A question for writers

[Sigurd Volsung]

I asked this question on another forum and was harassed as trying to force other writers to work in my own world. How they came up with that idea is beyond me but I will ask the questions here of all writers.

Question one: How do you handle breeds? German Sheppards or Rottweillers? Since to me they never made sense unless they were an artifical race. In my own writings I have stuck to species and never use breeds unless they are an artificial race.

Question two: Hooved animals, horses, sheep, cows, you get the idea. How did they develop hands/front paws? again this has never made sense to me so I personally keep them as regular animals, unless they are from a fantasy realm and even then I usually refrain from using them.

As I said I am not saying that anyone has to follow my rules, we are all different, hell my best furry friend, other than the vixen I'm married to) is an equine, I just want to know your logic if you have ever though about it.

[Avan]

.... Well, I do one of three things, depending on the world I'm working in
1) In the Azar and related continuities, because except in a few rare crossovers with my other continuities, they and other genetically engineered lifeforms would be the only ones who could qualify as furry
2) In some of my other continuities, there are only a select few species
3) In the very, very, rare instance that many or all species are put on the inclusion list, usually for short stories that are directly dealing with the fandom, this gets lampshaded.

[Sky Striker]

Q1) I never refer to them by their breeds except for initial descriptions to aid the reader, but I don't call it a breed. For example: "His likeness to a rotweiler intimidated me, but that feeling vanished the instant me put on a huge smile." And referencing their breed isn't always necessary, it just helps sometimes.

Q2) I don't really address how they got hands. In my mind if the reader is willing to accept that dogs, cats and other animals are walking around on two feet and have hands they will believe that an equine creature can have hands. You may want to subtly tell them that they do have hands, using a sentence such as: "The large deer approached me with an olive branch in his hands to offer peace."

Good luck and happy writing!

[Avan]

oh yeah, I forgot about #2
Umm, yeah, suspention of disbelief is your friend. What sky said.

[489109]

.

[Ziel]

I'm not a writer, but as a reader I can offer my opinion on the first question. I tend to prefer more description in stuff I read. By that, I mean well developed characters and settings and stuff like that. In my opinion, knowing a species just helps give me a clearer mental picture of what the author is going for, and also aids in developing the character.

I liken it to mentioning race or perhaps even religion when writing about people. Is it necessary? Probably not. But something like that can give a quick glimpse into a character's background and disposition (all based off well-known stereotypes of course). For example, you get a completely different impression on what a character is like by describing a 'small, old man' versus a 'small, old Chinese man'.

In the same manner, you get a completely different idea of what a character may be like if you say they are a Bulldog versus a Greyhound. Though they don't have to conform to the stereotypes. Perhaps you have a Bulldog who's a big softie. Knowing he's a bulldog makes his kindness even more unique.

[Ryffnah]

Breed distinctions may be artificial, but they're very important.  Not only do they give a thumbnail description of a character very efficiently, but I have to believe that breed distinctions would be important to some animal characters themselves.  I mean, imagine a Siamese cat.  Don't you think that most purebred Siamese cats would kind of look down on mere tabbies?

[Spirit]

Question one: How do you handle breeds? German Sheppards or Rottweillers? Since to me they never made sense unless they were an artifical race. In my own writings I have stuck to species and never use breeds unless they are an artificial race.

Question two: Hooved animals, horses, sheep, cows, you get the idea. How did they develop hands/front paws? again this has never made sense to me so I personally keep them as regular animals, unless they are from a fantasy realm and even then I usually refrain from using them.

1. In most stories of mine the difference between breeds is the same as the difference between human races in real life. For example, asking a character from my stories "What's the difference between a German Shepherd and a Rottweiler?" is like asking a random guy you saw on the street what the difference between a Chinese guy and a Japanese guy is.
2. I don't usually write about ungulates, but I have a suggestion. Maybe you could have humanlike hands, with black hoof-material instead of nails.

[LordFenrir]

When I'm writing for The Shadow of the Dog Lord, breed is irrelevant for me, I am more concerned with the overall generic specie.  I often view breed as how we view "race", no matter what race you are, you are still human, the rest is irrelevant.  So, it's just fox, or coyote, or wolf, or dog, but I frequently even ignore that, simply referring to them a the "Free Canids". Most of my dialogue concerning specie is Fenrir's, since he feels his own specie, wolf, is superior and exercises that belief.

Can't help with question 2, since in all my writings so far ungulates have not evolved from their real world counterparts and are used as work animals/mounts.

Cheers,
LordFenrir

[killrhawk]

Generally, I think of breed like nationality. Just like humans have different colors of skin and different features depending on where we come from, so do animals.

I've got nothing for question 2, when I write in a furry setting, it always just happened and nobody really worries about it. I never gave it that much thought though. Good question!

[Draconium]

The way I treat it:

Question 1: Breed literally equals race. And yes, there was a deleted scene from a Darwin's Soldiers RP (on another forum) about the heroes running into a breed supremacy protest. 

Question 2: I rely on suspension of disbelief.

[TashkentFox]

1). I don't use them, breeds of dog wouldn't exist without human intervention so I just use wolves instead of dogs.

2). Again, I don't use them, partly because I can't think of any way to make them work and partly because I only wanted to have predatory species as anthro's to avoid carnivore confusion.

[Sigurd Volsung]

Next question what about mixed-species like Zig Zag to mention the most famous of them all. How do you treat them? Do they even exist in your world? And if so are there any rules to how they look.

In my own Sabrinaverse fanfic I have it that the furson has the body of one species entirely but shares traits of both parents fur coloring. However in a incredibly small number about 1 in 250,000 you get a true freak who dhares not only coloration of both parents but physical traits. In my story my main character is a wolf-tiger mix-species, his fur is grey with tiger-stripes he has the head of a wolf but has whiskers, he has retractable claws, and the feature he hates the most about himself is his tail which looks generally wolfish but is far far too long and acts as if it belongs on a feline. In essence he is his own unique species with a population of one.

[Itico]

 Hello there!  All good questions.  I have one counter-question that i like to ask the people i help, 'Is the detail important?'  Breeds: I try to stay away from stereotypes.  They tend to over-simplify.  I prefer to describe the character and let the reader make the comparison to breed if they so wish.  I would prefer to do that then have to describe how the character differs from the stereotype.  Ungulates: If it becomes important, i would use an explaination rather like the one described in reply #4, so there is no need to say any more then that.    

mixes: In my storiesI  have not used them as natural creatures.  i know that differs from other people.  Any mixed creature was artificially created, usually forcibly.  While this is all fantasy, I like to think thatwe still need to at least make these somewhat believable.  this means that we should not stress the limits of physics and biology too much.

That does not means that we can't fu// over the details a little

stay fluffy.

[Sky Striker]

Well, I don't have mixed species like that, even though Ligers are possible. (Just infertile)

In my story different species cannot interbreed, save for those exceptions, so I don't really have to worry about that all too much. Sorry I can't help with this one.

[Sigurd Volsung]

The thing is that I treat all furry settings differently depending on the situation. If I'm writing in a Sbarinaverse style setting then yes I'll use mix species because the whole situation is whimsical nonsense even if it portrays serious situations.

In a novella I wrote the furry characters were totally artificial and sterile until a whole new generation were brought to life out of reproduction tanks, I finished of that story just before that new generation was born so I never considered mix-species.

In two other completely different pieces I'm working on their are no mix-species since, as Itico points out, that would stretch belief to the breaking point since physiology simply wouldn't allow for it even though both realms are high fantasy.

Next question, I believe this is question 4: Primitive animals. Do you have natural animals like what we would find in the real world, and do they have humanoid versions in the same story. Example would you find an Equine knight riding a war horse in your world?
In my personal, fully, furry world the answer is yes, I simply make the difference by calling them 'primitive' animals so an Equine knight would ride a primitive war horse.

[Landrav]

In my original continuity, furs are genetically-modified life forms based on humans.  It makes things like the Hands Question and mixed-species considerations much simpler (no mixed breeds, by the way). 

For my setting it makes complete sense to have "primitives," but I think it can also help in other settings, too.  For one, it gives the readers fewer new concepts to grasp and lets them feel as if they already have a partial understanding of how the world works.  I think I heard someone say once that fantasy writers should concentrate on writing a good story, not confusing the reader by making the characters ride Floxbexadons, because the only thing you accomplish is making the reader wonder, "What the hell is a Floxbexadon???"

More serious works, in my experience, tend to narrow the scope of animals included in the "sentient" category, so the problem sort of solves itself.

[Avan]

Yeah; point behind that being that it /is/ in itself a method of solving said problem

[Sigurd Volsung]

In my original continuity, furs are genetically-modified life forms based on humans.  It makes things like the Hands Question and mixed-species considerations much simpler (no mixed breeds, by the way). 

For my setting it makes complete sense to have "primitives," but I think it can also help in other settings, too.  For one, it gives the readers fewer new concepts to grasp and lets them feel as if they already have a partial understanding of how the world works.  I think I heard someone say once that fantasy writers should concentrate on writing a good story, not confusing the reader by making the characters ride Floxbexadons, because the only thing you accomplish is making the reader wonder, "What the hell is a Floxbexadon???"

More serious works, in my experience, tend to narrow the scope of animals included in the "sentient" category, so the problem sort of solves itself.

In the Furry RPG Iron Claw they did pretty much the exact thing that you mention of creating an new creature like your Floxbexadon in that system all animals used for physical labor like we in the real world would use horses and the like for were giant lizards. Making them all lizards makes little sense as lizards cannot survive in colder climates.

[Itico]

Hello my friends,

My first addition to the conversation is regarding the idea of wether to use new creatures or older, familiar ones.  As has been noted, it can be confusing to introduce and explain new creatures.  However, the question I see is, 'How much fantasy do you want in your story?'  Remember that a lot of the creatures we take for granted, such as dragons, were at one time new and fanciful.

The best way to introduce a new creature is not to stop your story and lecture the reader on the next fantastic thing you just pulled out of your head, but to incorporate elements directly into your story.  While thinking about this, I started thinking about this snippet;

"With a piercing whistle, Leana leaped from the platform.  Green light flashed from her glossy black main and tail as she vaulted to the back of her mount.  The beast she rode flexed it's giant membranes as she scooped up the steering traces."

Now, why an equimorph would be riding around on the back of a giant gas bag in the atmosphere of a gas giant planet would have to come out in the story somewhere.  Later on in the story, you likely would find out that her steed looks nothing like a horse, but serves the same function in a totally alien environment.

As to the other question, I'm conflicted because I have yet to write a story where evolved and natural creatures lived in the same story.

I have read some good stories which discussed this, sadly my recall is terrible.

I think that the way I would treat it is to have a very good reason why some animals evolved sentience while others missed the boat.  Say there was a selective virus or too much juk food, whatever.

That's all I wanted to add.

[Sky Striker]

Nice tips Itico. That's definitely something all of us should keep in mind.

[Draconium]

Primitives...erm, that is a real sticky situation. I tend to avoid that because the idea of an anthro Clydesdale hitching up a non-anthro Percheron to a carriage makes my brain hurt really, really, really badly.

In the Darwin's Soldiers universe, no aquatic beings (seals, walruses, whales, dolphins and fish) are anthro (only exception are otters). Generally, all land animals and birds are anthro but due to multiple authors working in the universe there are implications that songbirds are not anthro. I have not yet decided whether to make that canon or not, though. 

Since Darwin's Soldiers is a modern/SF setting, I can ignore the issue of equestrian activities.

Oh yeah, mixed breeds are totally impossible. Only real life hybrids can exist (Zorse, Mule, Liger etc.). That means no Folfs, Griffins, etc.

[Sigurd Volsung]

One of the reasons for using primitives in anthro settings though comes down to the problem certain terms, like being 'dog tired' or 'acting squirrelly' or 'wolfing down your food' or 'the cat that ate the canary' you'd have to eliminate these common sayings all together, which I've noticed some authors seem to forget. Also you have to keep in mind sports teams if you're working in a modern Earth setting there goes the Bulls, the Bears, the Broncos...

Also as I have said in certain worlds it would be easy to say that certain types of real animals never became anthros in the first place. For one of my fantasy pieces ungulates never became anthros so you'd see an anthro wolf farmer milking a cow and no one would notice it since that's just how it is.

With other pieces such as Sabrina On Line and all the fanfics based on it you have mix species and possibly non-anthro versions of species that have an anthro equivalent.

[Arbutus]

One of the reasons for using primitives in anthro settings though comes down to the problem certain terms, like being 'dog tired' or 'acting squirrelly' or 'wolfing down your food' or 'the cat that ate the canary' you'd have to eliminate these common sayings all together, which I've noticed some authors seem to forget.

Actually, I've seen some authors treat this issue with a sense of humor. One character will say something like "She's just trying to weasel out of it," and a weasel character will give them a dirty look like "That's racist!"

I kind of enjoy that, because it seems like a plausible reflection of our own society. Because it's so obvious, though, it can be tough to pull off well. Some authors have explored the issues behind it pretty well, while others just treat it as a throwaway gag.

[Sigurd Volsung]

What annoys me is when a writer says something like 'that woman is acting like a total she-dog. My apologizes to all female dogs.' It's a stupid thing to say. If you are going to use terms in that way it would be like saying something to the effect of saying 'That man is acting like a total wet-back, my apologize to any Mexican out there.' It makes no Foxtroting sense. You need to set a culture stereo type and then you can't apologize to general group. If you call someone a wet-back it means that you think of Mexicans as wet-backs you're not about to apologize to them.