Today's strip of Pearls Before Swine featured talk about anthropomorphism vs 'non-anthro' () - I'm not sure how significant this is, but I figured non-anthro wasn't a widely-used abbreviation in the "mundane" world. Spaz Kitty 00:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Of the three articles wikifur contains on this general subject (the others being 'morphic' and 'nonmorphic'), this is the most confusing of all. Non-anthro clearly, clearly means "not being anthropomorphic," which if applied to an entity taken as a person (which is the general usage) would unquestionably mean a person with an entirely *human* appearance or nature. --Furthling 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Misconceptions and Contradictions
There is a frequent misconception in the furry community that all feral characters are quadruped, or that all quadruped characters are feral. According to this wiki, "quadruped" simply denotes a character that walks on four. This page needs clarification that quadruped characters are not always feral, that there is a distinction between the two terms. Either a disambiguation link ("Not to be confused with quadruped") or a separate section altogether.
Furthermore, this article claims that unarguably anthropomorphic characters are "non-anthropomorphic", even contradicting itself. For example, the article argues that the lack of ability to grasp denotes a non-anthropomorphic character, then later lists a few non-anthropomorphic characters...who can be seen grasping things. Three examples:
- Faux Pas: http://www.ozfoxes.net/fp/fp-002.jpg
- The Lion King: http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Simba-Enjoys-The-Fine-Bugs-Of-The-Jungle-In-The-Lion-King.gif
- Balto opened a door and arranged glass bottles in one scene, which I could not find a picture of. However, the article's reasoning behind the grasping thing regards moving appendages in unnatural ways, which also happens in the film, such as: http://www.animationsource.org/sites_content/balto/upload/articles/50/462.jpg
The article also claims that animalistic characters with speech and human intelligence are considered non-anthropomorphic, which completely defies the definition of "anthropomorphism". That's like using the term "blue" to describe things that are yellow, attempting to alter the definition of "blue" to fit that. The fact that the sentence begins with "The main trait that separates them from their real wild selfs" makes no sense, as non-anthropomorphic characters should be exactly like their real counterparts. (Not to mention, "wild" is a misdemeanor here, as non-anthropomorphic pets are not wild.)
Non-anthropomorphic characters in media would include characters like Rin-Tin-Tin, Old Yeller, etc. In animation, you'll find fewer, as animators use anthropomorphism for storytelling purposes; "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron" is the closest I can think of at the moment, but one could argue that the facial expressions and inner dialogue of Spirit make him anthropomorphic.
I argue that this article needs a major overhaul.