Generally the stories I submit to the outside world aren't ones where that question is likely to come up. Presuming In Our Image ever gets finished in its new incarnation, people reading it aren't likely to think "talking funny animal," because the story simply isn't structured that way.
And I always do keep Michael Payne in mind. The Blood Jaguar would be considered obviously furry by any furry fan, and indeed the first story about the characters in it appeared in FurVersion. He just happens to be a really good writer. And it was published. In hardcover. And got a Nebula nomination.
My biggest concern about the media circus is, of course, that it narrows the definition of "furry" to something that was always, to my mind, at best peripheral--it's being looked at not as a fandom, but as a sexual fetish. I don't blame the media for this. The only people willing to talk to them are the ones who treat it like a sexual fetish. The rest of us just seem to whine about how awful the media is, and say, "but there's nothing we can do about it, so we're not going to bother talking." Anyone see the logic flaw? Anybody? ... Bueller?
The media attention that's been put on conventions when the cons reach out first has generally been good. Sure, there will be media people who only want to focus on the lurid. But even that could be potentially turned around; it'll just take a will on the part of most fans to say, "Hey, when those people say 'furry' they mean something completely different than what it's meant for twenty years." That'd turn the feature story into "War of the Geeks," more than likely, but at least that'd be funny!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2002-01-04 03:59 (UTC)And I always do keep Michael Payne in mind. The Blood Jaguar would be considered obviously furry by any furry fan, and indeed the first story about the characters in it appeared in FurVersion. He just happens to be a really good writer. And it was published. In hardcover. And got a Nebula nomination.
My biggest concern about the media circus is, of course, that it narrows the definition of "furry" to something that was always, to my mind, at best peripheral--it's being looked at not as a fandom, but as a sexual fetish. I don't blame the media for this. The only people willing to talk to them are the ones who treat it like a sexual fetish. The rest of us just seem to whine about how awful the media is, and say, "but there's nothing we can do about it, so we're not going to bother talking." Anyone see the logic flaw? Anybody? ... Bueller?
The media attention that's been put on conventions when the cons reach out first has generally been good. Sure, there will be media people who only want to focus on the lurid. But even that could be potentially turned around; it'll just take a will on the part of most fans to say, "Hey, when those people say 'furry' they mean something completely different than what it's meant for twenty years." That'd turn the feature story into "War of the Geeks," more than likely, but at least that'd be funny!