I think the definition of what the “Furry Fandom” is can be pretty simple when you think about it. It’s like being a “gamer”. You’re someone that likes playing games, therefore, gamer. So with furry it’s simple, you’re someone that likes furry stuff, therefore, furry.

I mean okay, folks will debate until the cows come home about “how much” and benchmarks and so on about “how do you know when you’re such and such” but let’s keep it simple for the sake of argument.

[picture]

So we know what “Furries” are but…how do you define what “furry” is? How do you know when something is “furry”?

This can actually be one of the more debated subjects in the fandom. Definitions can be important to a community, so it’s no surprise there’d be a bit of discussion regarding the thing the fandom is centered around.

Fandom-Made vs. Not-Fandom-Made

Some furries, like Summercat, feel that the “Furry” label for works only applies if it’s made specifically by the furry community. Something like Klace Husky’s game Winds of Change would be furry, since Klace is a fur and the game’s full of fuzzy animal characters.

However, The Broken Horn’s game The Crown of Leaves would not be furry, as the main force behind the game straight up says they aren’t furries on their own Fur Affinity page. Therefore, not furry.

Logically, this would also extend to movies as well. The Lion King? That’s not furry. Add Zootopia to the list too. But something like Seel’s Close Up meme video? That’d be furry, since Seel’s a furry.

I totally understand the logic behind this, though. It’s an easy way to tell which works were made by furries and which ones weren’t. Under this definition, if I say Seel’s video is “furry” it says, “Thi has anthros in it BUT it’s also made by a furry!”

But this might introduce some problems when you think about it.

How Much for Furry?

Let’s go back to studios; what if some of the people who worked on Zootopia were furries? Does that make it a furry work? Or does the entire staff need to be furries, or only a good chunk?

What about fan-made stuff? Obviously, there are huge amounts of Zootopia fan-art made by furries. So are all those pieces furry because they’re furry-made, or is it non-furry-fan-art because the original property isn’t furry?

What if you have a trio of creators where two of them are furry, one isn’t, and they make an anthro comic? Is it furry because of the majority are furries, or not because of that one non-fur?

It seems the definition really needs some expansion. In my opinion, just saying “if it’s made by furries it’s furry” is too narrow. It’s like saying “It’s only progressive rock if it’s made by a progressive rock band.” What if a band dabbles in the prog-rock genre? They make one prog-rock song, but is it not prog-rock because the band’s not prog-rock?

It’s really something to think about. Let’s try another definition.

Well, If It’s Anthro…

On the other hand, there’s this definition: If it has anthro animals, it’s furry.

I myself use this definition, but I retool it a little to this: If it largely features anthro animals, or the main character is an anthro animal, it’s furry.

So say something like Sega’s Alien Soldier game.

Cover from the European release.

Image source from MobyGames

That game would be furry because the protagonist, Epsilon-Eagle, is an anthro phoenix. And badass to boot. Plus there’s a few other anthro and insectoid characters in the game.

The aforementioned The Lion King, Zootopia, and The Crown of Leaves would all be furry under this definition too, since they feature an all-anthro cast.

This definition is less concerned with who made the work, and is more concerned with what the work is. Granted it doesn’t have the quick and easy “it’s made by a furry/not made by a furry” baked right in, but I think it has less problems with the definition.

Well, for the most part.

The main question I think would be: how do you know when it’s “largely featuring” anthro characters? For example, would Overwatch be furry because of it’s few animal characters? What about The Elder Scrolls, since there are animal-like races in there? And while we’re at it, what about Magic: The Gathering? Warhammer Fantasy? Dungeons & Dragons?

The trick with this one is it’s a “you’ll know it when you see it.” I don’t think anyone is seriously going to sit here and debate with me if D&D is “furry” because it features dragons, gnolls, and other animal-like things. You could say it has “elements of furry” in it, but it wouldn’t be furry – there’s way more to D&D than the anthros, and they aren’t even a majority of the focus to boot.

Sure you got gnolls and yuan-ti and dragons but you also have mind flayers, beholders, orcs, goblins, humans, elves, and so on.

But what about works like Hotline Miami? There are no animals, but there are animal masks featured heavily in the game – and if you step into the sequel, Wrong Number, things like animal instincts play into the themes of both games. Would that be furry enough?

It’s psychedelic, but is it furry?

Image Sourced from Hotline Miami Official Site

I guess Hotline Miami would be one of those up in the air situations, where it depends more on your perspective. Some people will argue that it needs to be actual anthros – this is the problem Scott Cawthon’s Five Nights at Freddy’s ran into. Some said the game wasn’t furry because the animatronics in the game wasn’t “real” anthros and were “just robots.”

So that’s pretty much the main issue with this definition – it seems there’s parts of it that can be a little…arbitrary. I guess any definition will always have a little of that in it?

Now if you want to reach and go for something a little extreme…

If It’s Animal In Any Way, It’s In

I saw a friend once throw this out in one of their own writings, but I think they were more or less musing and not taking it seriously as a definition.

For this third one…if it draws on animals in any way, it can be considered Furry. Which means that under this definition, Hotline Miami would be furry.

That’d also mean Batman would be furry. How you ask? Well look at the name – Batman. The guy’s name is based on an animal, and his costume is made to resemble one. Something like Snow White and the Seven Dwarves might even qualify under this definition, as there is a decent chunk of animal folks in it.

It’s a pretty…broad definition. Very reaching, but I’ll admit it’s kinda funny to entertain. Imagine saying Batman is a furry comic. That’s bound to get some funny reactions.

Which to Go With…?

I’m sure there are other definitions and caveats and quotas and other such things to find out if something is “furry”. You might be wondering what the big deal is in a simple definition, but I can see the good in having one does.

Mainly that it helps with conversations about things, as well as categorization. Having a fandom-wide definition can help in different ways, such as how Summercat uses his definition to help identify which works are made by furries and which aren’t.

At least Winds of Change is “furry” no matter what definition you use!

Image Sourced from Steam

I’ve seen some furs who want it just for peace of mind. One fur shot down the second definition because it’d mean The Lion King would be furry and they didn’t want the movie to be “associated” with the fandom. Kinda late there my friend, I think.

But me? I’m gonna use the second definition – if the main character(s) is furry, or there’s a good chunk of the cast that are animal characters, I’ll consider it furry.

That might not be your definition of it, and if you’d like to talk about it I’d me more than interested in hearing what you have to say. Just know that I won’t take it super serious – this is a fandom about having fun and meeting people, and I think getting vocally violent over definitions would be silly.

While on The Furry Writer or interacting with me or any post I’ve authored, know that this is the definition that I’ll be using. It just…makes it easier I feel.

It’s worth pointing out that I don’t consider it being owned or “for” the fandom if I classify it as furry. I’ve seen many situations where furries try to lay “claim” to something because it has animals in it.

Hey, Redwall is full of animal characters, but it doesn’t mean that Brian Jacques was a furry or write it for furries, y’know?

It’s worth pointing out that I don’t consider it being owned or “for” the fandom if I classify it as furry. I’ve seen many situations where furries try to lay “claim” to something because it has animals in it.

Hey, Redwall is full of animal characters, but it doesn’t mean that Brian Jacques was a furry or write it for furries, y’know?

Do you have your own definition, or do you agree with one of the above definitions? I’d love to hear your thoughts on it. Drop a comment down below, and let’s get a discussion going.

If you enjoyed the article, consider tossing me a donation on Ko-Fi! Nothing like Patreon…yet at least.