Cute furry characters: do they distract you from a serious story?

[tarableart]

Well, the technique of adding a breather in between climactic events is a real story-telling strategy. It's known as Catharsis. Screen-plays use it (Shakespeare used it ALL the time) to allow the audience a chance to emotionally relax in between intense emotional ups and downs. Without something like comedy or a feel-good moment then the audience will become emotionally numb and the intense moments will lose their power and effect.

Kurapikasuki brings up Meeko and Flit from Pocahontas, but to counter I will bring up Rosencrantz and Guildenstern from Hamlet- after a particularly intense scene in the play the scene would suddenly divert to these particular characters. Their actions were purely for comedy sake and they did not actually affect the main storyline, but that was the entire purpose. Sometimes it is actually a good thing to divert from the storyline to allow the audience to digest and subconsciously absorb what they've been seeing. Too much information constantly will often times prevent core meanings and lessons from actually being understood due to over-saturation of information.

I think adding a cute and furry sidekick is perhaps an easy way for an author/screenplay writer to do just that. Audiences tend to attach less lasting meaning to an animal character than a human character, so cute sidekicks can often just be an extension of a human character without attaching the weight and potential story-affecting responsibility to said animal.

[Kura]

I am quiet aware it's a story-telling strategy, just not one that I like because it is abused and overused because it's a very simple to understand concept, yet seldom done very well (again all posts are my opinion since that is what the thread is asking for, personal opinions), and one that unfortunately mascot characters are susceptible to, because usually writers can't seem to think of any other way to justify having the cute animal characters they need to sell toys of into a story.

Another good example in where the comic relief animal characters (tho these ones talked) felt like they were annoying me throughout the story and hindering the actual storytelling was the Disney interpretation of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" The gargoyle characters they decided to throw in there, because yeah, that story is very dark and pretty difficult to present to children so I don't blame them for feeling they needed to throw SOMETHING lighthearted into that. Unfortunately they did it horribly, the gargoyles were so overboard not only were they just awful characters, but they were awful to the point they were embarrassing to watch. They still are embarrassing, because now when I say "this is one of my favourite movies as a kid we should watch it" to someone that hasn't watched it yet, as soon as these three friggen characters pop onto the screen I just kind of groan and hang my head thinking "omfg my friend is going to think I have the humor level of a two year old that only finds amusement in fart jokes..." They did nothing for the movie, the story could have been told perfectly fine without them, and it wasn't as if everything else that happened outside of the gargoyle characters was dark, it still had its bright, colourful and silly moments while still telling the story, but then as soon as those three come on screen everything just got uncomfortably ridiculous.

If they would have been handled, or even presented differently they might have actually worked, but they were not. They were handle poorly, because the writing technique, though indeed a technique is often handled very poorly and used more as a writing cop-out instead of bothering to find alternate ways to deal with a heavy story or even just having a character to sell merch in a movie or series.

Edit: Only one of the animal sidekicks in Mulan spoke, the cricket and horse did not.

[tarableart]

My explanation of Catharsis was to the thread as a whole, as some people seemed to express confusion over the idea of breaking the flow of the story with cute/funny characters and I felt a definition of the technique (or at least the English definition, as I know not everyone on Tapastic comes from Europe or the Americas) might clear some things up.

I can definitely agree with you about the gargoyles in Notre Dame. I love that movie to death, but in terms of comedic relief Djali (the goat) and the gypsies did well enough on their own. Perhaps the writers had wanted a sort of nature vs nurture element as Quasimodo would need a gentle/good role model growing up to counter the evil prejudice of being raised by Frollo? - but at the same time it was somewhat counter-intuitive as the gargoyles were just figments of his imagination anyway. The need for company in his isolation also makes sense, as humans are social creatures, so him having imaginary friends to cope likewise fits- but Disney wrote their scenes rather poorly.

Taking into account that the gargoyles ARE made from Quasi, then his asking for advice is a conversation with himself. Yet the personalities of the gargoyles clash with the audiences' perception of Quasi's character. Though I can admit that he does seem to be a romantic and studious, as at least one of the gargoyles seems to be. Personally I felt he had formed his own good opinion on humanity from being an observer anyway, so perhaps had the gargoyles been written in only one or two scenes it might have flowed better (and without Hugo...).

Outside of introspection style characters I believe a lot of writers choose to include animal characters not just from ease of writing and marketing, but perhaps because it is a pattern that is inherent to humanity. If one were to take the example of the Monomyth- the absolute core of most adventure oriented stories- the inclusion of an animal character represents the presence of Nature and its approval of the Hero. Harry Potter has Hedwig, Dorothy has Toto, Percy Jackson has Blackjack, etc. It's not exactly a checklist that people add to their stories but rather something that is almost unconscious.

On that note, I again agree with your stance Kura. Quite a few story boarders do not include said "Friendly Beast" well into their story. Certain studios (Disney among them) often do well in creating an environment that appeals to all ages, but sometimes I feel they overdo it in reaching young children.

[fanyart]

Thanks, @tarableart ! You pointed out several interesting things. Though the "Audiences tend to attach less lasting meaning to an animal character than a human character" really hurt from the animal point of view, you're perfectly right

@kurapikasuki Thanks for voicing your opinion! Please don't feel intimidated, the more diverse opinions, the better!
Ah, another addition to my watch list! Good thing I haven't visited my friend who has Disney movies yet!
Yeah, selling plushies and stuff is another important thing about movies - like the Ice Age series they kept adding characters that had like 20 secs of screentime overall probably just to make toys. With Ice Age 4 toys arrived first into my country and I was looking forward to the elephant seal and the damans/guinea pigs/whatever they were in the movie but they just flashed before the camera for a few seconds.

I just realized something that might be funny to add - the animal mascots can attract audience themselves, even if a potential viewer/reader wouldn't be interested in the story. I remember I watched Epic purely for the two snails They weren't really mascots, more like independent characters, though.
And I can't say I wasn't amused when my friend told me "there are cat lovers all over the world, even if they don't care about dragons, Purra will attract them to look at your comic even if he's an ugly fat cat". So I'm kind of curious about that

[SethJH]

This topic might be a little old by now, but I'm glad to know I'm not the only artist out there have questioned this and felt discouraged about presenting their comic due to the immediate loss of readers on the premise that the characters are anthro animals and not human.

I was uploading the prologue to my comic on tumblr, which features Human scientists in "our" universe working on genetic experiments. I gained a few readers and everything was fine. When I started uploading the main part of the story, where it is solely anthro animal characters, I began seeing my reader count drop. Nobody said anything, they just left. It got me feeling discouraged that the story I've been really passionate about creating is falling on deaf ears. I'm well aware of the furry community and their art styles, tropes, and themes, and I've been trying to avoid that because I don't want my story catered to such a specific (and often stigmatized) "fandom". I'd prefer it be accessible to any reader who doesn't hate animals or science fiction. I'd be interested to know if there's any other comic artists who've chosen anthro animals had experienced this situation, and what was the result of it?

[scythe]

Two words: Animal Farm. 'nuff said.

[SandraMJ]

Well, probably anyone who's used anthro since the birth of the furry community, haha. It's just going to happen, I'm afraid. To give you an example, Nickelodeon didn't want to make The Legend of Korra because the protagonist was a female, and they were afraid that would be terrible for audiences. Turns out it was not, people loved Korra (some people. Then the plot got worse but that's a whole other argument) and nobody gives a damn about the people who complained about Korra being a girl.

So, if you continue, disregarding those who are afraid of seeing the same stigmas of other comics with anthro characters, you'll find people who are nice and fine with it

@scythe Welp, there weren't uhhh "the other kind" of comics with animals back then, though animal farm gets a whole different stigma as it still is mistaken for a kids book. I had the dubious pleasure of reading it when I was 7 because it was in the classroom's library. Yikes.

[guilhermecahu]

This topic is a blessing. I have an anthro character in my story and I've been thinking about public's reaction for some time.

I don't consider myself part of the furry fandom neither and I made a great effort to make my character look more animal than human (that's the kind of anthro I prefer). I can assuredly state that it took me 1 entire year to develop this character - and I'm still putting the finishing touches. One of the strongest references to its design was Shirokuma Café, in which the caracters [that aren't human] are 100% animal, no middle ground.

Altought I prefer characters that are more animal, I must say I like some on the other way too. Actually the greatest problem about this, in my opinion, is the approach. Overly sexualized anthros? NO. Ultra happy Disney-like mega colorful anthros? LOL NOPE. Kid-like overly sexualized Disney-like mega artificially colorful anthros, having sex? [deep facepalm]

Anyway, I'd like to share some references with you here to base some of my opinions. For example, starting with an illustrator I admire a lot, Jerome Jacinto. He can draw more animal-like anthros, like this one, a middle ground, and anthros with human shaped-body but with stronger animal characteristics, like his latest illustration and they're still great imo. He knows how to give an appropriate approach to them, as well as he knows his craft very well.

Another illustrator that draws animal characters is J. T. Cole. Sometimes they're more animal, sometimes they have a human-shaped body, but with strong animal characteristics. Take a look at this, this and this.

And there is a webcomic that was not mentioned here that also has human-shaped characters with strong animal traits and that has a good approach, that is Beyond the Western Deep. And guess what, Jerome will draw the next entire chapter of the comic!

Oh, about Shirokuma Café...

It's great for references!

[SandraMJ]

Ohh yeah, shirokuma café was really cool about it, though sometimes the expressions felt a bit off precisely because they were so animal like, in my opinion. Though thanks a lot for mentioning the other two artists, their art looks AWESOME!

Yeahhhhh the sexualization of characters, and especially terribly cheesy characters, among furries gives nowadays anyone who uses anthropomorphic characters a bad rep and gets you called "furry". I walk up to the mirror, yawn, look at myself, and I don't see a furball, I see a perfectly normal human, so I don't identify myself as a furry either haha. One just has to deal with the prejudice, sigh.

[zoonland]

No, they don't distract me if they aren't just a furry character. Example: Blacksad. A fantastic comic book with animals as characters, but with very serious stories.

[guilhermecahu]

By the way, here are 3 more references. These guys are really pro; I admire their work a lot and I discovered them because they illustrated for the Redwall series.

Christopher Denise. He illustrated the 3 Redwall picture books (The Redwall Cookbook, A Redwall Winter's Tale, The Great Redwall Feast) and many others. He works with pastel and charcoal. Here is his Facebook page and an interview with him. If I'm not mistaken, it was him that said that drawing anthropomorphic characters was not easy, and keeping this in mind, specially coming from Christopher Denise, made me feel less frustrated when developing my main character.

Troy Howell. Illustrated all the american covers of the Redwall books. I think he works with oil painting. Here's an interview with him and his Facebook page. One of my favorite covers is this one, from The Long Patrol (and Mariel of Redwall too, but I couldn't find a good image in which the colors weren't too saturated or overly desaturated).

David Elliot. He illustrated chapters for some Redwall books and has many other works. Here is an interview with him.

---

Extra mentions!

There are 2 other webcomics that use anthro characters well. They're Carnivore Planet, that is drawn completely in black & white, hatchings everywhere, and Roar Street Journal, that uses animals in a more cartoony way but totally delivers the message it proposes to, like in this episode. I like the artist's style a lot.

[SethJH]

Those are some interesting sources you've linked, guilhermecahu. Actually, Redwall was my favorite book series when I was in elementary/middle school. They actually inspired me to start the story-world I'm working on still today.

Another subject of discussion (I know it was briefly touched upon in the previous posts) is the idea of anthro animal characters being seen as "for children", and therefore makes it "uncomfortable" to have a story with more so-called "adult" themes (such as love, relationships/abuse, intimacy (not explicit, of course), mental health, drugs, etc...). I know war and death seem to be prevalent with anthro characters (even in books like Redwall), but the other listed topics aren't often portrayed. My comic, for example, is based on the two protagonists grappling with identity, relationship abuse, and mental issues, while they fall in love with each other. Assuming the story is well written, and the art style is clean and appealing, would you say that the fact that the characters are anthro animals would make the story less approachable?

[guilhermecahu]

I don't think so but it depends on your approach. What you listed are serious personal problems, so using a Disney-like style wouldn't work imo, for example (but this has also to do with the readers - the furry fandom would love such style, I think). And I think another thing to keep in mind is how you convey emotions on the characters of your comic (and what makes me worry if I'll be able to do well in mine too). I think that drawing anthros imposes some limitations to character's expressions (compared to human characters) and such limitations must be overcome in order to achieve good results.

Some people won't already read comics with anthropomorthic characteres - it's ok, that happens - but the ones that are reading won't feel conected to the characters if they don't convey emotions well because people will feel that's artificial and... kinda not real.

So I think the problem isn't exactly on the kind of character (human, animal or anthro), but on how you represent who they are and what they feel.

[SethJH]

I think that drawing anthros imposes some limitations to character's expressions (compared to human characters) and such limitations must be overcome in order to achieve good results.

I definitely agree with this. I've spent a few years experimenting with styles of facial anatomy to best convey emotion without "breaking model" and making the character look out of form for a particular expression. For a while, I gave my character human heads with snouts and ears but I realized how terrifyingly creepy they look if you take a step back and think about it. The uncanny valley effect does make animal-human characters quite challenging to design if you're trying to avoid cartoon styles. It seems that cartoon styles (not necessarily Disney or anime, however) work better for anthro character designs to convey emotion and not look creepy.

[SandraMJ]

@guilhermecahu @SethJH You need a DEEP understanding of how both facial anatomy and the muzzle/snout/whatever of the creature you're drawing works to achieve realistic expressions in anthro or more animal-like characters. That's why most authors (including myself) opt to go for a more cartoonist style while trying to keep giving the same vibe.

Here's some wonderful tutorial by Tracy J Butler about expressions that I link at every opportunity:

Lackadaisy Expressions

And here's one about constructing characters:

Lackadaisy Construction

I'm not a fan of constructive drawing, but it may help you guys

[guilhermecahu]

=o Thank you very much, they're great!

[fanyart]

For people who have been insecure about having furry characters in their comics, I just would like to share that I've started my comic with anthro dragons and even though only a trailer is out, a bunch of people have subbed and I have YET to receive a comment like "I wish it was a manga with humans but I'll follow for the art" which I totally dreaded >.<
Not that all my insecurities are gone but it was a big push to chase away the worries at least a bit! So it might not be as bad as we paint it! Hope this gives all of you hope too!

EDIT: Oh yeah, the comic of mine is The World of Wishes

[PurpleGround]

Ah! I've seen Blacksad! I wanted to mention that as well! Your words are straight and true.

By your own admission you've read some. Why are you having doubts?

If you don't have a burning desire to write your story, then don't do it.

If you're going to be easily swayed by random opinions either way, then don't do it.

[eagle1]

Um....Does this count as a cute furry character?

Eagle
(And I am telling a serious story)

[guilhermecahu]

Hm.. In my opinion, it depends on what we exactly consider "furry".

For some people, a character is furry only by being anthropomorphic, so it's considered a style. For me, furry is rather a community, not a style. There are some anthro art there that isn't made by, nor made to be furry, like what I, @SandraMJ and @fanyart do, while other anthro characters are created with that intention in mind.

This is Marcos, main character of my webcomic, Badger Badger. Not furry.

According to what I've seen, the furry fandom art is predominantly composed by characters that rather have human than animal shape (despite the animal characteristics) and, for some like the one above, it gets a bit difficult for me to estabilish a difference: is this furry or not? To solve this question, I leave it to the artist. Some are self-proclaimed furries, some not. Maybe those ones aren' furry at all, so it's their own mindset that determines if that art is part of the fandom or not.

I take, for example, Jerome Jacinto; an artist I admire a lot.

He can draw characters that have rather an animal shape, like this one:

Source: http://chichapie.deviantart.com/art/Matthias-the-father-with-timelapse-video-412100299

And others that have rather a human shape:

Source: http://sinto619.tumblr.com/post/137333748372/quick-drawing-of-dreemurr-reborn-s-asriel

And I've never seen him proclaiming himself furry, so, following his apparent intention, I do not consider his art furry. Same goes for Nicholas Kole's art:

Source: http://nicholaskole.tumblr.com/post/134409097332/i-stayed-up-late-last-night-throwing-together

Source: http://nicholaskole.tumblr.com/post/131132577957/i-just-couldnt-stop-inking-today-wen-i-travel-i

Also, furry art usually follows some characteristic themes and furry characters usually follow simillar expressions and seem to have a specific range of personalities.

This is basically, well, my definition of furry. Still, let me state that I don't have anything against this community. Sometimes I even need to resort to furry references in order to learn ways of building and representing characters ¯_(ツ)_/¯