Furry Home Companion
2004-02-15 17:33![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chipotleWell, It's been a quiet week here in Lake...
...wait, that's not my transcript.
Discussion on the "Dignified Furs" mailing list continues in an interesting but, I suspect, largely non-productive fashion. It's difficult to pry the discussion off the "bad egg" theory, the idea that there are people in the fandom who are responsible for most of the perceived problems and that if only the fandom could collectively ostracize these people somehow it would represent a great step forward. This line of thinking is attractive because it's perfectly logical: if there's a problem, it has a cause, and if you could address the cause, you'd address the problem. The flaw, of course, is that you can't take this premise anywhere without catching flames that you probably deserve. What's the criteria for determining who's a bad egg? Who gets to set those criteria? (The original epigram from my novel In Our Image was a quote from C. S. Lewis: "Aristotle said that some people were fit only to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I see no men fit to be masters.")
The discussion is interesting, as I said, in spite of this, in part because a spiritual therianthrope has shown up who is not conforming to what I suspect the--well, let's not call him burned, but definitely singed--fellow has in mind as a stereotype. If we're honest, it's not a difficult stereotype to subscribe to. But, hey--I'm a Unitarian Universalist, getting back into the church after a few years of solo practice. Our stereotypical response to a well-spoken therianthrope would be, "Would you like to speak about it after the service two Sundays from now?"
And my take on anthropomorphics has often been canted toward the therianthropic, I suspect--the second, still-born incarnation of Mythagoras was subtitled New Myths and Animal Legends, and the title story of "Why Coyotes Howl" is arguably pretty therianthropic. I've had a long fascination with shamanism which frequently dovetails with an interest in magic realism. As a storyteller, the core ideas, this sort of expansion of the Jungian gestalt to all of animal creation--this is the good stuff. This is what the true stories come from.
At any rate, all this is rekindling my furry activist streak. I've learned better than to start a print magazine (for one, I wouldn't want to compete with Sofawolf, and for another, my past record just isn't good!), and I don't expect Coyote Coast Press, when it happens, to be involved with anthropomorphic stories in any shape. But there really isn't any online magazine for anthropomorphics -- the equivalent of a Yerf! archive for writing.
Hmm.
...wait, that's not my transcript.
Discussion on the "Dignified Furs" mailing list continues in an interesting but, I suspect, largely non-productive fashion. It's difficult to pry the discussion off the "bad egg" theory, the idea that there are people in the fandom who are responsible for most of the perceived problems and that if only the fandom could collectively ostracize these people somehow it would represent a great step forward. This line of thinking is attractive because it's perfectly logical: if there's a problem, it has a cause, and if you could address the cause, you'd address the problem. The flaw, of course, is that you can't take this premise anywhere without catching flames that you probably deserve. What's the criteria for determining who's a bad egg? Who gets to set those criteria? (The original epigram from my novel In Our Image was a quote from C. S. Lewis: "Aristotle said that some people were fit only to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I see no men fit to be masters.")
The discussion is interesting, as I said, in spite of this, in part because a spiritual therianthrope has shown up who is not conforming to what I suspect the--well, let's not call him burned, but definitely singed--fellow has in mind as a stereotype. If we're honest, it's not a difficult stereotype to subscribe to. But, hey--I'm a Unitarian Universalist, getting back into the church after a few years of solo practice. Our stereotypical response to a well-spoken therianthrope would be, "Would you like to speak about it after the service two Sundays from now?"
And my take on anthropomorphics has often been canted toward the therianthropic, I suspect--the second, still-born incarnation of Mythagoras was subtitled New Myths and Animal Legends, and the title story of "Why Coyotes Howl" is arguably pretty therianthropic. I've had a long fascination with shamanism which frequently dovetails with an interest in magic realism. As a storyteller, the core ideas, this sort of expansion of the Jungian gestalt to all of animal creation--this is the good stuff. This is what the true stories come from.
At any rate, all this is rekindling my furry activist streak. I've learned better than to start a print magazine (for one, I wouldn't want to compete with Sofawolf, and for another, my past record just isn't good!), and I don't expect Coyote Coast Press, when it happens, to be involved with anthropomorphic stories in any shape. But there really isn't any online magazine for anthropomorphics -- the equivalent of a Yerf! archive for writing.
Hmm.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-15 17:52 (UTC)(It's a little different perhaps, than a lot of what goes on in furry, since the focus of those communiteis is different. But the basic mechanic behind things seems to hold true.)
As for the stereoype that the fellow you menion seems to not be conforming to, I'm aware of those stereoypes; yes, they're very much taken for granted, and honestly, can be easy to believe because some therians do a good job of giving them solidity (much the same as the "teh hyoomans are evil monkeys who kill all the animals!"-ranting furry kids reinforce some furry stereotypes). Much like in furry however, most therians hardly conform to said stereotype for those who can actually be bothered to scratch past a brief glimpse.
Part of what makes me shake my head though, is how in some furry circles "therianthrope/lifestyler" has replaced the "furry porn fan/zoophile/plushophile" Evil Trinity that was held up a few years ago as the last set of "evil doers" who had to be ousted in order to uh, save, furry. Also, amusingly, fursuiters by some persons. It almost seems in some kind of Bizarro World twist, a lot of furries themselves weren't aware of the concept of fursuit sex 'till they saw MTV and/or CSI - I swear the inter-furry fursuiter stereotyping has been on a sharp rise since those media events.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 04:22 (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 08:40 (UTC)Knowing me, something I did would be closer to Strange Horizons rather than Yerf. But it's possible it could be some sort of hybrid that isn't quite either.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 05:45 (UTC)Because Anthropomorphs include Talkie Toaster and Speed-Buggy, while Therianthrope seems closer to the animal-person context we've given to 'Anthropomorphic'.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 08:49 (UTC)The OED doesn't list "therioanthrope" as a noun form, and I suspect if we combined our latin roots to precisely mean anthropomorphic animals, we'd have "therianthromorphs."
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 07:29 (UTC)Current mood: curious