Talk:Black Tapestries

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

I still don't see how it's not furry. -- Siege 05:10, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It's something furries might enjoy. The comic isn't about furries. Furries are people who participate in the Furry Fandom or label themselves as such. There are no furries in the comic. There are anthropomorphic animals.

Considering that the very definition of a furry, in simplified terms, is "anthropomorphic animal"... I don't see how Kaetif aren't. -- Siege 01:44, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in simplified terms, I am also not interested in slang. I believe the creator of a comic has the right to label it as they see fit. Is it a horse comic because it has a horse? Is it a bar comic because it has a bar in it? Is it a human comic because it has humans in it? Is it a sword comic because it has a sword in it? It's a fantasy comic, that is all. No more, and no less. But what I consider "furry" and what others consider furry is obviously two different things.

And as such, I still say it's a comic that furries might enjoy. It is not a comic about furries. It is not a furry comic.

And again, I don't know WHY this has to be such a BIG deal. I don't know WHY it must be labeled at all.

The horse, the bar, and the sword aren't the majority of the comic's material, nor are they even reasonably considered characters except in a technical and highly esoteric sense. It could be considered a "human" comic, except that somewhere over 95% of comics feature humans as the primary characters and content, making that specifier essentially useless for identifying the comic.
Label as you will; let others label as they will; correct the labels if they are useless. People primarily find new things they might like or dislike by looking for things similar to what they already know; they search by kind - meaning that the classification of things is a natural human trait. By removing the notion of kind from something, you remove the ability to explain it to others or to identify its content in a shorthand manner. I understand your aversion to "labels", having been handed many unpleasant or misidentifying names myself; but frankly, a label you don't like is generally someone else's problem, and you don't have to make it yours.
As to whether the term "furry" is slang, so are the terms "ASAP" and "goth", which have already made their way into any number of well-regarded dictionaries. Its meaning is commonly accepted among many groups outside of its subculture of origin. While the subcultural meaning hasn't yet been included in Webster's, the word and its definition are the very point of this wiki. A summarized, shorthand, or simplified definition is absolutely within context, and is likely to be the definition used in most "desk" or "pocket" dictionaries (as opposed to the Oxford English Dictionary, which will probably lay down absolute law on the communally established and generally agreed-upon explanations we've been trying to create and promulgate for a couple of decades now).
-- Siege 02:17, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Actually the horse is shown more often than anthros. The main character does not always shapeshift. A single character is an anthropomorphic fox. I find your logic fallacious, as the horse has more bearing on the comic as a character than any of the anthropomorphic characters. The fox hasn't been shown in quite some time. The other anthro characters are usually fillers or bit characters because it's part of the world. So yes, it is more of a 'horse' comic than a furry comic.
And furry is very much slang, and not appreciated. Calling it a furry comic is like calling the Boondocks a nigger comic. If ALL my characters were anthropomorphic characters, I might not have a leg to stand on here, but very little of my comic is what many in the fandom themselves would consider "furry".
And if you want to go by what the dictionary says, well...
   1. Consisting of or similar to fur.
         1. Covered with, wearing, or trimmed with fur.
         2. Covered with a furlike substance.
   3. Having a furlike quality, as in tone; fuzzy: a furry voice.
I don't see anything in there about anthropomorphics.
The ONLY thing I'm asking is that the comic not immediately be labelled ANYTHING. There is no need to say it's NOT a furry comic and there is no need to say it IS a furry comic. Can't you just put a summary of the comic and let people make up their own decisions about it?
I recognize the fact that it will be listed as a furry comic, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it. But I absolutely refuse to let people call my created race of Kaetif as "furries". In addition, I don't want people to believe that the comic is mostly centered around anthropomorphic animals when it is not.
If BT is a furry comic because it has some anthros in it, then the furry community is a pervert community because it has some perverts in it. Obviously the latter is not true, so why should the former? But that is the logic that I am constantly being presented by people who insist it's a furry comic.
Please remember to sign your notes, folks.
I've updated this entry accordingly. Folks, the final word on what the focus or audience a comic (web or otherwise) is meant to be lies with its creator - if Jakkal says that Black Tapestries is not a furry comic, then it's not. This does not mean, however, that furry fen can't enjoy the strip. Carl Fox 04:28, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Added indentation. I would note that there's a simple solution here - just say "X is a fantasy comic enjoyed by members of the furry fandom. That's the criteria for being listed under the comics category, after all. And it's objectively true, while something being "furry" is subjective (as people clearly have different ideas of what "furry" is). --GreenReaper(talk) 05:08, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)