02/06/00 -- Anthropomorph this!

I help run a convention called Anthrocon which is attended by people who are fans of anthropomorphic animals which are also called, by that fandom, furries.  How I got involved in running this convention, and how I wound up with a board/director position is a long story: a story for another time.  What's on my mind right now is anthropomorphism and anthropomorphics: specifically, how anthropomorphics are portrayed in the fringe fandom that spawned the creation of Anthrocon and what it really means.

According to Merriam-Webster Online, anthropomorphism has the following defintion: an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics. And anthropopmorphic is defined as: (1) described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes, or (2) ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things.

To many furry fans, anthropomorphic means a cross between a human and an animal with the resulting creature having primarily human characteristics: walks on two legs, talks like a human, and feels the same things humans do.  Sure, they have tails that wag, or they flick their ears, but they're mostly humans with animal ears and tails and muzzles.

Most furries stop there when they think about anthropomorphics.   When Anthrocon got started, it was billed as an 'anthropomorphics convention' not a 'furry convention'.  This distinction confused a lot of people.  The outcry from the most vocal part of the fandom came loud and clear, "Well, what else is there?"

My agitated response was, "A lot of things!"

But, for the most part, Anthrocon has remained a "furry" convention.  It hasn't managed to branch out into anthropomorphics, it hasn't managed to move beyond the definition that the majority of furry fans use to limit the word.

I've listened to discussions about whose writing or art is "furry enough", and there have been very good writers shot down because their work is mostly "aliens and humans".  And I just sit there and look increadulous.  "Are they human?" I ask.  And the answer always comes back, no.  "Do we give them human characteristics?  Do we provide them with human emotions?  Do we assume that when they do this, it is because they are happy? or sad?  or angry?"  Well, sometimes.   Then we're anthropomorphising them.  We're talking about anthropomorphics.   Given a fandom whose roots are (primarily) in cartoos with "funny animals", the concept of anthropomorphising things other than animals shouldn't be too strange.

Next, I bring up The Brave Little Toaster and The Little Engine that Could.  I get blank stares, sometimes.  Then arguements that they're not furry.  And I shake my head.  "We weren't talking about furry," I say, "We were talking about anthropomorphics.  They've got eyes.  They walk around.  Hello?  The candlestick in Disney's Beauty and the Beast.   And the teapot.  And the teacup.  What else do you need for proof that we're giving human characteristics for things that aren't human?  That we've got anthropomorphic objects?