It’s a weirdly worded question. I consider a “furry” to be a person who considers themself a member of the furry fandom. Characters aren’t “furries” (in my personal opinion).
If the spirit of the question is more about which characters fall under the “appeals to the furry fandom” umbrella, I’d say it’s any animal-based character exhibiting human-like qualities - can be body type (e.g. bipedal), mannerisms, or just human-like intelligence. (Animal Farm is an example of anthropomorphism in literature that’s just normal animals with human-like intelligence. I’d say it falls into the broad category.) Basically following the loosest definition of ‘anthropomorphic’. Lion King characters are another similar example. They have clear appeal to a lot of furries but would be excluded under a stricter definition.
Really, my opinion is that it’s better to cast a wider net than to potentially exclude someone based on their preferences.
I’ve mostly heard it as a term of personal identity, not explicitly outward to a fandom. As in, “you’re furry if you identify as one,” and that’s about it. That’s about where I stand, as I’ve been furry before I even had a word for it as a little kid, and also have never concerned myself with “the fandom” really.
I’m not even sure what that entails; I communicate with other folks who identify as furry, but not really to discuss some centralized culture like I would in something like a show or sport fandom. I make and appreciate art by folks who do—and don’t—identify as furry, but that doesn’t feel like participating in fandom either. To me it feels akin to saying I’m in the bisexual fandom or something; it doesn’t feel right even though I identify as it.
That’s fair. Maybe that’s closer to how I feel, as well, now that you say it that way - but the underlying point still stands: furries are people, not characters.
Absolutely, that part I totally agree with! In the context of fiction, the only furry character that makes sense is a someone you write that identifies as a furry.
![[REUP FROM REDDIT] OK, guys. Let's settle on this debate once and for all. Where do you draw the line on what a furry is?](https://thelemmy.club/pictrs/image/369af45c-7083-4a38-9b06-3d184db9b70d.png){kind=link}
It’s a weirdly worded question. I consider a “furry” to be a person who considers themself a member of the furry fandom. Characters aren’t “furries” (in my personal opinion).
If the spirit of the question is more about which characters fall under the “appeals to the furry fandom” umbrella, I’d say it’s any animal-based character exhibiting human-like qualities - can be body type (e.g. bipedal), mannerisms, or just human-like intelligence. (Animal Farm is an example of anthropomorphism in literature that’s just normal animals with human-like intelligence. I’d say it falls into the broad category.) Basically following the loosest definition of ‘anthropomorphic’. Lion King characters are another similar example. They have clear appeal to a lot of furries but would be excluded under a stricter definition.
Really, my opinion is that it’s better to cast a wider net than to potentially exclude someone based on their preferences.
I’ve mostly heard it as a term of personal identity, not explicitly outward to a fandom. As in, “you’re furry if you identify as one,” and that’s about it. That’s about where I stand, as I’ve been furry before I even had a word for it as a little kid, and also have never concerned myself with “the fandom” really.
I’m not even sure what that entails; I communicate with other folks who identify as furry, but not really to discuss some centralized culture like I would in something like a show or sport fandom. I make and appreciate art by folks who do—and don’t—identify as furry, but that doesn’t feel like participating in fandom either. To me it feels akin to saying I’m in the bisexual fandom or something; it doesn’t feel right even though I identify as it.
That’s fair. Maybe that’s closer to how I feel, as well, now that you say it that way - but the underlying point still stands: furries are people, not characters.
Absolutely, that part I totally agree with! In the context of fiction, the only furry character that makes sense is a someone you write that identifies as a furry.