A moment of peculiar anger

[chipotle]

The other day I read Postvixen's journal entry which said, in part, "I have terrible nostalgia for Albedo and for furry comics and fanzines from that era. In my subconscious mind, they're something far, far greater than their parts. Maybe someday I can express what it was about their nature that made furry seem so appealing to me, then. [...] Carla Speed McNeil's Finder is closer to the perfect expression of what drew me to furry fandom -- which is a damn shame, because it's not really furry. Let's face it, furry never really produced its Sandman, much less its Invisibles, and it's looking less and less likely that it will."

This floated in about the time I'd adopted an air I guess I'd described as resigned amusement to things like the recent C.S.I. episode, and somewhat less amusement toward things like the "Eat All Furries" LiveJournal group, which, like most such things, occasionally goes out of its way collectively to assure readers that they don't hate what they mock, then goes on, also collectively, to assert things about "most" furries that make the occasional embarrassing mainstream coverage seem positively flattering. (Did you know that most of us are aging pedophiles constantly cruising chat rooms for sex with teenage boys? Shocked me, since I've been involved with the fandom for going on fifteen years now and have yet to meet a single one. But it must be true, right? I read it on the internet!)

So, these thoughts struck with an odd combination of melancholia and determination. Furry was about art and writing and reading and creating with animal characters, telling stories for adults and for children and all ages in between. That's the core. Furry stories get their power by standing mimesis on its head. Just as science fiction is often the best genre to explore questions of spirituality, non-human characters are often the best to explore questions of what being human means.

And there's no reason why it has to be "was" instead of "is." I'm tired of worrying that I'm going to be lumped in with a largely mythical fetish group that has sex in mascot outfits, or that people are going to come across sordid artwork with cartoon animals and lump my writing in with that. (If they decide my writing is sordid on its own merits, that's another matter.) It's not a religion and it's not a fetish and it's not a lifestyle and people may bring all sorts of their own baggage to it just like they do to any endeavor, and because any group of people with common interests will form a loose confederation, it's saddled with the advantages and blessed with the disadvantages of any subculture. The community, such as it is, of furry fans isn't much different than the community of goths or geeks or ravers or the high school chess club.

I'm not the comic fan I once was; I suppose I'm waiting for the furry answer to The Stars My Destination or Neuromancer, a Charles De Lint, a John Crowley, a Hemingway, a Faulkner. Part of me wonders whether it's too late; part of me wonders if it's more likely to happen now than a decade ago--there's more writing in the fandom going on, and more paying markets specifically focused on anthropomorphic animal stories and novels, than at any time before. Part of me wonders if I'm just way behind schedule on writing it.

But I suppose I'm left with a parallel question to Postvixen's. Put into words, my feelings sound like a cry to take back furry fandom, but take it back from who, exactly?

Comments

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I don't know if the question is "who to take it back from" but "who will take it back" and "how." Fandom hasn't really reacted well--or at least, not consistently--to any efforts made by people to do something more serious or literary with it. And there are plenty of people outside the fandom who are creating serious work with anthropomorphic characters that are completely discounted by people in the fandom.

Isn't Maus a good candidate for our Sandman, for instance?

[wingywoof.livejournal.com]

I attended Furloween last weekend and much to my surprise there were a number of folks that I spoke with who did not call themselves furry.... despite wearing tails and ears.. Fine. Ok. Whatever.

The reasoning behind their lack of identification with the fandom centers around the points you've just mentioned. Furries catch crap from people who are ignorant or simply just don't know anything besides what the media has told them.

Four people I can name uttered something to the effect of, "I'm not furry, but all my friends are." That's reasonable and understandable because I'm sure that's a common situation. It's good to know that others find the fandom through their friends.

What disturbed me was that each one of them also cited various media spectacles such as MTV or CSI or The Daily Show while they justified their feelings and actions to me.

Instead of associating themselves with something that they might have to explain or run the risk of being misinterpreted, they would rather have nothing to do with it. This is what I have a problem with.

I'll be the first to say it, I'm furry.

I would like to think that when people make the distinction and call me on my affilation, instead of denying it in order to save what little face I have, I would let them know where I stand and let them decide where they are, instead of discounting my own feelings and beliefs just so I might not look like a freak or a loser.

Instead of folks saying, "Hey Brant, you're into that furry stuff eh? You must be weird like all the off beat reports I have heard", I would like to think that after knowing me for awhile people would instead say, "Hey Brant, I've known you for awhile and if *you're* into furry, maybe it isn't so bad after all."

[rancourt.livejournal.com]

My belief is that you want it taken back from the detractors, who say 'Furry fandom is just a bunch of aging fat pederasts in fox costumes rubbing off on one another.' The problem the fandom has, I think, is that its only answer to that outcry is 'Um...no, it's not. It's about...um...well...no. No, it's not.'

You want someone to do something that screams 'THIS is what furry fandom is about!' so that when you mean those detractors, you can say, 'That's the psycho fringe element -- THIS is what *I* mean when I say I'm a furry fan.'

You want there to be something clearly 'furry' that's so good, the mainstream has to recognize and acknowledge it.

I hear ya.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Good things -have- come out of the fandom before, though. And from outside it, that involve furries, like Watership Down, Tailchaser's Song... heck, even Finding Nemo.

No one in the fandom talks about those anymore, though.

What irritates me the most about furry fandom is how it ghettoizes itself. People no longer seem to look outside the fandom for inspiration or for their fiction, their movies, their pictures, whatever. It used to be I could talk to "furries" about Egyptian gods, Aesop's Fables, the Chanur novels, Decision at Doona and Anne McCaffrey's dragons, and movies that involved talking animals that aren't by Disney or animated.

Now I mention those things to people who claim to be diehard furries and they look confused. They want their homegrown comics. They want to buy from people inside the fandom. And the moment you leave the fandom, some people insist on treating you as if you've betrayed them. You've gone "mainstream?" Oh no! Avoid, avoid!

I have some anger about this, yes. There's no making a living in furry fandom. It's become too narrow.

[rancourt.livejournal.com]

*nod* I think you're more clearly illustrating the other side to what I was trying to get at -- that 'mainstream'-accepted work with some furry element becomes polarized, the mainstream author denies its 'furriness' out of fear of being lumped into the same pile with the 'sickos,' and the fandom being very cliquish and insular, and refusing to validate anything that isn't 'of them, by them and exclusively for them.'

What I feel we need is someone (recently) to do something so successful that it *earns* mainstream attention and respect -- and have the guts to say 'now *this* is what I feel the whole furry thing is about.'

Just my two bits.

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

That's something of the irony, though -- there are probably at least as many people making at least a substantial part of their income now through "furry" endeavors than there were circa 1990. The fandom has become just big enough that it's a sustainable, if perhaps not thriving, closed ecosystem. People find the fandom chiefly through online manifestations, introduced to things by roleplayers, artists and other fans who themselves arrived the same way, introduced by fans who themselves very likely arrived the same way. Artists such as Terrie Smith, Reed Waller and Bill Fitts were drawing on underground and mainstream comic artists like Wendy Pini and Vaughn Bode for inspiration, and finding their way in and around furrydom based on an intersection of larger interests. Fans and fan artists now are starting out in furrydom exposed to artists who were influenced by people who were influenced by people who were influenced by Terrie Smith, Reed Waller and Bill Fitts.

Which actually gets into a tangential topic, but that's one I'd bring up in a response to Xydexx. :)

Don't Believe Everything You See On TV.

[xydexx.livejournal.com]

Furry was about art and writing and reading and creating with animal characters, telling stories for adults and for children and all ages in between.

I disagree. Furry still is about art and writing and reading and creating with animal characters, telling stories for adults and for children and all ages in between.

The problem with attempts to "take back the fandom" is that they tried to take it back from people who have every right to be here. I've seen them repeat the same mistake over the past decade: They tried to kick these folks out, and then acted surprised when these folks kicked right back.

Honestly, what did they expect was going to happen?

Re: Don't Believe Everything You See On TV.

[rubberskunk.livejournal.com]

Seeing this particular comment did stir me a bit, but I'm not going to go back to Great Old Battles of Furrydom.

Suffice it to say, I am one of those sickos. Generally I'm not one in *public*, say, but I am one of them, certainly. But I consider furry to be an exploration of the human condition - particularly those parts of the human condition that seem to be exiled from current "mainstream" existence. Many people I've known over the years have reached furry because they've felt like they couldn't be accepted in the "real world" - with various degrees of alienation.

On the other hand, one of my favorite series of books is the Redwall series, which I've followed on and off for years. Quite charming books.

I'm willing to sit in my little corner, not bother anyone else, and muse for the rest of my life. I'm afraid that any group will get tarred by the actions of its most extreme members - goths, political parties, clubs, etc. I'm not asking to represent furry, myself. If concerned people want to form something else out of furry, please go ahead and go do it - I certainly have - but leave me alone and I'll do the same.

I have no fondness attached to Albedo, Genus, etc. etc. If you want to help create furry's Sandman - or furry's Stephen King, for that matter - start organizing. To some extent, even, I'd love to help.

Re: Don't Believe Everything You See On TV.

[xydexx.livejournal.com]

Suffice it to say, I am one of those sickos. Generally I'm not one in *public*, say, but I am one of them, certainly.

Yeah, I'm one of those sickos too, although I don't think I'd call myself a "sicko" since there's nothing wrong with what I do. -:) I'd describe myself as a well-behaved pervert. (Or, as postvixen calls it, pervert with honor (http://xydexx.livejournal.com/2002/01/04/).) We set a good example by being discreet and keeping to ourselves.

Having said that, to be totally honest I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole "representing the fandom" thing these days, mainly because I've gone a few too many times through the cycle of hearing the Big Complainers whining about image problems, suggesting solutions and realizing the Big Complainers don't actually want solutions, and going back to investing my time in having fun and just being the silly squeaky pony everyone knows and loves.

I hate wasting my time. Doubly so when other people waste it. And lately, I cannot think of a worse investment of my time than trying to make the fandom a nice place for the Big Complainers who'll only thank me by trying their hardest to drive me out of it.

Re: Don't Believe Everything You See On TV.

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

I don't think that furry isn't about those things now -- hence the whole part that says "it doesn't have to be 'was.'" Read it a little more poetically than literally.

My concern, which isn't a new one for me, is that the things that originally attracted me to the fandom--and maybe originally attracted Postvixen, and others--are often lost in the noise. The danger with skewed mainstream coverage, perhaps, isn't that it portrays fandom "incorrectly" as much as it may attract people who want to be part of what's being portrayed, and don't have any interest in the original, broader parts of the fandom. This was one of the few flamewars I got into on alt.fan.furry way back when, after I pointed out that someone's ConFurence report talked about all the sex he'd had at the convention and didn't so much as mention a single visit to the dealers' room, let alone any con programming. Some furry fans have historically had a really, really strong resistance to the idea that concepts have boundaries, that if "Furry Fan" actually means something, by definition it excludes other things. But this isn't a matter of cliquishness or prudishness, it's a matter of linguistics. (I've argued in the past that the people who did want to run subgroups out of furry fandom on a rail were often acting out of wild overreaction to the "furry is anything you say it is" crowd.)

As others have pointed out, if there's an answer to my rhetorical question, it isn't about taking things back from fans, little cliques and splinter groups, it's about recovering the word, the concept--and, I'd argue without intentional melodrama, the fandom itself--from detractors. And, yes, I think this might mean telling people, "this isn't about sex in latex fursuits," and it might even mean telling someone who only wants to have sex in latex fursuits to go to Las Vegas. But in the final analysis, it has to be about showcasing the best, most universal things in furrydom, and maybe about creating more of them--not about narrowing things, but about opening them up widely again.

Re: Don't Believe Everything You See On TV.

[xydexx.livejournal.com]

I don't think that furry isn't about those things now -- hence the whole part that says "it doesn't have to be 'was.'" Read it a little more poetically than literally.

Sorry, my mistake. -:)

But this isn't a matter of cliquishness or prudishness, it's a matter of linguistics.

Agreed. Something tells me if well-meaning but misguided folks had said "furry fandom isn't about being gay" instead of "there are too many gays in furry fandom," we would have saved ourselves a lot of yelling and screaming and hurt feelings all around.

As others have pointed out, if there's an answer to my rhetorical question, it isn't about taking things back from fans, little cliques and splinter groups, it's about recovering the word, the concept--and, I'd argue without intentional melodrama, the fandom itself--from detractors. And, yes, I think this might mean telling people, "this isn't about sex in latex fursuits," and it might even mean telling someone who only wants to have sex in latex fursuits to go to Las Vegas. But in the final analysis, it has to be about showcasing the best, most universal things in furrydom, and maybe about creating more of them--not about narrowing things, but about opening them up widely again.

Absolutely. I have no problem with that.

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you've read it already, but try "When We Were Real" by William Barton. It sounds like the sort of hard SF novel with furries that you might find interesting, though it's not furry-specific.

As for who to take back the fandom from, I'm as lost as you. Rosicrucians maybe? Shriners? Lithuanian carpet merchants?

*gurgle*

[dracosphynx.livejournal.com]

Have you actually read "When We Were Real"?

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Oh no, Doodles! You will inspire the "When We Were Real" rant! Run away! Run away!

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

I wasn't aware there was a rant on the topic.

Would it have been safer to suggest David Brin's Uplift trilogy?