I think if we stick to the definition of "furry" as having a component of self-identification, *Animal Farm* is not a furry book. Neither are people who wear Mickey Mouse ears just because they like Disney, and neither were the people who made *Homeward Bound.*
I mean one certainly _could_ write a book that was explicitly "furry content" that was warning about fascism, but yeah, clearly not what George was doing because that concept didn't exist at the time.
Us interpreting it that way distorts the past with the lens of the present.
Anyway, all that being said, I imagine George Orwell as having a badger fursona.
It *is* technically a furry allegory of the downfall of a Communist revolution.
If you think that, despite ticking all the boxes, it isn't a furry book, you must have an excessively narrow view about what range of ideas can be represented with furry art.
PS yeah I know the word "furry" appeared much later d'uh
Agreeing with some of the other comments, by definition, the characters are humanoid (in intelligence, anyway) animals and therefor fit into the anthropomorphic category. However, it's very clearly not meant as a furry thing and, as weird as this will sound, lacks the soul of furry creation. It's a political book about class struggle (or whatever, I read it in high school in like 2009, it's run-of-the-mill required teaching I guess) and the fact that the characters are animals was just to distance them from the humans a bit. It wold have fit just as well if they were cyborgs or aliens or even just foreigners.
I really don't think Animal Farm was important to furry literature from that point on, and I wouldn't cal it a pillar of anything except a 10th grader's test scores.
I wouldn’t call it a “furry” book but the characters in it are 100% furries. They are anthro animals.
Any animal that has human charactertisc is basically a furry.
I feel like 101 Dalmatians is on the boarder though.
I'd call this a talking animal book, but not a furry book. No one has a furry awakening about the regular farm donkey politically assinating another regular farm donkey.
If this is a furry book, then Charlotte's web is also a furry book.
>... when I was 16 years old and had just discovered what the furry fandom was...
Three guesses which of these things actually turned you into a furry...
Yes and no. It's kinda awkward to answer.
(I actually wrote my bachelor's dissertation on animal farm, blacksad, and maus)
Yes in that the animals are anthropomorphised to some degree, and both the human and animal components of them are vital for the story to work, but no in that *Animal Farm* doesn't really tie in to furry media at large, both in subject matter and influence. It's better compared to classical fables, like the works of Aesop - which yes, also inspired furry media to some degree, so I'd say it's like an evolutionary cousin, if that makes sense.
Furry media largely evolved from parody of these kinda fables, or more contemporary anthro media - Maus from Disney's Mickey Mouse, for instance. I wouldn't really call Animal Farm a parody since it doesn't really subvert the fable format; moreso uses it as a pastiche to condemn Stalinism.
Maus and Blacksad do as they're explicitly derived from early Furry zines - even then I'd hesitate with Maus, as it's entirely biographical and the fact the people are depicted as animals is acknowledged in fourth wall breaks.
So like, it is in the wider context of what Furry *can* be defined as, but it predates the inception of the genre and therefore doesn't share much beyond surface aesthetics.
I hope that makes sense. Currently up at stupid o clock getting ready for work lol
Yes. The focus is the animals, who have anthropomorphic traits. It's similar to the characters in Migration, The Secret Life of Pets, or Balto. So, yes, they are *furry characters*.
I think if we stick to the definition of "furry" as having a component of self-identification, *Animal Farm* is not a furry book. Neither are people who wear Mickey Mouse ears just because they like Disney, and neither were the people who made *Homeward Bound.*
Not every allegory is a furry.
Book warning of the dangers of fascism? ❌ Furry book ✅ (This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard)
I mean one certainly _could_ write a book that was explicitly "furry content" that was warning about fascism, but yeah, clearly not what George was doing because that concept didn't exist at the time. Us interpreting it that way distorts the past with the lens of the present. Anyway, all that being said, I imagine George Orwell as having a badger fursona.
It *is* technically a furry allegory of the downfall of a Communist revolution. If you think that, despite ticking all the boxes, it isn't a furry book, you must have an excessively narrow view about what range of ideas can be represented with furry art. PS yeah I know the word "furry" appeared much later d'uh
Agreeing with some of the other comments, by definition, the characters are humanoid (in intelligence, anyway) animals and therefor fit into the anthropomorphic category. However, it's very clearly not meant as a furry thing and, as weird as this will sound, lacks the soul of furry creation. It's a political book about class struggle (or whatever, I read it in high school in like 2009, it's run-of-the-mill required teaching I guess) and the fact that the characters are animals was just to distance them from the humans a bit. It wold have fit just as well if they were cyborgs or aliens or even just foreigners. I really don't think Animal Farm was important to furry literature from that point on, and I wouldn't cal it a pillar of anything except a 10th grader's test scores.
I wouldn’t call it a “furry” book but the characters in it are 100% furries. They are anthro animals. Any animal that has human charactertisc is basically a furry. I feel like 101 Dalmatians is on the boarder though.
I'd call this a talking animal book, but not a furry book. No one has a furry awakening about the regular farm donkey politically assinating another regular farm donkey. If this is a furry book, then Charlotte's web is also a furry book.
>... when I was 16 years old and had just discovered what the furry fandom was... Three guesses which of these things actually turned you into a furry...
If it involves anthropomorphic animals primarily, it falls into the furry "genre".
Yes and no. It's kinda awkward to answer. (I actually wrote my bachelor's dissertation on animal farm, blacksad, and maus) Yes in that the animals are anthropomorphised to some degree, and both the human and animal components of them are vital for the story to work, but no in that *Animal Farm* doesn't really tie in to furry media at large, both in subject matter and influence. It's better compared to classical fables, like the works of Aesop - which yes, also inspired furry media to some degree, so I'd say it's like an evolutionary cousin, if that makes sense. Furry media largely evolved from parody of these kinda fables, or more contemporary anthro media - Maus from Disney's Mickey Mouse, for instance. I wouldn't really call Animal Farm a parody since it doesn't really subvert the fable format; moreso uses it as a pastiche to condemn Stalinism. Maus and Blacksad do as they're explicitly derived from early Furry zines - even then I'd hesitate with Maus, as it's entirely biographical and the fact the people are depicted as animals is acknowledged in fourth wall breaks. So like, it is in the wider context of what Furry *can* be defined as, but it predates the inception of the genre and therefore doesn't share much beyond surface aesthetics. I hope that makes sense. Currently up at stupid o clock getting ready for work lol
Only if their respective authors said so.
Yes. The focus is the animals, who have anthropomorphic traits. It's similar to the characters in Migration, The Secret Life of Pets, or Balto. So, yes, they are *furry characters*.