TRUKK NOT MUNKY Part 1: Furries

Welcome to the first of my three-part blog post about Steampunk and Furries, two very differently-perceived science-fiction and fantasy subgenres, both with large internet fanbases and not a great deal of exposure in the mainstream media. I'll be doing some comparisons, and trying to break down with can make both of these seem somewhat... unapproachable at times to people unfamiliar with the cultures, and why they can seem to be at odds with each other.

To explain first, the title 'TRUKK NOT MUNKY' is an internet meme popular with Transformers fans (well, at least people familiar with the tfwiki), relating to the advent of the new Beast Wars series in which the principal character Optimus was incarnated as a gorilla rather than a lorry. It's an argument that's both supportive and derisive of people who object to change within a given mythos. A more elaborate explanation is given here: http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Trukk_not_munky

To give this some personal context, I was into Beast Wars before Transformers, and entered into a sort of retrospective fandom. I did own original Transformers (well, Generation 2, I think), but didn't watch the series. I bought the animated movie after getting into Beast Wars and Beast Machines, which in my mind are actually better for character development and overall plot, setting, etc. So I get frustrated when people go on abusing things just because they're different. Franchises (and fandoms, too) need to evolve or they become dead in the water and left behind, practised by gnarled, over-protective fans with a fear of moving on.

Incidentally, I adore the TF Wiki. And Shortpacked.

So this post stems from a debate I've been having with myself for some time. After I attended the London Expo back in... October 2009, I think it was, in my first Steampunk costume, I was looking around the Steampunk panel and so impressed a Steampunk artist that he drew me and my impossibly heavy weapons. We talked, and I was really excited that he liked my Phoenix, but then he dropped in something that really threw my perceptions of the fandom. He was admiring my saw, and asked me if I wanted to join them later, as they were going on a 'furry hunt', and followed with something mildly disparaging that I don't really remember. returning home, and looking about on some Steampunk forums I noticed some hostility towards furries, and it kind of worried me. I don't know whether that's just the internet in general, mind you- being still a relatively fledgeling fandom, Steampunk is likely to generate hardened internet loyalists before anyone newer to such subcultures.

But still, having written Legacy, and continuing the tetralogy whilst creating my Steampunk series The Song Chronicle, is there a place for me in both fandoms, or will I end up being ignored by both? One is a fandom fixated with animals, the other with vintage technology. Can they mix? What creates the tension between them? This we shall examine...

Man's Best Friend
I'll admit, for having written Legacy I haven't given much attention to furries in my blog posts here, and I've put myself at somewhat of an imposition trying to distance myself from the connotations that the word 'furry' carries with it. But how justified is the prejudice? How different is the internet subculture that seems to be vilified on the same level as criminals and the most perverse of Internet lurkers? Actually...

In brief, a 'furry' is a fan of anthropomorphic fiction, artwork, movies, costumes, music and/or individual characters- principally depicted by animals or animal-people, or, more loosely, people with animal characteristics. But be warned, there are key distinctions that people on either side would gladly take you to task for if you incorrectly categorised them. 'Anthro' and 'Furry' have a slight distinction in their definitions too, if only to serve to separate something considered more mature from the stigma of 'Furry' by itself. 'Anthro' is likely the correct term and 'Furry' is the adopted nickname. I actually see them as different myself, but I'm in a position where I want to make that distinction, so I can't exactly be called unbiased.

Po-Ta-To, Po-Tah-To; Anthra-to...
So it's a selfish distinction, but I think it's an important one. To me, 'anthro' dictates something deliberately given anthropomorphism in a reality or story to distinguish them from humans. Examples to me include Watership Down, Mrs Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, Dogsbody and Warrior Cats. They're still fantasy, but kind of... milder fantasy, I suppose, something not quite so heavily caricatured, and still within the context of a human world. They keep their basic animal physicality, for the most part. Which would make stories set in an entirely animal world, given personalities and physicalities (such as bipedalism, non-digitigrade legs, clothes and/or armour) 'furry'. Like Redwall, and, um, Legacy. So I've kind of defeated my own logics there, but oh well. Maybe I should learn to embrace furry a little more and make more of it. Maybe at the same time I can be encouraged to break the mould of furry fandom and convince others it's not all about the porn.

(NB: In researching my post, I came across an old but really interesting list of Furry Novels, where the books are separated into 'Animals Acting Intelligently', 'Intelligent Animals' and 'Intelligent Animalmorphs'. It's really interesting to see, and probably a more succinct description than I have, in all honesty. See it here.)

Essentially the terms are interchangeable. But it depends you as to how you want to address it, and the fans themselves as to how they want to be perceived. I've said before that I'm not a furry, and that's true (even though I twice cosplayed as Tony Tony Chopper from One Piece), but I have talked to a fair few. They're really nice for the most part, if sometimes shy, secretive and a little cliquey (considering the abuse they can get from wider society, it's not surprising, really), and it's a shame that the whole group gets vindicated because of the mire of porn that hangs around. It's not as if anime was any different when that was breaking out. For a time 'cartoons or animated porn' were its only descriptors, but now it's turned into a pretty well-rounded subculture and genre-crossing medium. And furry is the same- you have kids' films like Kung Fu Panda or Robin Hood, and currently My Little Pony, and then... the internet. And very little inbetween, save for what small efforts computer games and anime make to generate interesting anthropomorphic characters.

Like any subculture, or culture as a whole, furry has its weirdos with obscure, sometimes disgusting fetishes and has a fair share of introverted, defensive spokespeople and antagonists who just look to hate on it for its differences. But anime is exactly the same, and so are other fandoms. Complaining about furry gay porn and then singing the praises of 'artistic' shonen-ai or yaoi ('young boy' and gay manga/anime respectively) is somewhat of a double-standard: no matter how it's dressed up, porn is porn.

Having said that, I can understand some of the reasons why furry generates slightly more detractors.

It's The Fuzz
Before we even get into the obvious divisions between perceived bestiality and 'normal' sexual tastes, there's something more emotionally intrinsic within furries. Going back to my 'Werewolves vs Vampires' post, it seems like there's an introversion more inherent in furry than other fandoms, and that for a number of reasons. If you're looking at the characters themselves, they're able to wear their 'inner selves' on their sleeves, as it were, because the animal becomes a representation of a particular psyche. Not only have you got the cultural and spiritual associations of the animal itself, but you have the natural aesthetics of the creature, and that creates self-confidence. Combine this with the ideas that instinctive behaviours become more acceptable to show in this form, and you have a fantasy to escape to.

Fair enough, this doesn't go for all people- I've never had a 'fursona' and I'm sure a lot of people don't. For me, I love the looks of the animals and enjoy creating variety in characters and story as a result- they're visual (or literal) representations of the characters. But for others, it must be a huge release, especially with the internet opening up the world to people with undernourished social skills or contacts. Let's face it, who hasn't been shy and self-conscious at some point in their lives, especially during puberty? But I think the people who wear the costumes, moreso than people who just draw or appreciate the artwork, wish to be accepted for what they want people to see of them, and use the costume to create that, rather than the costume itself.

It's interesting from what I've seen of furries, they tend to be rather disparaging towards themselves and their own fandom, even within their comfort zone. Is it a kind of acceptance of their position and trying to diffuse criticism before it even has a chance to emerge, or the afore-mentioned introversion creating a lack of self-confidence? For being a fairly tight community there are some really deep rifts, and every so often tales of drama amongst community figureheads seems to seep down through the ranks and cause equal parts apathy, derision and name-calling on both sides. And for the most part it's a self-sustaining fandom, with its works created by furries, for furries, which creates a kind of perpetual motion of more of the same. It was admittedly very difficult finding an artist for Legacy's cover because I wanted to find a great artist with no porn in their back catalogue. ShadowUmbre (Minna Sundberg) was an incredible find, heh. But she's proof, along with many other artists, that furry art and culture can be accessible to a much wider audience if it wasn't quite so saturated with its own history.

But then, it's these characteristics that make it so unique. There are infinite shades across the spectrum from tasteful to outright disgusting, but it's up to someone who wants to make a real name for themselves in the wider world to show everyone the bigger picture rather than just trying to please those who already know them. I want Legacy to be a success for me because I love the story, but if it helped furries generally, that'd be fine too.


Next time - TRUKK NOT MUNKY Part 2: Steampunk
An introduction to Steampunk, the colourful personas that fill its eccentric anachronisms, and the darker side of the machines...

Literary Revolution, Anyone?

Well, I had the full intention of posting my Dystopias discussion piece... only to find that I'd already done it back in June. Good Lord, I'm out of touch. Bleh.

So anyway... If I'm honest I'm not really happy with how I've written my last two blog posts, if only because I've written them out of self-created necessity rather than a true honesty. It doesn't feel like my voice, and it's kind of a violation. Given the past few months' stressors and circumstances, I've not felt I can truly relax into myself for a long time and it does have a profound effect on my writing. Well, as far as I see it, anyway; someone who doesn't know me might not see the difference. The upshot is that I'm going to try and write in a more honest voice from now on. My writing is what I'd want an audience to appreciate me for as a writer, and I can't expect them to commit to something that isn't truthful. I've always believed in honesty, and I stand by that. Thus, without further ado:

Jamie Oliver Lives In Us All

My wife and I have been engrossed (and sometimes grossed-out) by Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution series, both in West Virginia and Hollywood incarnations. And I really feel for him, as a writer. Watching him try to change the processes of a huge, sometimes tyrannical industry really makes me draw parallels with getting a book published. In the same way that cooking your own food at home is fine if you're only sharing it amongst your family, so you can write a book just for yourself. But if you really believe in it, and you know somewhere along the line that your food is in some part worthy of being shared elsewhere, why does the industry insist on creating so many mass-market, generic meals which fall apart under scrutiny, especially when people ask for better?

The biggest reason, arguably, is money. It takes far less money to produce something already on the shelves than invest in a new creation. And anyone can swear blind they know what people want because 'there's proof it sells'. Of course it will sell if that's the only thing available. Clothing fashions are in large part dictated by a select few designers, who then pump out designs and collections to major retailers, and they're bought because they're there; the savvy shoppers know to pick up on stuff earliest to get ahead of the game. It amazes me the qualities of people who can buy something new simply because it's available rather than because they actually want it. Maybe there's some instinctive hoarding behaviour to be capitalised on as a writer...

But anyway, it irritates me to think people look at a pre-published book and say 'I'm not picking it up because it hasn't sold anything yet', especially if it's a debut author with no other works. To give credit where it's worth, though, an agent has to have complete faith in your work, and if they don't like it, then it's either personal preference on their part or you might need to do some editing. I'd be lying if I said I was fed up of editing, and feel a little daunted by the idea of writing something else just yet even though I should resign myself to doing so. I'd hoped for more success, I suppose, but you can never tell what's going to happen, and I'm running away from the point a little.

I don't mind so much judgements based on the writing; an agent/publisher shouldn't knowingly be investing time in a poor writer (ptchh, as if that ever happens...). But I do take greater objection to being told a story isn't unique enough, when publishers can be guilty of generating profit from more of the same stuff that's already on the shelves. I know a market has to be taken advantage of, but short of endlessly publishing repeat copies of the same book, everything will be different. A quote of Philip Pullman's has stuck in my mind ever since I read it:

"I don't believe that it's the writer's job to respond to some vague idea about what readers want. Readers don't know what they want until they see what you can offer. Nowadays, we're told, they're all asking for the next Harry Potter, but no-one ever asked for the first Harry Potter. It took JK Rowling to think of him before people realised that this was something they might like to read. The writer and the idea always come first, and are always the most important thing." -Quote from a book about self-publishing that I don't actually remember; I just have the quote. It was a good book though, if anyone recognises it >.>;

So with this in mind it begs the question: If people have read a book, enjoy it, and have proven to spend money on it, why isn't it worth taking a chance?

I understand the need for publishers to be selective. A company that took on every author that applied would go bust very quickly, and an agent that did that same would explode all over their office, leaving a greater slush pile than the one sat on their inbox. How much proof is proof enough, though? It's unfortunate that you can't just open your brain and show them what the ideas are that fit in your head, and the more I write the greater the part of me is that says I just need to shut up, deal with it, write more and write better. I hope I'm not the only writer who gets jealous reading about other people's successes, though. The article about the first Kindle author to sell over 1,000,000 copies was in equal parts inspiring and kinda depressing to see how much extra I have yet to do and worry about how much time I've lost, and, I suppose in a weird way worry about if I'm already too late for someone to have such a similar idea to mine that it's not worth bothering.

People who walk straight into publishing deals have no idea how lucky they are. They're probably very few and far between, to be fair, but I can't help but shake the feeling that there's someone just getting a default position somewhere. And it's stupid to think like that, but at the same time I see travesties of literature appearing like Snooki's... and I know no matter what I write, I'm at least better than that. I don't even need any reviews to know that.

So apart from Jamie's diligence in transforming kids' health around the world and the stellar job he's done in raising awareness of food nutrition, hygiene and preparation, seeing him run up against brick wall after brick wall by people in a position of complacency really struck a chord. There are a lot of differences between Jamie's situation and that of every struggling self-published author; principally that there's only one of him and millions of collective 'ones' around the world. But I have to view the impenetrability of the publishing world as the same stonewalling that Jamie received, albeit that publishers aren't generally doing it out of fear or dubiety. It is hard not to take it personally, though.

Next Post- TRUKK NOT MUNKY: Steampunk hates Furry?