a problem at all. If it doesn't deserve protection but you forbid the mere act of questioning it's protection then you may protect something unworthy. It's always good to question your views, to make sure they are properly founded.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Don't you hate when that happens (the Internet thing)?
You sound more cautious than normal; of course, I flew off the handle last time a bit more than usual.
Actually, a story, or the Mona Lisa, does continue to give after the fact; you ponder what the story was really about, or what in the heck she's smiling about.
You think about porn later, it's only a withdrawal from the spank bank, deposited instantly on gratification once again.
Actually, in another ironic twist, I believe I am the one being more rational here. The definitions are a bit beside the point, because historically speaking, censorship has occurred, frequently, and in areas where speech is "protected." Once again, getting amazingly on topic, Omaha the Cat Dancer was banned in England as "bestiality" porn, despite the fact that it, well, isn't.
What I'm trying to say is censorship will occur; the fact that it, in a perfect world, shouldn't occur has no bearing on reality, which is not perfect. My call for self-censorship of cub porn is a pre-emptive strike before it is inevitably censored by those on the outside, in other words, censored for real. It has happened in the past; the only reason comic book content was not federally mandated in the 1950s is because the comic book publishers censored themselves before Congress could. In fact, FurAffinity's ban of cub porn was mandated by their pay sources, so even in the specific, it has already happened.
You say "freedom of speech," and honestly seem to believe that will keep Mr. Congress-Man-Who-Needs-An-Issue-To-Keep-His-Job-And-Why-Not-This-Furry-Stuff-It-Looks-Likely at bay. Okay, fifty years after it's over historians will look back and say, boy, that was VERY BAD, and we should all feel VERY GUILTY it happened, but the damage will have been done. Furthermore, you can't appeal to Mr. Congress-Man-etc.'s conscience, because it is very possible that he may feel he is in the right, honestly and truthfully, to protect innocent children from this dirty cartoon animal smut. And there will be people genuinely concerned; the guilt of not censoring will outweigh the guilt of censoring.
Yes, the 1950s and Fredric Wertham's comic book crusade were a long time ago, but as late as the 80s, the music industry was in about the same place; Congress's list of the horrible, no good, rotten songs that are destroying out children included Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It", which included the horrible, horrible words, "We'll fight," and, uh, it referenced the movie Animal House, I guess. Seriously, five minutes on FurAffinity with the wrong Congressman, you can kiss that site goodbye.
And nobody's going to give a crap. You think the rest of the Internet are gonna save us? 4chan, one of the founding points of modern Internet subculture, effectively banned furry since the site's inception. Furries are not, by and large, charismatic people; our insular, not very sociable fandom has left us with very few friends. In fact, it is a kind of idiotic point of pride that we only hang out with each other. You can quote that one guy saying "They came for the Jews ... blah, blah, blah," but the rest of the world will just tell you broke Godwin's law, and that's about it.
My point is, we have got to clean house before someone does it for us; sacrifices have to be made. Something's gotta be thrown under the bus, and you throw the porn under to save the art and the immoral porn to save the okay porn. The way I see it, we can't have it all, and if we try to save everything, we will only lose everything.
Also, whatever your own feelings on porn are, the American legal system frowns upon it. You have to be 18 to purchase it; to the legal system, pornography is as harmful to you as smoking, and smoking kills you. Furthermore, I'm sure we've all heard the "you know it when you see it" definition; if I'm not mistaken (and I might just be, but I'm too lazy to Google it right now), this came from the decision to allow James Joyce's Ulysses into America. It was banned because it contained a few scenes of sexuality, including, most contreversially at the time, a woman's inner monologue thinking about masturbation. I know. Shocking, right?
In this case, free speech did win, but it helps when the book in question is widely considered a modern masterpiece (and this may be one of those cases of "art as rubbish" you were talking about; it's been called the book nobody understands, so everybody thinks must be great if they could). Even then, it came down to a judge basically saying "not porn" to get to America.
It's happened before, it'll happen again. And there is some nobility in refusing to give an inch, but, in your case, for a guy who loves rationalism as much as you say you do, maybe nobility shouldn't be your biggest concern.
Gosh darnit, I did it again.
LOOOOOOOOONG story, bro...
"but as late as the 80s, the music industry was in about the same place; Congress's list of the horrible, no good, rotten songs that are destroying out children included Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It", which included the horrible, horrible words, "We'll fight," and, uh, it referenced the movie Animal House, I guess. Seriously, five minutes on FurAffinity with the wrong Congressman, you can kiss that site goodbye."
Um, I know what "We're not gonna take it" have heard the song, and know that it's still around. So if you're going to use an example that "the end is nigh" you should probably show an example of something that has actually been banned.
I think furry has gone under the radar on the political end thankfully, and it's at that I'm thankful for deficits, because when the government is worried about money, they can't afford to "dictate morality". Think about it, is it any coincidence that Republicans are losing the battle they had a hold on for 50 years (against gays)? If being broke means people are more free, then I really am thankful we're broke.
>young ppl
>thinking being broke is fine
All. The. Damn. Time.
Republicans are losing the battle against gays? Not when Perry gets elected next year, they won't be.
Then the first questions gays should ask is "How is this fixing the economy?" They can't run on these things, because every moment they talk against gays is every moment they're not talking about the economy, which if they want to talk about that, I hope they do, cause then Paul will win the primaries hands down.
The Twisted Sister song was an example of heat being brought against something that didn't deserve it.
I'm saying that took heat for something a lot tamer than five minutes of FurAffinity could provide.
With the SFW filter on, even.
Ppl under 15 should be banned from all art websites.
Srsly!, ppl under 15 either cannot draw well, or are not mentally stable enough to produce artwork that will not destroy your brain.
Well, I'll go on the record saying that would be unacceptable.
Agree. I am *LE GASP!* 21, and I am not THAT much of an artist (a picture a month) and my artwork is not terrible impressive.
Ignoring the blatant maiming of the English language used in this comment, I'm going to have to disagree. I've seen plenty of talented artists that are 14 years old, and often times, having others critique work is one of the many inspirations an aspiring artist needs to improve. I'm also unsure what you mean by artwork that can "destroy brains", but we all know the best artists aren't mentally stable. wasn't it Van Gough that cut his ear off and sent it to a woman he liked?
I was referring to badly-drawn pr0n and Sonic recolors.
Surprised you haven't figured it out.
Hint hint: Nothing in your comment implies such.
I also don't see how Sonic recolors, while retarded, have anything to do with being under fifteen, or how being under fifteen means you're mentally hnstable (but they just grow out of it, right?)
That long a reply? You killing me here. I'll try summarise everything so if this continues it doesn't have to pages and pages. I don't want a repeat of those last few furry definition comments.
Yes, censorship has happened and will happen and will probably continue happening for a long time. I know that, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight it every time. To use the oft-cited philosophic principle, you can't derive ought from is. You say in a perfect world it shouldn't occur but don't you also think we should try our best to make this a perfect world? I know we can't succeed at that but I think the attempt is noble and if we can't have a perfect world we can at least have the best approximation to one.
I understand FA's position and I know they were forced but I don't agree with their decision. Self-censorship is just as bad as regular censorship. It's actually more insidious because it is you being coerced into giving up what should be your right. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental right because it is needed to even have the possibility to defend or argue for any other right.
We can hope to be the music industry. They were attacked but they fought back. Incidentally I was watching a documentary on metal music which showed the singer from Twisted Sister making an awesome defence of his music. Music won though, it's now far more free than it was then. Sure it has advisory warnings but I'm in support of those, they allow people to make an informed choice. There's a big difference between saying, "You can't say that." and saying, "Warn people what you will be saying so they can avoid it if they so wish."
You don't have to sacrifice anything. What you need is to have the topic discussed and the dangers of censorship discussed until people realise that censoring something is always worse than not censoring it. Warnings are the way to go, not bans.
As final note, I don't care what the American, or any other, legal system thinks. Laws are not some amazing thing to be blindly obeyed. Laws are the views of those who have power and are just as able of being wrong as any other. Laws have their place but it is not as a guide to what is or isn't moral behaviour. That job falls to philosophy and the principles behind human rights, free speech and all that transcends any government or law.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Yeah, because if something is against the law, it surely must be THE MOST AMAZING THING EVER the evil government does not want you to engage in :D
Laws are in place, for the most part, to protect people from their own stupidity. Of course, it often is used as excuses to further religious or political agendas, but...
Aww, you really believe that, don't you? All you have to is look at the things that are laws (and the justifications or lack thereof) and how laws are made to see that isn't true.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Yes, I do believe that. Sorry if you think murderers are just cool guys, misunderstood 'cause The Man is keeping them down to satisfy their fascist, anti-humanist ideology. :/
5 stars, miss.
You're misinterpreting me there. I didn't say that the law is always wrong just that the reality is that it is not made for the noble aims that you seem to think it is.
And even though murder is illegal in the US some states still have the death penalty and at times of war the country actively encourages the murder or others and just a few weeks or months ago the US was involved in an assassination. A state has no more right to decide who lives and dies than any one person.
Blindly following the law would lead you to accept the death penalty for gays in Uganda, apartheid in South Africa and the Nazi Holocaust. Those things all were or are the law but are not made for good reasons or to protect people and it is foolish to assume that just because you don't live in such a situation that there are not similar risks posed by the law itself.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I believe that to be a Red Herring.
You should probably stop dropping tvtropes article titles; like most "tropers," you don't know what you're talking about.
On the other hand, Rakuen Growlithe should look up Godwin's Law. It's not a race to get to 1, guys.
>red herring
>trope from TV Tropes
>not a well-known logical fallacy
Sure is TV Troper in here.
It's a well known plot device.
The logical fallacy you're looking for is "straw man."
- This post is dedicated to the memory of LarzMachine.
You do know that a reference to Nazism can serve a purpose. In this case that the law is not always right and is not something to be blindly followed. A major defence of Nazi criminals after the war was that they were just following orders. That isn't a valid defence as they were always able to not follow orders and you are just as able to not follow the law. Don't think just because you aren't in a totalitarian regime that the law is suddenly all good.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
You do know it's just bad form to do so.
To quote John Stewart, "Why no hate for Stalin? He had a funny mustache, too. Looked like Mario, but with Wario's personality. ... I see our studio audience is filled with 8-year-olds tonight."
Since when did I say I blindly follow the law? Anyway, the proposed (I believe it was proposed) death penalty for gays in Uganda was also made for noble purposes, if incredibly misguided. It's important to remember that noble /=/ good, and ignoble /=/ bad.
(And also that the US government needs to stay away from my lunch; I'm tired of smuggling salt to school for everyone.)
Then you gonna LOVE /co/llege!
I don't know, I think I actually did get most of it out that time.
I'm just really worried furry is going to die a slow, painful death out of sight and out of mind of the rest of the world. Hell, a Congressional hearing may be the thing we need to get this thing really out there. When I say furry has never contributed anything of lasting value to the greater world, I mean it; will the world be reading Kyell Gold in 50 years? I have doubts furries will be in five.
I will say, though, that, as always, you're a wonderful bundle of contradictions, just like everyone else; you've said in the past you believe that a furry doesn't choose to be a furry, he just is. You live in a universe where there is neither God nor free will. I believe that the virtue we most admire is usually the one we posssess the least. You love rationality, but fight passionately over lost causes. Likewise, furries profess a love of artistic intregrity, but most of their art is made to appeal directly to other furries, rather than for truly artistic means.
I guess I like innocence, myself.
Also, Omaha the Cat dancer, because heaven forbid I go off-topic ...
God help us if you ever do...
I went to the movies last night, and watched Apollo 18.
Man, that movie sucked.
Seriously, the whole purpose of the "found footage" genre is verimisilitude (and also a really cheap budget), so by setting the movie on the freaking moon and featuring obviously CGI space crabs, the movie defeated its own purpose. In movies like Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project, part of the fun was the "realism." In fact, the The Blair Witch Project featured absolutely no special effects and the most expensive prop not pulling double duty filming the movie or being worn by the cast was a bloody handkerchief. And it was still was a much scarier movie. Cloverfield gets a pass for its CGI monster, because there was never any illusion that this happened for real; a Godzilla wannabe running around New York obviously never happened.
To a certain extent, the found footage mode of horror is one of the oldest forms of the horror genre; some of the first Gothic short stories (and therefore some of the first short stories, period) were written as supposedly found "fragments" of longer works hiding in old, abandoned castles and abbeys and such.
Edgar Allan Poe's "Ms. Found in a Bottle" was originally meant as a parody of the form, but failed as a parody because it worked so well as what it was parodying, though the joke in the title, once pointed out, is still a bit funny. Even as venerable a monster as Dracula originally appeared in a "found footage" novel; the novel begins with Jonathan Harker's diary entry reminding himself to find a new recipe for chicken and complaining about late trains.
More recent examples of the genre include Michael Crichton's Eaters of the Dead, which used an actual Arabian explorer's journal as a starting point, though Ibn Fadlan never actually encountered Neanderthal remnants. In other words, the form, though not as new as everyone thinks, is very workable. Apollo 18 just flubbed it.
The other problem with the movie was an incredibly lame monsters. Spoiler alert, but killer moon rocks. Really. Sure, they turn into crabs, making this the first movie to have its entire story told by a trailer for a Transformers sequel earlier the same year. The attack of the killer moon rocks are destined to appear beside the bunny rabbits of The Night of the Lepus and the washing machine of The Mangler on Cracked.com ripoff sites "Worst Monster Movies Ever" lists for decades.
All in all, should have seen Shark Night 3D. At least I wouldn't have gone in knowing it sucked; Apollo 18 had potential, but I'm going to have to not recommend it.
God helped by giving me endurance.
Have you seen Don't Be Afraid of the Dark yet?
No. Should I? Seriously, I've got one night off a week, and that's usually movie night, but it's September, and that's a dump months, so otherwise I'm going to The Help this week, because I made it through all 10 best picture nominees from last year, and it's getting solid buzz for a nom this year, so it's a head start.
In case you're wondering, totally see Toy Story 3, True Grit and The King's Speech, skip The Social Network and The Kids Are All Right unless you're a movie dork, and the rest see if something about them sparks your interest.
Why would you worry about that? And why do you care so much about it making a lasting contribution to the rest of the world? Furry is bigger than it's ever been and it's still growing. There was an article about how furry isn't an obscure fandom any more and in this year we must have mentioned at least four or five different talk shows or documentaries dealing with furries and there are a number of written articles about the fandom too. The fandom produced it's first movie, recently we got Inkbunny, SoFurry is upgrading itself. FNN and SoFurry both are spreading into new areas by having Android apps. Who cares if people are still reading Kyell Gold? He got some award for his books. Furry is not disappearing in five years and there's no reason to think that.
What there is a contradiction? Based on my definition of what makes someone a fur, "preference for anthropomorphic characters." No god and no free will because there is insufficient evidence to justify such a view. How is freedom of speech a lost cause? And even if it were how is that a contradiction to anything? Yes, furry art appeals to furries, that's because it's furry art. How is having a theme a lack of integrity?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
If you remember the article in question about the fandom and obscurity, I spent the comments section of the article in question calling the author a blithering idiot.
Do you listen to movie commentaries? I do. I loved J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. So of course I listened to the DVD commentary. Guy (plus his producers and writers) wouldn't shut-up about Trekkies, or Trekkers (and even the topic of Trekkie vs. Trekker was brought up).
I loved Gore Verbinski's Rango. The word furry did not make an appearance in the entire commentary to that movie. Not once. Not even a quick, derisive, sarcastic mention. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. His (and his producers and writers and whatnot) commentary was not unique.
You see a problem here?
The people making movies that appeal to us are unaware of our existence.
Why would I worry about that? Because, I don't know, I would like to maybe one day write my own goddamn movie and when I pitch it have somebody say, "Oh, yes, we'll produce this. There's an audience for it." instead of "What the fuck is this 'furry' shit?"
That's what a fandom is for; to prove a genre or whatever has a built in audience so the people in charge will put up the money to keep putting out the product.
What a fandom is not for is a bunch of social maladjusted nuts to get together on the Internet (and maybe once or twice a year at a convention) so they can pretend to live their lifelong dream of having a social life, and also maybe a blowjob.
Which is about all the furry fandom is currently good for, okay?
So, yeah, got a little ranty there, but, yeah, I think we can strive for a little more.
You, sir, are our residential voice of reason.
And, you, sir, are our residential ... actually, I don't think anybody knows. No, not even you.
You're residential, anyway.
Damn right he's residential! Get an account, hippy! *waves fist feebly*
>making accounts only to make comments
If it's "the voice of reason" to prefer The King's Speech to The Social Network, never has irrationality been more recommended.
I found The Social Network just too damn depressing.
The Kids are All Right was a comedy that was less funny than my three "must see" recommendations, though, so it was the worse of the two "skip" recommendations.
The King's Speech, admittedly, wore it's message on it's sleeve compared to just about everything else in the field, including Toy Story 3. It seemed more like a movie than a "film" compared to most of the other nominees, but then I didn't count that against it; in fact, my top three were the movies over "films."
Also, at Equi-Vamp, I saw Don't Be Afraid of the Dark tonight; want a comment review or what?
They don't need to be aware of our existence if the content is worthwhile. Here's a hint. If your movie is good enough to stand on its own it doesn't matter if people don't know about or even care about the furry fandom. If your movie can't exist except within the fandom then no one will care about it outside of the fandom and you'd become like a Kyell Gold book that everyone's forgotten about in 50 years.
Your issue has nothing to do with if the fandom is producing anything worthwhile or not. What you care about is attention and recognition. It just bothers you that no one knows about furry.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I think the point he's trying to make is that if people know there's a certain demographic that has an interest in that kind of movie, they'll focus on that kind of movie --> more "furry" movies are made, and they stop being primarily children's movies --> furries have more of what is likely to interest them that they don't have to be embarassed to watch.
It could also help make us more socially accepted, and help a few manchildren grow up.
There's nothing wrong with movies being geared toward a certain demographic; that doesn't mean we'll be the ones that truly embrace it (are you telling me MLP:FIM was written with /b/tards in mind?).
Or /co/mrads...
YES, IT BOTHERS ME NOONE KNOWS ABOUT FURRY OUTSIDE OF FURRIES AND OBNOXIOUS INTERNET PEOPLE.
It bothers me that it doesn't bother you. It's a little bit freaky, even. And it's not even unique to you. It's a little bit frightening that the average furry apparently likes having less impact on the world at large than a colony of termites.
This is weird stuff, man. It's like the entire furry fandom is on super-Ritalin.
"Furry: Our existence is completely pointless, just the way we like it!"
I think in the grand scheme of cosmic history it'd be hard to say that humanity's existence has a point. Part of the reason some would argue we defied religion, to at least believe something out there gives a crap about what we are doing.
MOSTLY agree with you, because you are MOSTLY right. Observe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUwIYfykyss&feature=player_detailpage#t=213s
I think it's more that we like being obscure, because that means we have the freedom to do as we like. Getting noticed might be beneficial for some in the fandom, but it could also bring restrictions on our activities.
At the same time, we don't want furry to be unfindable by the right people. We just don't want to dilute the special community that we feel we have.
I want you to look in the mirror, and repeat the following phrase a hundred times:
"I am not special".
Because none of us are.
Might not help that you are comparing furries to a fandom that already had conventions of several thousand attendees in the 70s, with now conventions ten times the size of furry cons, and some that meet multiple times during the same year from demand and limits on the size of conventions. Or that you are comparing to what to many was considered the quintessential fandom. Or that there is a massive number of fans that are outside of and don't closely identify with that fandom.
I've heard furries get mentioned in a few places of movie and TV show commentaries, so it seems at least some people in the industry are aware of them. It is more a matter they don't care, whether from lack of identity with them (unlike say the number of sci-fi nerds you can easy find working on some such movies) or don't think the group is large enough to matter for purposes of direct business or generating hype.
Beyond making sure perspective members know of the fandom, it shouldn't matter how large a fandom is. Some groups of people will have to deal with the fact the topic and strength of their interest is uncommon, and there just are not that many people who share it in that way.
Or that there is a massive number of fans that are outside of and don't closely identify with that fandom.
Oh, you nailed it! This is a good thing.
But this isn't.
Beyond making sure perspective members know of the fandom
This is not about a recruitment drive; we need that "periphery fandom." That's what I'd like to see; a group of people who are aware of furry and enjoy it, but don't necessarily see the need to "sign up." There needs to be the core, but there also needs to be the group of people who are not against it. To a certain extent, it seems like the furry mindset is you're either for us or against us; allowing people outside the fandom to enjoy the product without expecting them to sign up is not an unreasonable request.
This is where I'm struggling with the average furry's mindset; growth of the fandom is not an end in and of itself, which it apparently is for every furry who isn't me.
Let me painstakingly clear. The only reason I would give a crap at all if the fandom got larger is that it might convince the corporate bigwigs to invest in the product, which is furry art, because a larger audience means more money for them. More investment from them means more product for me, not to mention more opportunity for me or other furry artists to actually make a respectable living via their art.
Yes, the product they give out would probably be watered down, but right now the furry fandom is publishing comics about completely non-anthropomorphic dragons raping completely non-anthropomorphic horses and expecting people to pay real money for them, so this might be a case where a little watering down is not necessarily a bad thing. "Respectable" is the key word here.
Also, I brought up the "quintessential" fandom because it is "quintessential;" I don't know about you, but I'd rather aim for "quintessential" fandom over the "kinda shitty, actually" fandom, which, if the rest of the fandoms get any vote on the subject, that's our position on the chart.
And what shows? Seriously, I got a Netflix account and time to waste. Quotes if you feel up to it.
I mentioned making it know to prospective members not in the name of making the fandom larger, but because it could be beneficial to the those with similar interests. Many people have discussed how they found out about the fandom by accident, years after developing the interests, and it might have been nicer if they found it quicker.
I don't see why the strong drive to give something to the world in the form of furry art or to influence outside creations (short of the desire for more stuff for furries to consume). If some story/game/film would work better with anthro animals and be enjoyed as such by a broad audience, then doing so would simply be part of good storytelling. Going out of their way to specially appeal to furries would only be of benefit for furries, otherwise it would have been done for the sake of the larger group it benefits and not just furries.
And there are quite a few furries that try to leave positive influence on the world from the fandom. But instead of saying, "Let's give the world what we like, it will be good for them," the more practical minded ask what the non-furs actually want first. So instead of art do things more like charity work, with the furry element, like fursuits, just being a means to that end.
Otherwise, this reminds me of those husbands that give their wife a tool as a present that she doesn't want, just so the husband can use it.
I remember the Futurama commentary discusses if some guy who liked to dress up as Bender was like a furry. I don't remember others at the moment since it has been a few years since I've watched DVDs with commentary.
Futurama was about what I expected. Basically, an incredibly nerdy show.
I really have no idea what you're talking about with the charity work. Seriously, if you think I'm worried about our reputation, I'm not. In fact, a "bad" reputation is, if nothing else, even more exploitable than a good one. And I have no problem with exploitation.
My mindset is neither the "let's give them what we like because it will be good for them" or "let's give them what they want," but "let's convince them that what we want and what they want are the same thing" which probably wouldn't even be dishonest, at a basic level.
What "they" want is something new yet familiar, which applies to furry art. It takes familiar cartoon animals, and does something new with them; furry has developed a distinctive style that goes beyond just "adult;" I can't articulate the exact differences without writing a a small treatise, but I believe there is something new on the planet with furry that has never been seen before.
It's actually more about the development of the art; the way furries use anthropomorphic animals is essentially different than how they have been used in the past. The next step is to bring this to outsiders and get there take on it, which will spur new directions.
Because right now I see stagnation. Furry is becoming a little inbred, actually. Also a bit self-destructive.
I really do believe in furry, as an artform; I believe, if given the chance, it can be taken seriously on it's own merits. As a group of people, I'll be generous and say, meh, whatever.
To a certain extent, what I'm getting here is a feeling that furry art is being hidden; it's like the opposite of the kid's hymn "This Little Light of Mine." I do see some artists actually caring, but the average fan is, for whatever reason, afraid to actually show what they are a fan of.
Fear is a lot of it, I think. I've seen comments that literally say "I don't want to be laughed at." I think that's wrong on two levels; it's cowardice wrong on one level, and, just factual wrong in that, hey, we're already being laughed at.
I mean, really, it's about the purpose of art, especially story-telling. Stoy-telling is story-sharing; if a work of art is never seen, heard, screened, whatever, does it even really exist?
Yes, Green Reaper makes the point that exposure to an audience changes art. I'm getting into my view of what art is and what it does, but when I've done something creative, the audience reaction and the change to what I'm doing to get a better reaction is the single most important thing in the creative process.
Furry has played to a captive audience for long enough; the next step in the process is to bring in a new one.
And even if I am wrong, and furry does truly horrify the general public or whatever, well, then at least I know where we stand.
So, anyway, that was really something. An offhand comment about The Lion King porn in an article page about Omaha the Cat Dancer. We've gone all over the board. How did that happen?
Where are you getting all your smart?
It's not smarts, it's verbose self-righteousness.
God forbid this guy and Swatcher ever marry and have a kid: the child would use up all the Earth's oxygen just fucking gasbagging.
Probaby true, actually.
About the verbose self-righteousness. I don't know this Swatcher person. Is she hot?
Swatcher's a man.
But, really, which is the more ridiculous concept: That two men might somehow spawn a child -- or that Watership Down, according to your contrived ideological agenda, doesn't qualify as furry?
"Contrived ideological agenda."
Okay.
Desiring_Change, go away. Nobody likes you.
(If you're not desiring_change, apologies. Nobody should have to be compared to that guy.)
Go fuck yourself, Crossie you cunt.
What?
Oh,man, this is the post you call me a "cunt" for? Really?
The "let's convince them that what we want and what they want are the same thing" still sounds like "let's give them what we like because it will be good for them." It still assumes that the central interests of the fandom are widely shared on some significant level, and is kind of a self-centred view of others.
While it is possible for some furry art to stand on its own, it would be because of its novelty or simply because it is well done art. Being furry would likely be quite ancillary. It wouldn't be a contribution from the fandom and more of simply a creator doing well, making appropriate choices for setting, genre, style, etc. And I think you over-estimate what other fandoms have achieved. They do get acknowledged and the inside references or other fancruft, but I don't know how much internal works had mainstream appeal as opposed to something made for mainstream appeal and not really within the confines of the fandom any more.
This remind me of non-furs I meet off-line who have known a furry at some previous point. They frequently viewed the furry aspect as kind of a negative, but not because of the usual baseless or stereotyping junk trolls say. Instead, the complaint was the excess aggrandising of interests. It wasn't that the non-fur hated anthro stuff, they just didn't care and eventually got tired of it coming up so much. This isn't so much about reputation, as just dealing with interaction between those with different interests.
The mention of charity came up not because of reputation, but because when you said, "When I say furry has never contributed anything of lasting value to the greater world," you make it sound like it is about giving something to the world. The charity is an example of giving something to the world that isn't just more of what we already consume and an example of thinking in broader terms.
And yes, Futurama is a concentration of nerdy people, but by now there are a lot of nerdy people in TV and film industries. You can come across many such people that grew up with Star Wars/Star Trek, comic books, etc., including many that went to conventions and spend time on the internet with other fans. This also means they had the same chance of exposure to the various works that got people interested in anthros before finding the fandom, although in the end that is a much smaller number than people interested in say sci-fi.
I think we're both being too black-and-white in our terms, here.
There is a difference between where we are and where we could be. It's not about conquering the world. It's about expanding a bit. Basically, furry should have its fifteen minutes of fame, just like everyone else.
I think I'll use the Bitter Lake example; yeah, it was a long shot that it would ever actually get any type of distribution to movie rental services, and theatrical release is right out. But if you're going to take the to time make a movie, and by all accounts make it well, I find it a little odd nobody involved in the production even tried.
That's what bothers me. What you're saying is actually perfectly logical, it makes sense, and it is fairly realistic. But it just feels wrong. More like its so convincing because you're convincing yourself, I think. And it's a double con; proving first, it can't be done, then second, this is normal.
We both have made fairly baseless claims as to what is normal for a fandom. To make another one, Trekkers have been annoying their friends by blithering on about their show for generations, now. Same with any other fandom, down to music. I know a fan of the band Rush that can be very irritating about his devotion to Neil Peart, but guess who has an Ipod full of Rush songs now?
You're logic is fine. Furry's success is not guaranteed, and you bring up valid reasons why it may never succeed. But you can't win the lottery if you never play it.
I'm coming to realize the problem here is fear of rejection; you've argued yourself into a corner. You've proven to yourself that it is impossible, so there is no need to try. Furthermore, you've proven to yourself that you've already gotten everything you wanted, so you don't even need to try.
You know, there's a reason I put my name, my real name, next to my articles, while you can't even be bothered to put your fake furry name next to your comments.
I'm thinking it is not even an issue of too much black & white, but an issue of one is black versus white and another is red versus blue. You seem to be defining success of the fandom in terms of this ability to reach outside the fandom, whereas I disagree, not about the possibility, but about defining success as such. Disagreeing is not accepting failure or fear of rejection if not even thinking of it as a matter of success or failure.
The particular issue is not that someone within the fandom can't create something that transcends the fandom, but that as work broadens its appeal, it loses characteristics identified with the furry fandom. At some point it is just as possible to for a non-fur to produce such a work as a furry, and the furry influence becomes inconsequential, beyond being one of many possible muses.
And I did get lazy after several attempts at registration here didn't work, but also don't think it matters. I don't care who the posts, mine or others, are attributed to (unless an actual appeal to authority is relevant), as it is about the contents of the posts (or lack there of in some other recent cases).
I actually want to start by apologizing, because my last post was dreadfully unfair; I pretty much accused you of cowardice and then posited the only way to prove you're not is to do what I want you to do, which I didn't really do on purpose, but is unfair, so sorry.
I'm not talking about the anonymous stuff (I can totally believe laziness), I mean that it's fear of failure or embarassment keeping furry back.
Since it got brought up by another anonymous guy, would you consider Watership Down furry? In that case, obviously, the furries had no influence on the work, as they, well, didn't exist yet.
Your definition of furry art seems to be "art produced by furries," as opposed to what a lot of Flayrah furries seem to going by, which is "everything, as long as it has something that could be construed as an anthropomorphic animal if you turn your head and squint right in it."
In this case, it may be a question of ownership; do furries "own" furry art, exclusively? Can any group lay claim to an artform like that?
Furry seems to have two definitions as an adjective, beyond the dictionary one: being of or related to the furry fandom, and being related to anthropomorphic animals (alternatively, something subject of the defining interest of the fandom). Something like Watership Down or Omaha fall under the second definition given. Previously I was talking about the first definition (and tried to use the word fandom a lot to make it more clear), as you seemed to be discussing in terms of the fandom producing something.
There are probably some nebulous qualities someone from the fandom could add to a work that give it a flavour of the fandom. That is the portion that would fade or go unnoticed by a broader audience. It could still be about anthropomorphic animals and related themes. But for the most part would probably be appreciated by a general audience not quite the same reasons as furries would. And since it would be something that could have been produced by a nonfur or not, how much can the fandom claim it? To me it seems harder to view it as a proud product of the fandom when it is more a matter of being lucky that a skilled creator happened to be in the fandom.
I only just now have thought of an avenue for an outward directed work to be characteristically of furry fandoml, in my view at least. It would have to be some sort of collaboration that takes advantage of the networking and community, more than just a circle of friends plus a person or two. The point being for furry fandom to be more than just a footnote to work. I'm not sure where something like Bitter Lake would fall, as it would probably have to be on a wholly different level in size and production (I randomly thinking of something like the Blender community productions). I still don't think achieving that would be a matter of the fandom succeeding or failing though. Such a work would be limited in who could be involved too, as only specific kinds of works can be made in such a way, and would involve a small subset of the skills represented across the fandom. At some point how there might be a trade-off of how inclusive you can be of the community and the quality of the work, as the community is only so large and we have only so many people with the appropriate skills, and it may kind of end back up circle of friends level.
Everything gets a name. There is no "right" to choose it; the group which wins will be those who choose well to begin with and who work hardest to popularize their choice. However, as a reference writer, I'd much rather furry be a term for all works involving anthropomorphic animals than it be restricted to works created by or for furry fans, which is far harder to define.
It makes things very simple: Does Watership Down involve animals with human characteristics? Check. OK, it's furry. No argument about affiliation or motivation.
Does this suck for people who failed to popularize their own brand? Well, too bad. They should have started a funny animal convention (see also scientific romance). I understand there are legitimate concerns in the animation industry, but if everyone stopped avoiding the term and applied it to their own work, it would lose its sting. Use of the term is inevitable now; might as well get it over with.
At least we had the chance to choose our name. The impressionists were named in a piece of satire, though they quickly adopted the term as their own.
I'm a Methodist, myself.
I don't know, it just reminds me of Lamar's argument about An American Werewolf in London, which is stupid for two reasons:
1. An American Werewolf in London is the least anthropomorphic werewolf movie ever made, and
2. as I pointed at out the time, calling An American Werewolf in London and My Little Pony the same thing is stupid as all get out. Lamar even backpedaled and said he hadn't meant that, which makes me wonder what the heck he thought he did mean.
So, Green Reaper, I've brought up the pigeon in Moonraker before. Since obviously Moonraker is furry (and I will brook no arguments otherwise), is it safe to assume the entire James Bond series of movies is also furry? Except for Never Say Never Again, of course, or does that count to?
I would consider works separately. We have seen quite recently that one work in a series may be significantly less furry than the others. When anthropomorphic characters are not the focus of a series, it's quite likely that even if one features them, others will not.
So the answer to your question is no, the presence of anthropomorphic animals in one Bond movie does not make the entire series furry. Compare this with the Redwall universe, where it would be extremely difficult to write a non-furry story.
Also, I am somewhat dubious of werewolves as furry, because they tend to be humans who gain animal characteristics (zoomorphic) rather than animals who gain human characteristics (anthropomoprhic).
Of course Never Say Never Again counts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx4mmscO0p4
Well, that's just perfect, actually.
I just finished writing up my "Award Watch" for September, and since nothing is really happening, I did a rundown on furry Oscar "snubs," in which An American Tail will be featured.
Since I didn't want the list to go on forever, but I wasn't about to go with any super-specific definition, because, you know, then there wouldn't be, well, anything, I came up with a decent compromise definition; I covered only movies that feature anthropomorphic animals in a leading role.
And didn't suck, obviously.
Also, Green Reaper two things;
1. You didn't say Moonraker wasn't furry yet. You're probably not a Bond fan and barely remember the movie if you've even seen it, so I really doubt you'd actually count a movie furry for a five second shot of a pigeon, and are assuming the pigeon is more important that what it actually is; Lord knows, Moonraker containing talking pigeons would have been less daft than that movie's actual plot; and
2. Actually, you got time to be starting fights with me, you got time to put up my Star Fox review. It's probably already too late, but watch those Texans; they assimilate like the Borg, man. Swear to God, after one semester at West Texas University, I barely recognized my brother. Just be careful.
The Russians are more dangerous.
Trust me, since I used to be one.
Then obviously, you can be cured of being Russian.
Unfortunately, no known cure exists for Texans.
Texans were the first ones to like Monty Python (before it was cool).
(in b4 hipster joke)
MLP:FIM has mysteries but they are not anywhere near a focus in most episodes, therefore we don't tend to call those episodes a mystery. The same goes for furry. It's a scale.
I'm driving 11+ hours in a truck today, and 10 tomorrow. Reviews will be processed in the order received; there are others waiting. I'll try to be careful, thanks.
Well, I'll hold off on the column, which isn't even remotely timely, then. I need to add links, and that gives me a headache quick (you've probably noticed I've gotten lazier and lazier with the links as time goes by), so I'll just take the opportunity to wimp out for a while. Sonius' article was timely, so good job getting it out there.
In case anyone interested is wading through all the bullshit, buy Star Fox 64 3DS if you don't already have easy access to a working N64 with a copy or have the Virtual Console download on a Wii, but do have a 3DS.
Pfft. We don't need the rest of the world. No gods or men, only furs! (Just wait until I get that island in the South Pacific and go all Dr. Moreau-N-Furter with the locals…)
As for "art", 98% of it is of little interest beyond its artist and commissioner, but that's hardly unique to furry fandom. Nor are artists who make a quick buck to keep a roof over their heads. There are good artists out there and they are getting better and more numerous over time.
David Lillie comes to mind.
Also, you cannot live without approval of at least SOME of your society. You cannot just take a small group of friends and live on an island.
I don't see why not, if you own the island. Most governments don't pay close attention to what you're doing on your own property, as long as you pay your taxes. As for protestors . . . well, that's what the shark-morphs are for.
However, this is getting off-topic. Perhaps we should have a feature on "best places to create your own race of human-animal hybrids". :-)
The things you say here are always more entertaining when you're long-winded.
If you are going to attach your own distinctions, nuanced or not, to a common word, you might want to point those out ahead of time so as to not look like you're equivocating. Others don't differentiate from art based on the instantaneity versus longevity of the impact or necessity of completion.
Um, yeah they do.
These ideas are hardly unique to me.
That post didn't say or imply the idea was unique to you, only that they are far from universal and not fundamental to the common use of the word.
"Instant gratification" is a euphemism for masturbation, okay?
Happy now?
"The sheer amount of creativity gone to waste is staggering."
Are people familiar with the sad story of Henrietta Lacks, a woman who died of cancer in 1951? Doctors took samples of her tumor for research -- and sixty years on, decades after her death, those cancer cells are still alive, still growing, still dividing, in medical laboratories all over the world, to this day.
Indeed, it's been calculated that the total combined mass of all these Henrietta Lacks mini-tumors, grown and cultivated over the years, far outweighs the original body weight of humble Henrietta Lacks herself, like some mutated, montrous blob in a 50s monster movie!
All of which, I guess, is my way of saying that all these millions of words of Lion King pornography written over the years are the slash fiction equivalent of poor Henrietta's horrible tumor, still growing, still metastasising, to this day...
I am sad now :'(
Yes, because pornography is like cancer, people die from it every day I suppose...
I think I'm going to devote the next 5-10 years setting up many and various ranting anti-pornography websites, blogs and YouTube videos. Then I'm going to get myself banned from FurAffinity after threatening to take them to court for their disgusting "pro-pornography" stance, make a funky fursuit and go on the AnthroCon parade, while all the while a legion of dumbfuck white-knighters cheer me like I'm the second coming.
I think I'll call myself 'AntiPorn Anteater', LOL.
(Isn't it great that in reality the so-called 'furry community' couldn't possibly be so stupid as to sign up for this, or defend those who do? Oh, wait... :-( )
What r u tawking abowt??
I usually find myself thinking that after one of your comments, actually, but in this case, right on.
Your words compelled me to google "death by pornography", just out of curiosity. I wound up at an article entitled "10 Most Bizarre Deaths in the Porn Industry". But what was more interesting was another article in the sidebar: "14 Extreme Animal-Humans".
I thought I'd link to it here, as it may be of interest to furry readers. Stalking Cat is featured, along with fursuiter Lucky Wolf at the Furries Vs. Klingons event.
Post new comment