Feed aggregator

Guest post by Oxley. Oxley is a relatively new member of the fandom, having only been actively involved for a year–at the time this article was written, he hadn’t attended any conventions, but hopes to continue his work in this area at Midwest Furfest 2016. He is currently looking for feedback and other opinions on this article, and can be reached at his email.

The year is 2015, and marriage has finally been confirmed as a right for all Americans, whether gay, straight, or otherwise. Though the legislation has brought the queer community (sometimes referred to as MOGAI, or “Marginalized Orientations, Genders Alignments, and Intersex”) farther than it has ever been before in its fight for civil rights, talk of marriage now overshadows other important LGBTQ+ issues: many groups still find themselves marginalized and vulnerable in society. As the struggle slowly progresses, though, queer America has found both allies and enemies in the strangest of places. Individuals from some of the most conservative corners of politics have shown solidarity to the queer community, as have major corporations and brands. Nonetheless, their backing has often been motivated by political or economic gains—after all, in many places it would be considered political suicide to denounce marriage equality. Rather, various other communities and subcultures have often proven to be most readily and enthusiastically supportive of social progress. Countless YouTube stars have advocated for marriage equality or even used the site as a medium through which to come out, while common names in music have vehemently opposed restrictions on marriage.

Perhaps the most perplexing source of support for queerness in America, though, comes from the ever-controversial furry fandom. For years, furries have had intrinsic ties with the queer community, as only a minority within their numbers are straight. While furries as a whole have certainly never been a strong voice against equality regarding gender and sexuality, though, their advocacy of gay rights is nonetheless imperfect, and often detrimental to those who do not fit the more easily-recognized definitions of “queer”—that is to say, the transgender population. Still, observing a subcommunity as being a largely queer space offers a peculiar analysis of it, from an angle that is not often used. That said, the intersections between the queer community and the furry fandom provide a valuable insight into modern conventions of normativity, and the queer community’s interactions with society as a whole.

Queerness, like the people often described within the term, is an inherently dynamic movement. The focus, goals, and even terms associated with it are in a constant state of change—a lesbian in the early 1900s, for example, would have been referred to instead as an “invert,” while words such as “queer” itself defy concrete definition by their very nature. Needless to say, such an ever-changing culture within society has invited numerous different interpretations and reactions. Many believe that the most successful approach to the queer movement is the radical liberal stance. Operating primarily through politics, liberal queer theory seeks to affirm and verify the queer identity, while at the same time demanding equal protection under the law for all people. Such groups as the Mattachine Society worked to unite and strengthen the gay community and aid those who suffered oppression on a regular basis (Katz). The intended effect of this movement is an enhanced public visibility, in which various queer identities can exist unthreatened, combined with a strict sense of privacy to protect the lives of those considered “deviant.” These approaches have generally elicited a defensive reaction from their opposition—the queer community gained traction in the legal sense, but had little effect from a social standpoint. American society, as Lisa Duggan describes it, shifted to a sort of “No-Promo Homo” philosophy in which various queer identities are condoned and tolerated, but only so long as they are hidden away from the fragile public eye—“gay sex is fine in ‘private,’” as she explains the phenomenon, “but should not be ‘displayed’ or ‘promoted’ in public” (Duggan 181).

In contrast to the unapologetic and unabashed activism of the larger queer community, some choose to follow a more assimilationist path, seeking acceptance into conventional society by appeasing the mainstream’s aforementioned air of wariness. Known as homonormativity, this theory suggests that people of various sexualities can coexist, but only on the condition that such differences between them are never talked of. A convenient depiction of homonormativity in action is present in the repeal of the military’s previous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, in which gay and lesbian soldiers were permitted to serve only so long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation. Though the move to repeal the act is indeed a positive step for gay Americans, it comes with interesting implications: gay soldiers were permitted to openly serve in the military on the basis that they are exactly the same as anyone else, and do not present any real threat to society. It is, of course, worrying to suggest that anyone is inherently threatening due to their sexuality at all.

To some, this model is desirable, as it promotes a sense of equality, if only one that cannot be openly discussed, and a kind of safety in silent acceptance. Those within the queer community who seek a homonormative resolution often depict themselves as moderates—proponents of the Independent Gay Forum, for instance, are known for their opposition both to radical liberalism and reactionary conservatism in regards to the queer movement, often upholding the gay lifestyle due to its failure to present a tangible adversity to the heterosexual majority (Duggan 184-185). At first glance, it seems a viable option: those who are included in society are rarely threatened by it, nor do they threaten it in turn. However, the effect of homonormativity is not nearly so simple. Though it proposes an easy fix to the queer/anti-queer dichotomy of society by supposedly advocating for acceptance and common ground, it does so not by demanding a change within society, but demanding that the queer population find a way to “fit in,” upholding cisgender heterosexuality as the standard option. This, of course, is an inherent inaccuracy, and as argued by Adrienne Rich, poorly depicts those who do not fall within society’s narrow definition of “normal” as mere alternates to an already-present standard. Such ideologies, she asserts, are responsible for the portrayal of the lesbian identity as “the mirror image of either heterosexual or male homosexual relations,” when in fact, the culture and history that has formed the modern definition of lesbian far further separates them from other communities, however similar they may be (Rich 13). In essence, this perceived homonormativity erases the identities and humanity of all those within the queer community who fail to prove themselves to be societally sufficient.

Often, those who are cast aside in this manner are abandoned in a legal sense as well. In its simplification of sexual and gender identities, homonormative thought only grants rights to a handful of token individuals who happen to fighting for the correct rights: while the 2015 legalization of same-sex marriage is considered a giant step for the LGBTQ+ movement, it did little to protect gay and lesbian couples, or even individual people, from discrimination in areas outside of marriage, and was completely irrelevant to the struggle for trans rights, which is still ongoing. There is little attention given, as well, to the struggles of gay couples separated by prison sentences or with complications such as physical or psychological disability (Mullane). It may yet be argued that the homonormative approach does indeed seek the inclusion of once-frowned-upon individuals. Still, the concept of queer is an ever-changing one, near impossible to define with any sense of finality—inclusion of only a single group under the umbrella of “queer” inevitably leads to the exclusion of other such groups. So long as this model of inclusion-by-exclusion is followed, homonormativity will never be able to satisfy the needs and demands of the entire queer community.

Though it bears repeating that the homonormative approach to society cannot possibly hope to achieve a resolution for the queer movement, it is difficult to suggest a valid alternative. After all, homonormativity rarely concerns itself with any but the most legal and political struggles regarding gender and sexuality, while in reality, much of the oppression directed at queer individuals occurs on a societal level. It is as such that the responsibility for advancing the queer movement must be shifted away from the courtroom, and onto individual people and focused groups. No longer can it be assumed that mere laws will protect all individuals, but rather, as the voices of the queer community have been silenced, it is increasingly important to maintain this voice, as well as an active presence within the public eye. In recent decades, this goal has become perpetually easier to achieve, especially with the dawn of the Internet. Association and collaboration no longer require one’s physical presence, while simple self-expression can be broadcast and promoted to millions of people. This brave new world has empowered the queer community in a variety of ways, from allowing the quicker communication of thoughts, to aiding real-life assembly in LGBTQ+-related events. Most notably, it has also given rise to a host of new Internet-based subcultures, many of which convey an atmosphere of progressive thought and are open to less-conformist ideologies. Opinions vary by subculture, needless to say, though one in particular has proven itself to be especially affirming of the queer community.

—Enter FURRY FANDOM, stage right.

Initially conceived in internet chatrooms and sci-fi conventions as early as the late 1980s, the furry fandom has since grown into a full-blown community spanning numerous continents. Its followers—self-described “furries”—are people of all ages, fascinated at the concept of the anthropomorphic animal, each for their own unique reasons. As such creatures do not in actuality exist, the fandom relies on the Internet to sustain itself—some furries make various forms of visual art involving their creations, while others engage in activities such as roleplay. Regardless, to the furry, the connection between human and animal runs deeper than mere passing interest. Donald Jones briefly investigates their interactions in his thesis Queered Virtuality, focusing on the virtual world known as Second Life. He notes that “some view ‘furry’ as important subject position within their construction of identity,” going even so far as to describe them as “a new type of queered identity” (Jones 85).

While this statement may rationally be considered somewhat of a stretch—after all, the general disdain directed at furries nowhere near matches the oppression and discrimination faced regularly by the queer community—it is undeniable, upon further investigation, that the ties between the two groups are nonetheless intrinsic.

In early December of 2015, I conducted a poll amongst furries, primarily online and over social media, regarding such issues as sexuality and gender identity. Results and methodology are available here. Results showed that heterosexuals may actually be in the minority of the fandom, making up only 10.58 percent of respondents—less than either gay, bisexual, pansexual, or asexual responses. Meanwhile, nearly one-tenth of respondents openly identified as polyamorous. When asked a variety of questions, the vast majority of furries responded with resounding positivity regarding the mood of the fandom towards matters of queerness—most said that they were entirely accepted for their sexual orientation and were often shown support and affirmation when expressing themselves openly. As one respondent offered, “Without other furries, I don’t think I could’ve ever come to terms with my own sexuality and place in the world that my sexuality leaves me with. The furry fandom has definitely helped me in that regard.” Granted, a survey of scarcely over 400 people, conducted largely over social media—during the same weekend as a major furry convention, no less—cannot by any means be considered the end-all and be-all of demographical studies. However, it is worth noting that the results, especially regarding gender identity and sexual orientation, resemble those of other significant studies conducted within the furry fandom, including the 2013 Furry Survey conducted by [adjective][species]. Their data—conducted over a much larger group of individuals and longer period of time—also suggests a relatively even distribution of sexuality within the fandom, or at least, one that is more even than the distribution in mainstream society.

Prominent fandom member and Anthrocon CEO Dr. Samuel Conway suggests that increased queer presence in the furry fandom may be attributed to the fact that the community therein, “being open and accepting, provides a welcoming atmosphere, a safe haven that attracts people who have felt repressed,” or alternately, that “The number of homosexuals in Furry Fandom is no higher or lower than the number in a cross-section of society…it is only that here they do not feel that they must hide who and what they are” (Conway). Conway is, of course, entirely correct—though the notion is, in his own words, “pure speculation on [his] part,” the furry fandom has been known throughout the years to be incredibly and unapologetically accepting of the gay community, as well as other sexual minorities—the overwhelming majority of furries vocally and brazenly support the queer movement. Many view the furry community to be a relatively safe space for those of various sexual orientations; thus, significant proportions of the furry community directly identify with the movement.

In some ways, the furry as an identity is the ultimate foil to the spread of homonormativity. Refusing to merely condone various sexual orientations, the furry community has instead proven itself to be open and affirming with an enthusiasm few other groups can exhibit. As to their voice and refusal to be silenced by homonormative conventions, there aren’t many forms of self-expression that speak louder than a giant animal costume, or “fursuit,” worn in real life by many members of the fandom at conventions and elsewhere. Furries have even branched out into other societal subcultures, joining and perpetuating queer-friendly movements and events—one notable example is HavenCon, a nascent queer-friendly video gaming convention in Austin, Texas, intrinsically connected to the furry fandom through its attendees, vendors, and promoters.

Still, despite the survey’s relatively positive feedback, a critical trend eventually unfolded. Despite the furry community’s adamant support of various sexualities, many believe it is significantly less accepting towards those of less-common gender identities. A number of respondents voiced their concern and dissatisfaction with the fandom’s treatment of trans people regarding both their sex and gender. One in particular left a powerful testament to her negative treatment as a trans woman at the hands of the fandom: “…I experience regular and frequent microaggressions from white cis and trans people within the fandom, which frequently push me into a very bad [mental] state; the closest I’d say I’ve ever come to contemplating suicide. Much of this comes from [people] who enjoy portrayals of trans bodies [in adult art] but hate us as real people of course; but a huge amount of it comes from other trans women acting what I like to call internalized transmedicalism—that is, treating trans womanhood as being automatically equated with a desire to replace a penis with a vagina, and so on.” Regretfully, the transmedicalism to which she refers is grossly problematic to the trans community, especially for those who do not want genital-reconstruction surgery, or cannot afford it—this, of course, negatively affects trans people of all walks of life, not just those within the furry fandom. The reaction that some trans people experience sans-surgery is, at best, a subdued sense of expectation from others, coupled with the assumption that they are only waiting for a surgery they have not yet had. Though surgery is a common desire within the trans community, it would be fallacious and misleading to suggest that it is universal (Allen, 103).

Equally worrying is the inherent fetishization of the transgender body from within some parts of the fandom—even worse, that such objectification should occur without any respect for real trans people. Still, trans women were not the only group that attested cases of marginalization and victimization; one agender respondent claimed that they had been told that they “do not belong in the [queer] community,” further going on to relate a number of death threats they had received from other furries, while genderqueer and genderfluid individuals also recounted cases in which others had refused to accept their gender identity as real. The same trans female respondent summarizes the situation flawlessly: “…the community at large in my experience has generally been at best tolerable, and at most horrific. It is perhaps better in some ways than cisgender hetero mainstream US society, but generally not by much unless you’re a gay man.” This is no reason, of course, for these aforementioned gay men to feel guilty for their identity—acceptance is not something to be embarrassed about, after all. Nonetheless, the apparent desire within the furry community for conventional, easy-to-understand is an undeniable sign of homonormativity.

Most troubling of all is that these incidents of transphobia within the furry fandom, numerous though isolated, seemed to have gone entirely unnoticed by nearly anyone who identified as cisgender, which is to say, those specifically who have not experienced such hostilities themselves. As mentioned, nearly all other accounts of the furry community taken through the survey were wholly positive, and expressed no indication of awareness of the struggles of some transgender furries. It is interesting to note that even Dr. Conway’s mention of the queer community stopped short at sexual preference, failing to bring up issues of gender identity despite their undeniable presence in the community. Quite possibly, this dichotomy—that is to say, the contrast between the marginalized trans/nonbinary furry and the unaware cisgender furry—is due to the fandom’s demographics. Both the more recent survey and [adjective][species]’s poll suggested that a significant majority of the fandom is composed of white, presumably cisgender males, those who are the least victimized by society, while the trans and nonbinary populations amongst furries are relatively minute. As such, it is possible that their struggles are simply less visible to the majority of the furry community. Nevertheless, the possibility still remains that the fandom is simply not as accepting as it would appear superficially. After all, furries are still human at the end of the day, and still live in a society that perpetually resists acceptance of the new and unfamiliar.

Regardless of reason, though, it is entirely plausible that the contrast between acceptance of more vocal groups and exclusion of the less well-accepted amounts to a form of homonormativity present in the furry fandom. Recent years have seen the fandom gaining traction and popularity in society, coincidentally as gay rights have advanced. It is hardly a secret that many furries wish to be more accepted for their interests in the anthropomorphic by a society that has long shunned them—the lack of acknowledgment of trans and nonbinary presence serves, to some degree, to “excuse” the fandom, making it seem less threatening to societal norms fitting its members into the narrow slot of acceptance allotted by the mainstream. Of course, it is equally conceivable that the community within the furry fandom has fallen victim to a transnormativity of sorts: as every set of data has its outliers, so too do furries, and there were indeed a small handful of trans respondents to the survey who claimed to be accepted by their furry companions, or at the very least, not aggressively contested. The situation brings up questions regarding how much of this phenomenon is the responsibility of the furry community, and how much is the result of societal influence. Due to ever-present homonormativity on a larger scale, it is much easier and safer to openly identify as gay—a slightly more condoned identity—than as trans or nonbinary. Though furries are hardly mainstream, they are also not vehemently opposed by many who lack the interest or effort to condemn them. It is likely that the same would not be true if they were as highly trans-representative as they are pro-gay.

Is it possible to say with certainty that the furry fandom is either more queer or more homonormative/transnormative? Hardly—like society at large, furries are a rapidly-changing demographic, nearly as difficult to define as the concept of queer itself. As many respondents suggested, their interactions with the fandom change radically on a case-by-case basis; it may very well be that more prominent or more vocal members of the fandom are more accepting, and that transphobia exhibited by some is largely the fault of problematic fringe members. Even if the furry fandom is more queer than it is homonormative, it is likely only enabled to exist as such without extensive antagonism due to the homonormativity of society at large. If anything, the furry community may be excused of its imperfect track record regarding support of the trans community as society has done little better in history. After all, taken at face value, the fandom appears to be emulating the same progression that the queer community itself once underwent, first exhibiting heavy focus on issues of sexuality, then gradually becoming more accepting of issues regarding gender. In this regard, though, furries run the risk of repeating the very history that preceded them in the 1900s.

Still, no matter the gleaming, positive testaments provided by those that are considered accepted, nor the scathing reports of discrimination offered by those who are marginalized, it is important to remember that despite its close connection with the queer community, the furry fandom is ultimately just that—a fandom. It has no governing body or concrete set of principles, and it is just as flawed as any other largely Internet-based subculture. It is scarcely deniable that furries are more progressive-minded and forward-thinking than most other subcultures, though, and some hope exists that the fandom may eventually rid itself of its inherent transphobia. If there is any hope to be had for the trans furry subcommunity, it is the structure of the entire fandom itself—highly vocal and highly visible, the fandom relies on the same self-expression that serves as a driving force for many facets of the queer community. Though the fandom has not truly and completely shifted in favor of the entire LGBTQ+ movement, it is not farfetched to say that it is only a matter of time before it inevitably does.

Works Cited

Allen, Mercedes. “Trans-ing Gender: the Surgical Option.” Gender Outlaws: the Next Generation. Bergman, S. Bear and Bornstein, Kate. Berkeley, California: Seal Press, 2010. Pg. 101-106. Print.

Conway, Samuel. “Regarding community within the furry fandom.” Message to the author. 4 December 2015. Email.

Duggan, Lisa. “The New Homonormativity: The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism.” Materializing Democracy. Castronovo, Russ, and Nelson, Dana. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2002. Pg. 175-194. Print.

Jones, Donald. Queered Virtuality: The Claiming and Making of Queer Spaces and Bodies in the User-Constructed Synthetic World of Second Life. MS thesis. Digital Georgetown, Georgetown University Institutional Repository. 19 July 2007. Web. 1 December 2015.

Katz, Jonathan. Gay American History. New York, NY: Avon Books, 1978. Print.

Mullane, Nancy. “Does Same-Sex Marriage Law Apply to Prisoners?” NPR. National Public Radio, 28 July 2008. Web. 5 December 2015.

Osaki, Alex. “The Furry Survey.” [adjective][species]. 2013. Web. 5 December 2015.

Rich, Adrienne. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Journal of Women’s History 15.3 (2003): 11-48. Print.

Spade, Dean. Normal Life. New York, NY: South End Press, 2009. Print.

​Dear Papabear.

It’s been quite a while since we've spoken. Ever since I've been going to my psychologist and talking with friends there is just this one gap that I've been trying to get over. Accepting myself as gay.

So far, it’s been the hardest to deal with. More so than coming out, especially due to my religious upbringing, because ... when it comes to accepting someone's non-heterosexuality it always comes with a price. Sometimes the price is too heavy to bear when you're dealing with subject matters like this.

The inability to have children the natural way. In my case, it’s what I really wanted, but I can't have it and now that I'm gay, I don't really want to have children who are either adopted or a surrogate either, if only because I'm afraid that they will be made fun of because of me (even if laws are changing). 

The disposition of having to marry a man (not having as in forced, but rather having as in it’s my destiny), when it comes to my family members "Man/Woman" is all they know. And it hurts to even think about inviting them to something they probably would not attend to begin with, and therefore I don't want to invite my friends to it either since I feel they’re just a replacement for family members. 

And, overall, my whole attitude regarding it. If I did accept myself, with paying these heavy prices I begin to wonder is it even worth it all? Just for the sake of being happy and being myself? Or am I just being selfish about it? Honestly, this is the thing that I'm most confused by. Selfishness.

I want to accept myself as gay, but what if I end up being selfish? Being gay may be WHO I am, but that doesn't mean it’s WHO I wanted to be. Disregarding other people's feelings for the simple fact that I'm gay. And I'm not proud of my sexuality, and... I’m starting to wonder if this is the one thing that I've been struggling with ever since, and I'm not too sure exactly what I should do. It’s astounding really. I can accept other people for being gay, but I can't even accept myself. And if I were outed to a bunch of people I knew, I tend to wonder what would go on in the back of their minds and I'd be too fearful to face the world.

So... I need to ask. What should I do to accept myself?

Wolfthorne

* * *
 
Dear Wolfthorne,
 
Your letter is a perfect example of an argument against those idiots who declare that “being gay is a choice.” Who would choose to go through the kind of anguish you’re going through when it would be so much easier in our society to be straight? Answer: no one. Talk to any homosexual man or woman, and they will likely tell you that it was a tremendous struggle for them to be gay. For many, like you, it’s harder to accept yourself as gay than it is to tell family and friends you are gay.
 
Coming out can mean a lot of sacrifice, I agree. I had to sacrifice a lot. I had to give up my marriage to a wonderful woman (who is still my friend). It tore me up. The only thing worse than going through that has been Yogi’s (my mate’s) death, but the divorce is a very close second.
 
I’ve had a lot of success with people accepting me for being gay, however. At the same time, you and I and many other gay people have suffered a lot of guilt and shame. We feel we are hurting other people because of this, disappointing parents who want grandchildren, disappointing even those who might have considered being our spouses but now can’t be.
 
That is, that’s the assumption we always make, but it’s not necessarily set in stone. You see, there is something called “mixed-orientation marriages” or MOMs, which are when a straight person marries a gay or bisexual or even asexual partner. You might think such a marriage would be doomed to failure. Some, like mine, are, but in many other cases they can be successful. Why might, say, a straight woman wish to marry a gay or bi man? Or vice versa? Sometimes, especially in the past when it was much more shameful to be gay than today even, gay people would deliberately marry a straight person to hide their sexuality and gain approval from their families and society at large. And some societies are even more pressure-filled than in America. In China, for example, there is tremendous pressure for people to marry before the age of 25, and those who are still unmarried by 35 are considered practically social pariahs. In fact, in China there is something called “marriage fairs” where parents post their children’s personal information on boards and hope that someone will pick their kids and promise marriage to them. And it doesn’t matter if the promised one is straight, bi, or gay; the important thing is that they be married.
 
But back to America (sorry, I just find other cultures interesting). Believe it or not there are people out there who are willing to knowingly marry someone who is gay. The main reasons for this are either: 1) they love the person very much for many reasons other than sex; 2) they want children and see that gay men can be very nurturing; or they are a lesbian who wants kids and likes the man well enough even though he is straight. Just because there isn’t much compatibility in the bedroom doesn’t mean there can’t be a marriage. In fact, many straight marriages stay together even though lovemaking has virtually gone out the door. Sometimes this is for financial reasons or for the children or sometimes the partners simply don’t feel all that sexual any more (health reasons, age, etc.) Oh, and this sort of thing can happen between a straight, bi, or gay person and an asexual person, or with two asexual people.
 
Do you get that this can be more complicated than you ever imagined? The first thing one must do is throw all assumptions, preconceptions, and social conventions out the window. Start with a blank slate and go from there. Love and happiness do not necessarily stem from sexual satisfaction or desire. In fact, sex should really be just one factor of many in a successful partnership.
 
Here is an excellent, free, online book about mixed marriages from an author with experience http://mixedorientation.com/introduction/. A lot of it is about finding out the person’s gay orientation after the fact, but much of the information here would be relevant to you in order to get rid of your notions of the impossibility of marriage and children.
 
That all said, don’t discount the possibility of a very happy marriage to a man. I always like to think of actor Neil Patrick Harris and his husband, who are obviously ecstatically happy and have adopted children. Now, I understand the desire for biological children of your own (still a possibility for you), but please don’t discount the very real joys many parents have with adopted children. Do you think Harris’s kids will be scarred or made fun of? I really doubt it. And they will benefit greatly from being part of a loving household.
 
Now, that whole “selfish” thing you’re worried about. Stop it ;-) You have every right in the world to pursue your own happiness and to be who you are. Feeling guilty about that is self-destructive and counterproductive, and when that is the case you are no help to anyone. When you are happy, fulfilled, and self-confident you will also become a much better friend, son, spouse, colleague, etc. Example: if Papabear hated himself for being “selfish” all the time, he would be unable to write a column and help others. Point taken?
 
Seriously thinking of never marrying a man because you’re afraid your relatives won’t come and you don’t want your friends to fill in merely as substitutes? Okay, you say you have no problem accepting others as gay, but you feel your family cannot accept you as gay? You might not see it, but that is an awfully cocky attitude that is saying “I’m more open-minded than my family.” You might be very surprised to find out that many of your family members would attend your wedding. You might consider giving them a little more credit—or the possibility of some credit, anyway. And even if they don’t, what’s more important? Their approval or your happiness?
 
If you go through your entire life only doing things so that you can be validated and approved, I guarantee you right here and now you will be a very miserable, sad, and lonely person. Guaranteed.
 
This isn’t a phenomenon just for gay people, either, FYI. Probably the majority of people in this world live lives they hate because they want to have other people approve of them. They marry to gain social status; they pursue careers they despise; they keep trying to one-up “the Joneses” and end up with a beautiful house and car but empty hearts. All of this because they didn’t feel free to be themselves.
 
The biggest prison on the planet is the Jail of Approval. It has no iron bars, no chains, no walls, and therefore it is inescapable. It is a jail constructed by the inmates.
 
Realize that you don’t need other people’s approval to be happy. Know that it is okay to pursue your own happiness and that this is not being selfish. I think you are confusing “selfish” with “hurting people’s feelings and sensibilities because they don’t understand you.” That, dear furry, is their problem, not yours.
 
Hope this helps. Write again if you need more information!
 
Be Happy!
Papabear

Submitted by Fred Patten, Furry’s favorite historian and reviewer.

The Companions, by Sheri S. Tepper.
NYC, HarperCollinsPublishers/Eos, September 2003, hardcover $25.95 ([vi +] 452 pages), Kindle $9.99.

In the far, far future, the galaxy is being explored and colonized, and Earth is incredibly overpopulated. The Worldkeeper Council government, supported by the humans-only IGI-HFO political majority, declares that all animals (only pet dogs, cats, and small cage birds are left by this time) are to be exterminated because they take up too much room and use up too much air. The tiny underground movement that wants to keep the animals alive, called arkists because they have accumulated spaceships to use as arks to evacuate the remaining animals from Earth, decide to take them to Treasure, the moon of a newly-discovered and poorly-explored world covered in moss, where they can be hidden in safety. Jewel Delis, the narrator, is an arkist who goes from overcrowded Earth to care for the “companions” of humans, especially the dogs.

The Companions contains dialogue, but mostly Tepper writes in long, blocky narrative paragraphs:

“Earth scared me at first. The towers were huge, each a mile square and more than two hundred stories high. Podways ran along every tenth floor, north on the east side of each tower and south on the west side. Up one level, they went west on the north side and east on the south side. They stopped at the pod lobbies on each corner, so when you were on one, it went woahmp-clatter, rhmmm, woahmp-clatter, whoosh. That’s a pod-lobby stop, a slow trip across the street, another pod-lobby stop, then a mile long whoosh, very fast. The pod-lobbies were full of people, too, and that’s the clatter part, the scary part. Taddeus and I saw more people in one pod-lobby than we’d ever seen together anywhere on Mars, and many of them were dressed in fight colors: Tower 59 against Tower 58, Sector 12 against Sector 13, all of them pushing and shoving and tripping over each other. Often they got into fights or screaming fits. It took us a while to figure out how to dodge them and keep out of their way, but when we got good at it, it turned into a kind of game, and we rode the podways for fun. It was a lot safer than it sounds, because there are so many monitors on the pods that people are afraid to do anything really wicked unless they’re over the edge. Tad and I thought part of the fun was spotting people that were about to go over the edge. We could almost always tell.” (p. 18)

The dogs of this far future are divided broadly into ‘big dogs” and “small dogs”. The “small dogs” are ordinary pets. The “big dogs” have been bred to be more intelligent as well as larger:

“A murmured growl. An acknowledgement, not a challenge. When I looked up, she was sitting behind a screen of willow, next to a watering pool. After a moment, she got up and came over to thrust her muzzle into my neck, below my ear, moving it down my body and across my back as she took an inventory of where I’d been lately and whom I’d been with. Scramble was Scarlet’s granddaughter, eight years old, twice the size of her mother, four times the size of her grandmother, twice as fast, more than twice as smart. If Scarlet had sometimes thought of me as family, Scramble thought of me as a puppy. Her puppy. I adored her. She was a manifestation of every dog I’d ever loved, starting with my stuffed plush puppy on Mars.

Vigilant stepped out of shadow, Dapple behind her. Scramble returned to them and they sat, tails wrapped around their legs, utterly silent, watching me with opaque golden eyes.

[…]

Silently, they disappeared, except for Scramble, who put her nose to my cheek and tongued me along the jaw. Affection? Admonition? I didn’t know which, if either, but it was one more bit of evidence that Scramble thought of me as her pup.

‘Yu sai wen is ‘ime,’ she said, or asked.

‘I’ll tell you at once,’ I agreed. ‘It will be a good place.’ I prayed I was right that it would be a good place.

‘Ai no. Au aways magh ghu ha’van.’

Alas, I only wished always to make good happen. Sometimes I could not make anything happen at all.” (pgs. 90-92)

The Companions is a well-written combination of science-fiction, suspense, and mystery. This is very fortunate because, from an anthropomorphic viewpoint, very little happens until almost halfway through the book. The first part, about the arkists’ desperate plan to leave Earth with the remaining animals before those can be killed, is the first suspense plot. The second part, about the unexpected and deadly puzzle that they find on Moss and its moon Treasure, is the mystery that leads to the second suspense plot. But except for the brief passage quoted above on pages 90 to 92, the anthropomorphic dogs are all offstage until the arkists reach Moss and Treasure on page 173:

“‘Awf!’ said Behemoth, the moment I came in.

I shook my head, no. ‘This is just a brief stop, Behemoth. We’ll be on the ground less than an hour.’

‘Owr ome,’ he said, facing me, eyes glittering.

‘That’s the plan, yes.’

‘Wan see.’

‘I know. But you can’t see it without being seen by the crew, or by Paul, and that would ruin everything. Only the captain and a couple of his officers know that we’re dropping off some cages. We figure six months, a year from now, this will be home for you, but it’s not ready yet.’

‘Ow no rrrea’y?’

‘How? It’s not ready because you’d starve to death. The animals we’re dropping off need another year to spread and reproduce.’”

There is a better description of the dogs a little farther on:

“‘He’s a big one, isn’t he?’ I said in a doting voice, as Adam and Scramble approached. ‘Much larger than the original Great Dane or mastiff types, but with none of the bone or joint problems that used to be associated with large dogs. Life span is longer, too. Big dogs used to be old at twelve, but Behemoth will live to be thirty or forty, at least, maybe older than that! This brown bitch is his mate, Scramble.’” (pgs. 188-189)

Some of the arkists have been surreptitiously physically modified to share canine attributes:

“I caught up to Frank and Clare. ‘You all seem to be finding a lot to sniff at.’

Frank nodded. ‘You should get some dognose, Jewel. You really should. You’re a little old for it, but some of the cellular transplants would take …’

I murmured to him, ‘I have what will take, Frank, have had since I was sixteen. I volunteered for the original transplant study, but let’s for God’s sake not talk about dognose where anyone can hear us, okay?’ I jerked my head to indicate both the ESC men behind us and Paul, who was entering the headquarters. ‘We’ll have to learn to be quiet about things we talked about freely at the sanctuary. PPI is BuOr, and BuOr is enemy territory. Some of them might even be iggy-huffo. There probably aren’t a dozen people on the planet we could call sympathizers.’” (p. 190)

There are several alien races in The Companions (actually 512, but only five or six important to this novel), and three of the arkists use alien technology to shape-change into dogs; but this also is almost entirely offstage until the story moves to Treasure’s planet, Moss:

“The trainers and I rode on the floater until we were deeply into the forest, well out of sight of anyone from the compound. There the trainers stripped off their clothing and walked beside the floater as they changed. Adrenaline could make the process happen quickly, rage or great excitement could make it happen in minutes, but when things were calm, jaws and tongues slowly lengthened, eyes shifted subtly to the sides, ears rose to the top of the skull, forearms and shoulders shifted. Genetically they did not change. They became quite doglike, except for their high-domed heads, far too rounded for canines though not terribly unlike the old, large-headed dogs: St. Bernards, golden retrievers, mastiffs. At a distance, they would pass for dogs, particularly if they stayed in dog form long enough to lengthen their coats. At first their fur was merely an all-over fuzz. Adam was the same shining steel gray as his hair, with a darker gray stripe down the spine. Given long enough, he usually grew a mane. Clare was evenly brown with red glints in her fur, and she would acquire feathers on her legs and tail; Frank was a mottled gray and black, plain black at a distance, with a close, short-haired coat. Getting the coat to grow wasn’t voluntary. It simply grew, like claws, like teeth, like tails. If they stayed dogs for several weeks – which was the longest it had ever been tested – they would have full coats, long tails, longer legs, fangs, and hard claws for digging. Whatever technology Gainor had obtained, it was limited to soft tissue and young bones. At some point, Adam, Clare, and Frank would be too old. Their bones wouldn’t make the shift. I’d heard them discussing how careful they’d have to be later in life, to prevent their being dogs when that final moment came. Funny. The conclusion I drew now from that remembered conversation was quite different from the one I had drawn at the time.” (p. 236)

The arkist shape-shifters get the ability to transform into dog shapes to help the real dogs, but the latter dismiss them as “play dogs” and do not take them seriously. Jewel refers to the arkists in dog form as pseudodogs or unreal dogs.

The plot grows increasingly complex, with the real dogs turning out to have a secret agenda of their own; and the late introduction of what, to oversimplify, is a walking and talking tree:

“‘We congratulate you on your achievement,’ I said, not knowing whether to laugh or run screaming. It sounded totally nonthreatening, but it was so very large, so twiggy, so full of offshoots and wiry-looking twiny bits that it was difficult to believe it was harmless and impossible to know where the voice was really coming from. Politeness be damned, I had to know: ‘Where are your … eyes and ears and mouth?’

An agile tendril zoomed toward me, stopping just short of my face, and from its swollen tip a large blue eye regarded me with interest. The eye had an eyelid with lashes that batted flirtatiously, seeming to wink at me, enjoying its own joke. That tendril was immediately joined by several others bearing either human-style ears or assorted types of eyes, some of them not at all mammalian-looking.

‘Voice box, puffers, and tongue assembly do not fit on small parts,’ said the willog. ‘I have them inside main trunk, issuing through new mouth parts!’” (p. 328)

There are many potentially deadly surprises for both the humans on Moss and for all humans, which Jewel, with both the real dogs’ and the pseudodogs’ help, finds out about just in time to forestall them. Several of the surprises are unmasked by the dogs’ sense of smell. The anthropomorphic non-humans take almost 200 pages to become major characters, but they are important for over half the book.

Kudos to Rick Lovell for a fine painting for the hardcover dust jacket. The September 2004 paperback cover is uncredited.

– Fred Patten

• Buy on Amazon

This may have passed beneath your radar: It’s a new dark comedy dystopian film called The Lobster, and it’s the first English-language film by Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos. It’s been winning rave reviews and lots of awards on the art-film circuit. Here’s the summary from Wikipedia: “According to the rules of the City, single people are taken to the Hotel where they are given 45 days to find a partner. Those who fail are turned into an animal of their choice and released into the forest. The guests attend dances and watch propaganda extolling the virtues of partnership. They can extend their stay by hunting escapees, the Loners, with tranquilizer guns in the woods. After his wife leaves him for another man, David arrives at the Hotel with his brother, who has been turned into a dog.” David, by the way, is played by Colin Farrell. This may or may not all make more sense when you go to see it. The Lobster has been doing very well in platform release, and it’s likely to expand to more theaters soon.

image c. 2016 Element Pictures

This episode brought to you by our patrons and Patreon bux. We watched the new documentary, "Fursonas". It sure is a thing. Let us know what you thought of the film or our review. If you'd like to see more extra stuff like this, hit up our Patreon. www.patreon.com/knotcast KnotCast Presents - "Fursonas" Review

I need some advice on what to do with scheduling life.

You see, I work as a Sales Associate at the local store of a Liquor Store franchise, and it's conveniently located by my apartment. My schedules are Saturday to Wednesday, all 8 hour shifts, with Thursday and Friday off. I have full time hours, and I'd hate to give them up. I'm very happy with this schedule, and I have things that I do on those two days.

However, I formed a sort of Star Wars/Jedi club with some friends last year, and two of them have set up a regular training schedule, seeing as we do light saber duels. 

Problem, it starts on Saturday evening, and that's when I start my shift. Granted, with the school year just about over, a lot more free time is available. The issue?

There are now possible scheduling problems. If I do it Thursday evening, after a Dungeons and Dragons game I have in the morning, I may not be able to join some other games held in the evening. If I do it Friday, I would have to meet up with them at 4pm, and then leave for the game I play in every Friday.

The best option I have is to see if I can switch my days off to Friday and Saturday, but I’m scared that to do so, I'll lose my full-time hours, and that it'll affect my social life with my friends. 

Please help.

Jesse (age 23)
 
* * *
 
Dear Jesse,
 
Part of being an adult is learning how to set priorities. In your case, the number one priority should be keeping your full-time job. I would not risk losing full-time status for the sake of playing games with your friends.
 
Schedule fun time on the Thursdays and Fridays you have off. If you can’t, and your friends are not willing to try and accommodate your work schedule, then try to find friends who will.
 
Social time is important, but work is more important. Welcome to adult life!
 
Papabear

1. Tell us about your most recent project (written or published). What inspired it?

I think I’ve become known as a person interested in nonfiction writing just as much as fiction in the furry fandom. I publish things whenever I can at [adjective][species] (a team I’ve had so much pleasure working with), and I have a piece coming up about analyzing some of the sociological aspects of post-con depression.

But my biggest project, which I have been working on for well over a year now, is my novel The Bad in the Briar, which is about a fox with psychic powers who lives in an insular mountain community with a family who doesn’t have electricity. It’s a coming of age story with a splash of horror and adult content. I wanted to write a fantasy that felt very human and very earnest despite taking on an epic fantasy model. This might be a story about somebody from your home town who dropped off of the face of the earth as opposed to a crown prince discovering their heritage.

2. What’s your writing process like? Are you a “pantser,” an outliner, or something in between?

The best metaphor I have for my process is something akin to clay relief sculpting. You have a planning stage where you draw out a rough idea of what you want your sculpture to look like. You add large chunks of clay to the piece, which look ugly and gormless as first, but once the big chunk is on the slate, you go through a subtractive process to redefine elements of your sculpture. You carve in small details and remove a lot of the raw product to make a beautiful piece, and then you add more rough shapes into the artwork to slowly shape it, repeating your process.

So for writing, I’ll do a very non-detailed skeleton outline. It will be simple and sparse but it will have a clear beginning, middle and end. I’ll leave myself a lot of wiggle room for the in-betweens to grow organically, but knowing what is going to happen with big decisions in the plot helps me ahead of time. It also allows me to work on something like the end before I write the beginning, or vice versa. Sometimes your finished product is going to veer away from your original plan, but that’s the nature of art, and sometimes it works out for the better.

Keeping a plan very simple is helpful for me, because I know that as you write and continue to add prose, you’ll introduce complications of your own, and the story will develop like a weed that’s getting out of control. You don’t have to add more complications to the planning stage.

3. What’s your favorite kind of story to write?

A lot of the pieces I tend to work on draw inspiration from living around poverty for most of my life. I like thinking about the places in America (and not just America) that often don’t get their stories told. Really bizarre, niche things like the inexplicable phenomenon that is roadside dinosaurs, or towns in the deep South that still exist to this day which only have one federal building in their town–that building being the post office.

We have places in America like the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, North Carolina which is this grand, majestic castle showing off the wealth and opulence of the Vanderbilts that exists within driving distance of some of the most ridiculous tourist traps you’ve ever seen; things like gemstone mines with egregious pictures of cartoon prospectors where tiny children pan for uncut gems and go wild about owning a “real-life” emerald. That kind of juxtaposition is amazing to me.

I also feel like for a community that spends so much of its time talking to long distance friends over the internet, surprisingly few stories incorporate aspects of online life. Little things like sending a text or showing off a character’s typing habits, or one person’s tendency to make typos versus another person. I try to incorporate how social dynamics have evolved a bit when it comes to things like instant messengers, texts and twitter.

Something that’s interesting to me is also how I feel like I’ve become this inadvertent liaison between writers who write and love erotica and writers who strictly write for a general audience. I write both of these things, and I care a heck of a lot about both. Furry is an interesting space that I think desperately needs stuff like smutty gay fiction as well as something you may read and say “oh hey, I can easily see this getting The John Newbery Medal.” All I can say is that art comes in many different forms, and I have high standards for all of it, no matter the content or the purpose of the writing.

4. Which character from your work do you most identify with, and why?

I think a lot of things that have irked me about adventure or fantasy novels is that the main character is stressed as an “every man.” They’re supposed to be our windows into fantastic worlds and they aren’t supposed to have the strongest personalities because it’s believed that these types of characters can be easier to relate to. That’s always bothered me, so I wanted to spend extra time on making sure I really liked the protagonist of The Bad in the Briar, Keene. He’s this quiet, observant guy with decent intentions. He hasn’t been dealt the best cards in life, but he copes with them in the best ways that he can, and I try to make those coping mechanisms fun.

5. Which authors or books have most influenced your work?

On one hand, memoirs and fiction that read like memoirs. I Capture the Castle by Dodie Smith is about this girl who lives with her weirdo family in this castle that’s falling apart and how they deal with the eccentricities of their home and one another. Into the Wild, which is a nonfiction story written by John Krakaur, really helped me think about how to write an adventure story about a real person who breathed and died in the unforgiving Alaskan wilds.

On the fiction side of things, I’m a huge fan of alternate history. The Man in the High Castle and Kindred come to mind immediately. Those are both examples of works with highly speculative concepts such as time travel and alternate dimensions but focus so much on the characters and a grounded society that you can sometimes forget you’re reading a fantasy.

Rikoshi’s work has given me a great deal of inspiration, too, and I think he was a writer that pushed me to think of erotica as an art that deserves respect and patience. I think he was the first one who inspired me to attempt to carve out a space for erotica in furry, and say “hey, there are a lot of smart things going on in the best of this genre and they deserve to be talked about.”

6. What’s the last book you read that you really loved?

I read too many books that I love, but God of Clay by Ryan Campbell and Song of the Summer King by Jess E. Owen are two very different and very accomplished examples of a great read.

7. Besides writing, how do you like to spend your free time?

I’m an avid baker. I make my own breads and cakes and spend more than a few nights enjoying shows like the Great British Bake-off and Cutthroat Kitchen. Amateur gardening, video games and table top games have their place in my de-stressing rituals, too.  I also like to hike and explore my town, looking for strange things that might give me a little bit of writing inspiration.

8. Advice for other writers?

Write what you love. There’s always going to be an audience for everything. Don’t get bummed out when somebody doesn’t like a thing that you write, because what makes readers and the world of writing great is just how diverse everybody’s tastes are. You can write a masterpiece and somebody will be guaranteed to still hate it (which is a real issues even for big deal authors and New York Times bestsellers). Just always be mindful that your writing can always improve, and for all serious writers, improving is a life-long journey that does not end. Well, at least not until that pesky mortality comes along.

9. Where can readers find your work?

I’m all over the place. You can find two of my adult stories in the anthologies Will of the Alpha 2 and Dungeon Grind. I’ve published poetry in the Weasel Press anthology Civilized Beasts and the online journal [adjective][species], where I also publish essays and nonfiction pieces.

10. What’s your favorite thing about the furry fandom?

My favorite thing about the furry fandom is that I can tweet a long, rambly stream of thought about why I think a weasel makes sense for me as a representative species and strangers will look at it and go “hey, that makes sense,” which is equally cool and also bananas.

 

Check out George Squares’ member bio here!

No better way to explain Mouse Guard: The Art of Bricks than this article over at Comics Alliance: “Last year at Emerald City Comic Con, toy brick artisan Alice Finch and her incredibly detail-oriented team put together an awe-inspiring display of David Petersen’s Mouse Guard dioramas built entirely out of toy bricks. At the time, we referred to it as one of the standouts of ECCC, and now Archaia is releasing a full-color hardcover packed with photos of the team’s incredible work. Finch, a member of the Seattle-based toy brick builder club ArchLUG, has already drawn acclaim for her recreations of Hogwarts and Rivendell alongside fellow ArchLUG member David Frank, but her team’s work on these Mouse Guard dioramas are a cut above.”

image c. 2016 Archaia

Almost done with another studio upgrade we go through a quick roundup, quick news, read some fan emails and then do an unusual Q/A session with the chat room.

Download MP3

Watch Video Link Roundup:

• History of japan
• [Resolved] A small font anti-aliasing bug

News:

• North Dakota’s First Wolverine In 150 Years Is Immediately Shot And Killed By Rancher
• Why these scientists masturbate animals
• Biologists Observe Female Homosexual Behavior In Wild Gorillas For The First Time
• Man Shoots Up Bathroom When Occupant Takes Too Long, Police Say
• ‘JerkShirt’ Lets You Masturbate ‘Anywhere Without Fear Of Getting Caught’

Emails:

Gladwin Lavrov – “:short question:”
Chelle – “First Time Email”
Cyber Wragon – “Dear Furcast”
Zach – “The Bulge and the Bulgeless”

FC-234 In Case of America Break Glass - Almost done with another studio upgrade we go through a quick roundup, quick news, read some fan emails and then do an unusual Q/A session with the chat room.

Almost done with another studio upgrade we go through a quick roundup, quick news, read some fan emails and then do an unusual Q/A session with the chat room.

Download MP3

Watch Video Link Roundup:

• History of japan
• [Resolved] A small font anti-aliasing bug

News:

• North Dakota’s First Wolverine In 150 Years Is Immediately Shot And Killed By Rancher
• Why these scientists masturbate animals
• Biologists Observe Female Homosexual Behavior In Wild Gorillas For The First Time
• Man Shoots Up Bathroom When Occupant Takes Too Long, Police Say
• ‘JerkShirt’ Lets You Masturbate ‘Anywhere Without Fear Of Getting Caught’

Emails:

Gladwin Lavrov – “:short question:”
Chelle – “First Time Email”
Cyber Wragon – “Dear Furcast”
Zach – “The Bulge and the Bulgeless”

FC-234 In Case of America Break Glass - Almost done with another studio upgrade we go through a quick roundup, quick news, read some fan emails and then do an unusual Q/A session with the chat room.

Almost done with another studio upgrade we go through a quick roundup, quick news, read some fan emails and then do an unusual Q/A session with the chat room.

Download MP3

Link Roundup:

• History of japan
• [Resolved] A small font anti-aliasing bug

News:

• North Dakota’s First Wolverine In 150 Years Is Immediately Shot And Killed By Rancher
• Why these scientists masturbate animals
• Biologists Observe Female Homosexual Behavior In Wild Gorillas For The First Time
• Man Shoots Up Bathroom When Occupant Takes Too Long, Police Say
• ‘JerkShirt’ Lets You Masturbate ‘Anywhere Without Fear Of Getting Caught’

Emails:

Gladwin Lavrov – “:short question:”
Chelle – “First Time Email”
Cyber Wragon – “Dear Furcast”
Zach – “The Bulge and the Bulgeless”

[Live] In Case of America Break Glass

Papabear,

I have met some people who have the wrong idea about the fandom and think that looking at furry pictures will make someone have sex with a animal,and i'm like no. Furries don't do that stuff at all. I know furry fandom shuns those who abuse animals. How do i let people know that their views of animal abuse are totally wrong?

Anonymous (age 38)

* * *

Dear Furiend,
​
Once people get an idea into their heads it is really tough to expunge it. You could probably tell them your side of it until you're blue in the face and they will not believe you. Many times it isn't worth your time and energy to bother. It's like with racism. There are people out there who feel, for example, all Muslims are terrorists and all Mexicans are lazy. You could spend hours, days, years trying to tell them otherwise and they won't believe you. Another example would be people who believe the Bible and that Earth is only 6,000 years old. You can take them to museums, have them talk to archaeologists and paleontologists, give them books to read, and they will still believe the Bible. Why? Probably because they were raised to believe the Bible is the Word of God and contradicting it is sinful. You see, emotions and upbringing tend to trump science. This is not 100% true. Sometimes you can actually alter a view, but is it worth all the time and trouble?

That said, the best way to increase the odds of changing a bad attitude about furries is for the people who have these views to actually meet and get to know furries in real life. They have to, of course, want to do this. You can't make them. Prejudices and misconceptions are born of ignorance, and people often hide behind walls of ignorance to protect their belief systems, even if those beliefs are wrong, because it scares them to think that they were being lied to all their lives, and they lack the courage and self-esteem to think for themselves.

So, in short, while it is possible to change beliefs (this applies to strong beliefs not little beliefs like persuading someone to try a different flavor of ice cream), the chances of success are slim and the possibility of succeeding will mean considerable expenditures of time and effort on your part. You need to ask yourself, then, if it is worth the trouble. It might be if, say, the other person is a spouse or parent; it might not be if they are just a passing friend or coworker.

Hugs,
Papabear
​

What food do you bring to furmeets? This week we discuss our favorite (last-minute!) options, and also try to explain the concept of a potluck to a poor, confused Pamiiruq.

Metadata and Credits The Best Furry Potluck

Runtime: 41:01m

Cast: Crimson X, KZorroFuego, Levi, Pamiiruq, Wolfin

Editor: Levi

Format: 128kbps ABR split-stereo MP3 Copyright: © 2016 WagzTail.com. Some Rights Reserved. This podcast is released by WagzTail.com as CC BY-ND 3.0. 

The Best Furry Potluck - What food do you bring to furmeets? This week we discuss our favorite (last-minute!) options, and also try to explain the concept of a potluck to a poor, confused Pamiiruq.

What food do you bring to furmeets? This week we discuss our favorite (last-minute!) options, and also try to explain the concept of a potluck to a poor, confused Pamiiruq.

Metadata and Credits The Best Furry Potluck

Runtime: 41:01m

Cast: Crimson X, KZorroFuego, Levi, Pamiiruq, Wolfin

Editor: Levi

Format: 128kbps ABR split-stereo MP3 Copyright: © 2016 WagzTail.com. Some Rights Reserved. This podcast is released by WagzTail.com as CC BY-ND 3.0. 

The Best Furry Potluck - What food do you bring to furmeets? This week we discuss our favorite (last-minute!) options, and also try to explain the concept of a potluck to a poor, confused Pamiiruq.

3.14159265359 Fuzz and Savrin give advice on how not to act toward people online, discuss the failure of Disney Infinity, tell someone to DTMFA & GTFO, reveal knowledge of cactus shaped things, and get some shameless advertising in. Also Savrin thanks each and every Patreon patron.. thank you all! Want to be on the list? www.patreon.com/knotcast Episode 314 - Pie Time

‘Fursonas’ is the 2016 documentary by furry filmmaker and director Dominic Rodriguez, whose furry nickname is Video. Released for the whole world to see on May 10th through video on demand (VOD), it has a running time of 81 minutes, and it depicts the deeply personal views on furry identity, acceptance, and interaction with the media, of several people interviewed within the furry fandom (including the views of the author himself.) While some of the viewpoints expressed can be considered provocative, they are in no way stated in a bold manner by the willing interviewees, but rather wishing to encourage discussion within the fandom: What’s our next step with the media? How should we apply tolerance or acceptance? What really is ‘furry’?

The movie is a different kind of feature film, unlike cartoon furry movies. It’s not about cute cheerful anthropomorphic animals. It’s not a movie you show to your friends to tell them what furry’s about. It’s a discussion about the fandom itself. It bears more resemblance to a recorded open dialog on the fandom by intensely involved members.

Is it worth watching? Yes. Every single adult who has some kind of emotional attachment to our fandom should watch this movie. The movie is in English, but Vimeo’s VOD service (link⇒) also offers subtitles in German, Dutch, French, Japanese, and Latin American Spanish. You can get the full list of video services that offer the movie at Fursonas’ website (link⇒). Herein follow some ponderings about the movie’s themes.
 

The Adult Content in the Documentary

The reasons why I recommend it to all adults taking part in the fandom, but not minors, are, I believe, in order of importance, three:
 

1. The documentary overtly shows smoking in a joyful setting, as something that is fun and even a good thing. It is shown this way because of the realistic portrayal of the interviewed furries, and some of them like to smoke while they discuss in a relaxed manner. The fact of the matter is:
    

   – Smoking tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States (CDC)
   – 1 of every 4 deaths from cancer in the European Union are caused by smoking (EPHA)
   – Smoking is a leading factor in developed countries for overall loss of quality of life and lower lifespan
   – Long-term exposal to marijuana affects brain development and reduces cognitive abilities (NIH/NIDA)
   – Etc. etc.

   These and other facts remain in the pool of popular knowledge, and adults may consciously choose whether to take them into account or not, but there should be no encouragement given to minors to smoke. People who personally know me know my firm stance on this. It’s the first time I post such a disclaimer in the website and maybe I won’t mention it again. But. Smoking is a serious health risk that should not be trivialized.

 

2. The documentary talks about serious subjects that children will not understand. Older teenagers might. If seen by older teenagers, it should be in a setting where calm discussion about the fandom is encouraged; otherwise they’ll lose interest.

 

3. There are sex toys in the movie. They are not glamourized, they are shown as is. They purposefully appear to incite discussion about whether sex-related material or themes should be openly talked about or displayed to the media or to con-goers. The sex toys might not be something adequate to show to children. However, sex toys don’t kill people. Smoking does.

 

What It Is to Be Furry

Video chooses to interview only (willing) furries that are fursuiters. It could be considered a mistaken decision; the great majority of furries are not fursuiters. Video explains this decision in a Glamour interview: “Not everyone has a fursuit, so it was important to talk to people with fursuits — that showed dedication to the community.” (link⇒) Arguably, there are people even more dedicated to the fandom than any of his interviewees, that have never had or used a fursuit. We could start by naming major website administrators, and then continue the list with writers, artists, convention managers, and so on. This is, however, a minor complain that I wish does not derail the discussion of the movie’s themes themselves. Fursuiting as a ‘thing’ is mostly shown in the first half hour of the documentary, giving way to more important subjects.

And a subject that’s addressed, is the statements of belonging to the fandom made by some of the interviewees. Boomer the Dog is the biggest contender to the common definition of furry. As we all know, the furry fandom is most commonly defined as a subculture / group / cultural movement centered on animal anthropomorphics, be it cultural depictions that are imagery, literature, song lyrics, movies, role-play, and so on.
 

Boomer is a person who fell in love with a live-action TV series from the early 80s called ‘Here’s Boomer’, where a stray dog travels across the country helping people. From then on, he started collecting pictures of real dogs, barking like a dog, and dressing like a dog. He feels like a real dog inside. Personally, what I believe is his most striking achievement, is having a ‘fursuit’ that barely costs over 7 US dollars; that has to be the best ratio price-performance for a ‘fursuit’ I’ve ever seen (maybe only competing with ConFuzzled’s ‘frankensuits’). Anyhow, pretty much anything shown about Boomer has him closely identifying with actual dogs, not fictional anthropomorphic dogs. And this is me talking: that’s not what the furry fandom’s about, in general. Therefore, to have Boomer on TV talking about himself being a furry, as it happened (gaining some hatred in the fandom for it,) is a misrepresentation of what the furry fandom’s about. Furry is not about feeling like a dog, or loving real-life dogs. Several statistics collected by furries on general practices and beliefs can prove this.

But, should this be the case? From a descriptive standpoint, Boomer’s overall preferences are not furry, they are animalistic. From a prescriptive standpoint, I don’t know whether I should categorically say they should not be furry. Furry has evolved throughout the decades. As noted by interviewees, some furries believe the fandom should be about expressing yourself, being who you want to be and doing what you want to do, beyond common staples or boundaries. The furry fandom prides itself in being more welcoming to widely diverse people (while still, at some point, criticizing some members.)

To me, the clearest manifestation of the genuinely well-intended desire of the fandom to be inclusive and accepting, is Dr. Courtney Plante / Nuka’s struggle to objectively define furry from a sociological standpoint. He and his team at the IARP have had difficulties defining what a furry (person) is for their scientific studies (in order to then point out what furry fans do or like or how they behave.) There are many different people that take part in the fandom! Thus what they ultimately chose as a definition is: a furry is anyone who identifies themselves as such!
 

At a Texas Furry Fiesta talk, Nuka mentions that, amongst the hundreds of different fursonas he’s registered in his studies, there are some who identify as the species pastry. How is that even remotely furry? PRGuitarMan, the creator of Nyan Cat (a mix between a cat and a pop tart) and probably the most known pastry-related furry-like person, has a FurAffinity profile. And yet most of his art or interests aren’t really animal anthropomorphic. The editors at WikiFur describe him as a pseudofur, “someone who is in the furry fandom, but doesn’t quite fully consider themselves ‘furry'”. If he did happen to consider himself furry, and decided to appear on national television to talk about his likes as is (calling them furry,) would there be the same outrage that came out against Boomer the Dog when he did so? I don’t think so! Because PRGuitarMan’s stuff & memes are cool, popular, and hardly dislikable, I don’t think there would be an outrage. Whether his likes were an accurate representation of the fandom, or whether he’s really a furry or not, would not be a startling issue.

So if the real issue is not whether people are accurately representing the fandom when speaking to the media claiming this or that trait of theirs is furry, what is the issue? What do furries have against someone like Boomer the Dog, or Chew Fox? The issue is whether they’re disturbing. Creepy. Don’t cause sympathy. And who gets to decide that? One thing would be that they act in morally objectionable ways. But sex is not morally objectionable, whether in fursuit, out of fursuit, or chimpanzee style on a sex swing. Having an enormously ingrained passion for dogs and a dog identity is not morally objectionable either. It’s just unusual.

So why should we censor ourselves? Or censor others that wish to belong to our fandom, since we don’t share their particular preferences or tastes or take on life? The answer is, we should do this because the furry fandom is a stigmatized fandom in popular culture. There are visible repercussions to this fact in the movie: a furry interviewee, Diezel, lost his job because his employer didn’t like what he heard or read on the internet about furries. We furries don’t have it as easy as sports fans, or other fans, who can show to the whole world how passionate they are about what they like, without disapproval or scorn from the rest of society. And yet we yearn for approval and understanding. Just like any other social group! People feel happy and good when they don’t have to be secretive about their passions in life. So when we show ourselves as furries, we try to show the side of the fandom that’s most pleasant or agreeable. And that unavoidably means excluding others, marginalizing them. Against something that’s almost as important to the fandom, or sometimes even more important to the fandom, than animal anthropomorphism: the patently strong sense of friendship and community that makes us be the fandom we are.

Exclusion, censorship, or bitterness, are not a burden we’ve forced on ourselves through our own will. It is largely through the will of general society and media, that unnecessarily stigmatizes the furry fandom, that we feel we must exclude or control ourselves. By exerting this control, we’re undermining core values of the fandom; doing to other members, or to ourselves, what we don’t want society to do, to us.

The Media, Uncle Kage, and Anthrocon Policies

Furry fandom is still not a mainstream fandom, but it has grown large in the last two decades. Something that happened to me last week, that was absolutely unexpected, was meeting someone (who is a furry fan) that I had actually met almost a year ago at an event totally unrelated to furry. Just so you understand the chances of that happening, I’ll say Spain has a population of about 46.5 million people, of which around 510 are openly self-recognized furries. So whenever you meet someone here, there’d be approximately a 1 in 100,000 chance they’re a furry fan. That’s about a 0.001% chance. I was kind of amazed it happened, but it did! What would have the chances been 15 or 20 years ago? Probably not even a quarter of that.

There are more people than ever joining our fandom, even against the stigmatization we might suffer or have suffered. To the point that you will certainly find many people who do things you’re not into, or things you even somewhat dislike.
 

Uncle Kage’s stance and the Anthrocon’s policy is to strongly restrict the media from documenting their convention as the media sees fit, and to even mock and despise furries who give fodder to them for us to be stigmatized further. After many years of taking this approach, they’ve gained respect and love from Pittsburgh’s locals & media. What they don’t seem to realize, or don’t wish to take into account as much, is that they’re also excluding increasingly larger numbers of people.

Journalism and media is also a passion for some furries. Flayrah’s editor-in-chief GreenReaper, who is also a main administrator of Inkbunny and WikiFur, tried a couple of years ago to set a stand at the Anthrocon to advertise his furry journalistic website. His petition for a stand was denied, allegedly because a news report they’d done in the past only questioned whether it’s a good thing the Anthrocon board is strict in their approach to allowing attendance. GreenReaper makes no money from maintaining Flayrah or writing news, it’s a passion project. And neither do I. I created this open website, FurryFandom.Es, because I love the fandom, its culture and its people, and I wish for everyone who might be mildly interested in it to have the chance to learn about it and join in. I am now a furry journalist. It is at this point that I’m afraid that by questioning Uncle Kage’s actions, even though he’s someone I greatly admire and respect, I could be somehow excluded from taking part in Anthrocon as I most desire, maybe by reporting about it to Spanish furs and the world, if I ever get the chance. Dominic / Video is now banned from Anthrocon 2016, probably for not agreeing to its policy in regards to media.

Maybe they should be cautious with the general media. But to apply strict rules to furry media, like to Video / Dominic, to GreenReaper, or to maybe myself, is hurting a legitimate take on the furry life, on contributing to the community.
 

Uncle Kage claims to be a pillar of his local community, and acts as ambassador of the furry fandom. I don’t question any of that. He’s a doctorate scientist and a researcher. He’s worked for the FDA amongst other institutions, and has published several peer-reviewed studies. If you haven’t noticed in my previous interview with Nuka, if there’s something I love almost as much as furry, is science. And, he’s also the CEO of the world’s largest furry convention, that’s been celebrated annually for 18 years. 18 years! Certainly he must be doing something right!

But also, he feels it’s appropriate to publicly call, using a microphone, another furry, “a fuckin’ bitch”. And he states, scornfully on camera, that Boomer the Dog is a crazy person. Though these or other similar comments are something I could do in the privacy of my home (about people I don’t like,) to be purposefully caught on camera saying these things to others who amicably wish to be part of our fandom, is disheartening. It doesn’t show in a good light the furry fandom.

Also, he drinks too much alcohol. Admittedly it’s not distilled drinks, it’s wine, which is somewhat better because it’s fermented grape. But ethanol is nonetheless toxic; alcohol intake is the leading cause of morbility across many countries, and one of the most commonly abused drugs in the world, causing many more deaths and personal suffering than marijuana smoking. He likes getting inebriated. He often makes his speeches with a glass of wine, or a bottle or two, in his hands. That is something I respect, he still is a very functioning person; this is what he likes, he’s an adult and he can choose. Whatever. Still, it’s not a trait of someone I’d call morally above most people, or morally above most furries. It’s not a behaviour I’d happily show to my kids, if I ever have kids. In fact I’d be more concerned with showing alcohol abuse to kids more so than sex toys. Sex toys don’t kill people. Alcohol does.

A Conclusion

So, as a fandom, what should we do about all this? I wish I had a firm answer. I wish I had as much clarity of mind about my approach as Uncle Kage has in the documentary. “Use chloroform on dislikable people when cameras go rolling.” But I don’t think the question “How should we approach tolerance in the fandom?” has an easy answer, or that this is an easy problem to solve. Welcoming anyone and everyone maybe isn’t the best thing to do. Consciously ostracizing others I don’t think is a good approach either, unless they have criminal intent (or something to that degree.)

I do know something that will improve the community, though. And that is, treating others who wish to take part in our fandom with respect. To strengthen the sense of community in our fandom not through angry mobs, or scornful attitude to other furries, but through genuinely well-intended exchange. Dominic’s documentary is not about us versus them. The documentary is about us versus us.
 
 

I want to personally thank Dominic for his documentary; and thank every furry who was interviewed in it, for their contribution to the project.
 
 

The entry ‘Fursonas’ (The Documentary):
Review and Reflections on
Dominic Rodriguez’s Magnum Opus appears first in FurryFandom.es.

Submitted by Fred Patten, Furry’s favorite historian and reviewer.

The Guardian Herd: Landfall, by Jennifer Lynn Alvarez. Illustrated by David McClellan; maps.
NYC, HarperCollinsPublishers/Harper, February 2016, hardcover $16.99 ([xvi +] 328 [+ 4] pages), Kindle $9.99.

The adventure grows more desperate in this third volume of The Guardian Herd saga. It might be described as a My Little Pony with savage teeth and razor-sharpened hooves in it.

The multicolored flying pegasi of Anok are divided into five rival herds that the young Starfire has been trying to bring together peacefully. As he said in The Guardian Fire: Starfire, first novel in the series, when the over-stallion of another herd proposed making an alliance and forcing the other herds to join them, “But that’s not uniting; that’s conquering.” The Guardian Herd: Stormwind, the second novel, ends with Star learning that Nightwing the Destroyer, the crazed, all-powerful black stallion of 400 years ago, is flying back to Anok to conquer the herds and kill him. But the five herds are still fighting among each other; Star is still untrained; and Star fears that he may turn as crazed and deadly as Nightwing is.

Landfall begins, not counting a dramatis personae of 40 important pegasi, with a 16-page battle to the death between Nightwing and Starfire. And Star dies! Horribly (but not too horribly; this is a Young Adult book). He’s saved by a ghostly deus ex machina that tries to make us believe that he wasn’t really dead, y’know, just in an exceptionally deep suspended animation.

Umm … no. Sorry; this isn’t believable. I’ll buy the talking, flying horses, but I won’t buy Starfire being not really dead. He’s killed too definitely, and his salvation by the equivalent of Tinker Bell showing up and waving her magic wand is too cheesy. It further destroys the suspense by showing that whatever hardships Star suffers in the future at the hooves of Nightwing, if they get too bad we can expect an unexpected deus ex machina to bring him back to life.

Aside from that, Alvarez keeps up the suspense very well. Star’s friends hide his body giving him time to “heal”. Nightwing meanwhile consolidates his supremacy.

“‘The herds are hiding from him [Nightwind], right?’ asked Bumblewind, his eyes trained on his twin sister.

She snorted. ‘It’s the opposite,’ Echofrost took a gulp of air, staring at the pegasi around her, waiting for all mumbling to cease. Then she spoke. ‘They’ve answered his call. All of them.’

The gathered pegasi shrank from her words. ‘No,’ whispered Bumblewind. ‘That can’t be.’

‘It’s worse than that,’ she said. ‘Nightwing knows he injured Star, that his body is so damaged he’s dead, or as good as dead. He says his connection to Star’s mind has been severed, and he …’ Echofrost glanced at Morningleaf, grimacing.

‘What is it?’ breathed Morningleaf.

‘He’s offered to make a pact with the first steed who’ – Echofrost lashed her tail and tears raced down her cheeks – ‘who brings him Star’s head.’

‘His head!’ Morningleaf staggered sideways, and Bumblewind caught her in his wings.

Echofrost nodded. ‘Yes, to ensure that Star can’t heal himself. That he’s truly dead.’” (pgs. 51-52)

The two dozen or so of Starfire’s followers who become his guardian herd – Silverlake, Dewberry, Sweetroot, Hazelwind, Redfire, Ashrain, and others – vow to keep Star safe from Petalcloud and Frostfire, who have taken Nightwind’s offer, and the armies of thousands of pegasi that Nightwind has given them to find Star and his tiny herd.

Star eventually awakens from his long unconsciousness, but he is still grievously wounded and in need of nursing back to health. Landfall splits into two stories in alternate chapters or pairs of chapters: those of Star and his United Council of core followers hiding in the Trap, a narrow valley in northwestern Anok filled with spruce and pine trees so thick that any pegasi in it can’t be seen from the sky; and the adventures of Morningleaf, Shadepebble, and Brackentail, three yearlings who leave the Trap to lure Star’s enemies far away from them.

During this time, the holdout from Nightwind’s tyranny among the other Herds gather secretly around Star’s United Council.

“The dark bay mare [Ashrain] cocked her ears forward. ‘River Herd steeds fight best in the open sky, but Jungle Herd understands tight spaces. We know how to fight in the tree.’ She looked directly at Hazelwind. ‘We’re offering to show you our ways , and I’ve spoken to Redfire of Desert Herd and Birchcloud of Mountain Herd. They also want to share their knowledge. Desert Herd will teach us their ground-fighting techniques, and the Mountain Herd mares will teach us their aerial formations, in case we’re lured into the sky. I propose we form a United Army now, before our enemy arrives. If we train together, we’ll fight together better, and we’ll hold out longer.’” (pgs. 119-120)

It’s what Star has wanted; to bring the Herds together. Now they have a common cause; a more martial one than he’d wanted, but one that works. Star slowly heals and learns at the same time.

“That’s true,’ said Star, feeling grateful and hopeful. He would learn the warrior ways of River Herd, Jungle Herd, Mountain Herd, and Desert Herd. When in the history of Anok had there been an opportunity like that?” (p. 121)

Star and the others learn how to fight, including sharpening their hooves.

“Each pegasus took a turn examining Clawfire’s hoof. When it was Star’s turn, he lowered his head and peered at the hoof’s edge from all angles. He noticed that the very front of the hoof slanted into a thin, crisp edge. The sidewall was thick and smooth to support Clawfire’s weight. ‘Can I touch the edge?’ Star asked.

Clawfire nodded, and Star felt the rim of Clawfire’s sharpened nail with his wingtips. The severe edge sliced right through Star’s end feathers. He jerked his wing away, and the watching pegasi nickered in amazement. ‘That’s sharp,’ Star said, whistling.” (p. 134)

The pegasi can use their wings as supplely as hands. “The other warrior [one of Petalcloud’s scouts] wiped the sweat rolling down his brow.” (p. 68) “He wiped his face with his wing […]” (p. 158)

The inevitable massed battle, when it comes, lasts about sixty pages. Nightwind stays above it and sends Frostfire and his Black Army and Petalcloud and her Ice Warriors army to destroy Starfire and his United Army. It all makes me think of King Harold of England during 1066: first racing from London with the English knights to meet the invading Norwegian Vikings at Stamforth Bridge, then turning and racing to Hastings to meet the invading Normans. Harold was killed at Hastings, but Starfire doesn’t die and this series doesn’t end (except for Landfall on a cliffhanger). Volume 4, The Guardian Herd: Windborn, is due in September.

As before, the pegasi are described in very colorful terms. Crystalfeather is a small chestnut mare with bright-blue feathers, two front white socks, and a white strip on her face. Flamesky is a red roan filly with dark emerald and gold feathers. But David McClellan’s illustrations are only small chapter heading portraits of pegasi; and frankly, in black-&-white, all the pegasi look too similar. His dust jacket is attractive, though,

– Fred Patten

• Buy on Amazon
• Learn more about The Guardian Herd here

Here’s a new full-color comic-book miniseries coming our way later this month from Antarctic Press: Ultracat, written and illustrated by Jose Fonollosa. “He came from Spain, he ain’t no bird or plane! It’s Ultracat! With his ultra-speed, ultra-strength and ultra-cuteness, the world’s feistiest feline conquers all criminals, from minor burglars to super-villains to that annoying evildoer pug across the hall! Just don’t ask him to go out in the rain or pass up a nap…” So noted. Of course there’s more over at the Antarctic Store.

image c. 2016 Antarctic Press