Superheroes and Fluffes

About a month or so ago, there was and still is a person who has been making continuous threads on 4chan’s /co/ asking if Superman was becoming outdated. It’s a question that had been on my mind while writing my current writing project, which has been the largest single project I’ve focused primarily on that is not Avocado or the Guide. I’m aware it is a story not many people are reading. Heck, the re-upload of the original concept by KMEB did not get much notice on both the subreddit and this site. And yet, part of the appeal in writing Aww Staw Supah Fwuff is because of the parallels behind superheroes, and fluffy ponies as a genre.

I remember that, many years ago, I came across a comic called Superman’s Metropolis. The idea sort of baffled me, because what the artist/author did, was literally adapt Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, to a Superman mold. The main character was replaced with Superman, and the leader of the city, the “mind” was made to be Jonathan Kent. It seems like such a silly idea, which it is. But then the question becomes, why do it?

There was a quote that Max Landis mentioned in his video documentary about the death of Superman. And that Superman means something to people. He means something to people, the way classic Simpsons did to the 90s audience he first watched the show. Someone did an entire retelling of the story of Akira, but with Simpsons characters called Bartkira. And someone would read this and think, why? Why go through the effort to retell Akira with Simpsons characters? Or retell Metropolis with the Superman mythos? In adapting one story to another mold, it becomes a way to explore how a story would be different if certain characters were playing certain roles. But ultimately, doing a retelling, and putting the effort to explore how a retelling might work with a different setting, or changes to mythos, requires a heavy amount of effort, which brings me to my next point.

I’ve heard enough people who say that fluffies aren’t really worth the effort. Or, they would say something along the lines of “fluffies are only good for abuse and suffering”, et cetera et cetera. When working on the cyberpunk idea I head a while back, someone mentioned that the idea seemed like a lot of effort for fluffies and could work on its own. But the thing was, I created the setting with fluffies in mind.

How does this tie to superheroes? Because there is such a thing as superhero fatigue. As well as a disillusionment with the superhero idea.

2534907-boys72_cov_robertson

We don’t have to look far. One of the biggest critics I can think of when it comes to superheroes is Garth Ennis, whose well known for writing The Boys. Ennis is known for being overly edgy in his writing and ideas, but Ennis really has a hatred for superheroes. Some claim that he likes Superman but, end of the day, Ennis’s best work has been on comics revolving around soldiers, war, and lone gunmen (a reason why his Punisher and Nick Fury stories are so well-known). I can get by that, but the reality is that Ennis really, really hates superheroes. If that’s not evident enough, I feel the cover of the final issue of the Boys speaks volumes.

a40f060ca41c7dd092f469785bd2be9b83-11-kingdom-come-1.rsquare.w700

I had talked before on this site about Alex Ross’s Kingdom Come, which was an entire superhero comic done in gouache. It is a lot of effort, but, its clear that Ross wanted to portray this idea of Superheroes as a mythos. In rivalling the deconstruction, cynicism and pessimism of the Dark Age of superheroes, Ross wanted to tell a story that also represented superheroes at their best. Especially the older superheroes.

Of course, I am not Alex Ross. But I mentioned his example because would ask why he would put so much effort into creating such a superhero story, and depict superheroes in such a way. Many people have commented on the superheroes are a continuation of classic mythology. Whether its retelling Greek or Norse Gods in a modern setting, or Kirby coming up with a new pantheon in the New Gods and the Eternals, there is a heavy amount of mythmaking in creating a superhero world. Ross’s graphic novel, with its high attention to detail and its realism, becomes less a piece of pop culture and more of a fine art, an attempt to elevate the medium to being more than just men in tights fighting each other.

And I think the same can apply to fluffies. I have been known to be critical of the abuse within the fluffy pony fandom, but it would be more accurate to say that I am critical of the excessive emphasis of abuse and suffering related to fluffies as a concept, especially as the years went on. This is not say that there aren’t interesting ideas and concepts that have been explored from the abuse or sadbox sides – after all, and as much as I love Avocado, Avocado is a product of industrial sadbox . And FierceDeityLynx’s plum is sympathetic, despite the amount of abuse she endured at the hands of her herd. But the problem with fluffy pony fiction, is that too much of it reads like how Ennis thinks of superheroes. And I get that there are people who would prefer to see fluffies in terms of stress relief, or as a niche interest for something really edgy. But I do think the fiction can be aspire to be a lot more than that.

8 Likes

This is the kind of thinking that is extremely problematic. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy abuse. But limiting fluffies to only abuse is extremely detrimental. The thing is, there is only so much that you can do with abuse. The only way of development for it is more creative and gruesome ways of torturing fluffies. But that has a limit, and at some point it just feels like beating a dead horse, literally and figuratively.

Fluffies can offer so much more. Putting them in various situations, whether realistically plausible or not, allows for a huge variety of unique plots. Unrealistic situations are perhaps the ones with the most potential, actually. After all, reality is limited, but imagination isn’t. It works well with the fact that fluffies are what you yourself shape them to be. I read a few older works, where the common rules for fluffies weren’t as heavily cemented as now. I’ll be honest with you all, they feel fresher than most of the ones you see now, exactly because the authors didn’t need to follow the pretty much uniform view on fluffies.

Superheroes and fluffies is one of those “unrealistic” plots I mentioned above. Unique circumstances add a lot to the freshness of the story, make it stand out. I read just the 1st chapter of Oculus’s Aww Staw Supah Fwuff and I was already intrigued because I didn’t know what would happen next, despite not really being into superheroes. After all, it’s not just about seperheroes. It’s about a fluffy being a superhero, and fluffies are what we are here for. And exploring a fluffy put into those circumstances is fun.

So, whoever managed to get to the end of my ramblings, give unique, new things a chance. Even if they are awkward, they have the potential to become something great. And sorry for using the original post to talk about a barely related topic.

5 Likes

the problem is a superhero is a defined thing there can be conflict and growth ,and as you love to say a fluffy is just head cannon ,which means a fluffy is noting and whit no base to start from you can no not elevate it you can not have conflict growth a fluffy that is noting can never be any thing but noting . your story is just as throw away as any other because it is all just head cannon hahah fluffy is stupide is just as empty as fluffy is super hero

3 Likes

A fluffy is what the author/artist makes it to be. They can make it have growth, create a problem for the fluffy to solve. If there is no base, you just create it yourself.

5 Likes

that is the problem every fluffy story is it’s own thing , fluffy just becomes a name you give to a thing . you can have a story about a talking car but you can not have a story about a roach you call a car and still have a story about a car you can not have the roach transcend the limitations of what a car is because it was never a car . a fluffy can never go beyond what it means to be a fluffy because it was never bound by any thing it becomes a macguffin a deus ex machina just another donut steal

3 Likes

Personally I am much more inspired by Will Eisner or Kentaro Miura or Alan Moore than a cynical shock jock like Ennis. I see your point though. We have a lot of cynical shock jocks in the community. All the more power to them!

Second off, Alex Ross did something pretty predictable. He took the far out designs and ideas of originators like Ditko and Kirby and many others, then he went to his studio and set up an ton of photo references, and then he smashed those refs up and made carefully rendered, photo realistically styled full color plates of famous heroes and events from comics. At least that was how I read “Marvels” when I first came across it. I think that was one of his early works.

I get it. When something is fantastical, you want to render is as realistically as possible (and this typically means photo realism) to help people imagine what it would be like if it were real. But his work is still completely derivative, because all the amazing adventures and bold designs he is in love with was dreamed up by others. To me Ross is a bit of a yawn fest. Too nostalgic and derivative for me.

@ripoffMcgee You’re really cranking up the nihilism these days, my friend.

A story is only ever as influential or meaningful as the energy we put into it and the audience’s willingness to get sucked in. To me the Fluffy community is like a lot of other loosely structured creative collectives. It’s an interplay of ideas and inspirations by a bunch of random people, who all enjoy to hover around the same, mutable narrative core. Some pick up certain pieces, other pick up others, but as long as a participant picks up enough pieces (in any constellation) we recognize it as a fluffy story or image. What exists in the narrative core sometimes changes, but as long as there’s a bunch of randos who care about it and engage with it, we can reliably use family logic to tell fluffy from not fluffy.

With full out nihilism nothing is meaningful and everything is arbitrary. Humans, cars, insects, love, superman, the U.S. Navy, the laws of thermodynamics… they all matter and don’t matter equally much. That’s okay, but that approach doesn’t motivate me to write or draw so I don’t engage with it.

6 Likes

You have to aim high in all things . If you don’t even have the courage to define a fluffy how can there be any character ark to a fluffy

4 Likes

Courage? Definition? I feel like I’m missing something here.

When I draw a fluffy I define a fluffy. When I write a story about a fluffy that fluffy can have an arc if I want it to.

I thought you were scoffing at the fact that no individual has a mandate to tell others just what a fluffy is and why. I could care less - I only need the fluffy in my story to be the kind of fluffy I imagine, and to have the arc I want to explore. Don’t need an editor to tell me if my OC is OK or not. Don’t want a creative board sharing their input and requiring corrective action before I can pass the greenlight gate. Don’t want some narrative lead co-ordinating all my shit with your shit.

7 Likes

But that’s just it. We DO define what they are.

And then we REdefine it.

1 Like

That’s nice and all but the conversation is of producing a deeper more meaningful story and how are you going to do that if you can not even say this is what the main character is if in every story a fluffy is something different. Every conflict is resolved not by clever writing but by lol head cannon making it as empty as the next story strong text

2 Likes

Yes you redifine them you do not look for a novel solution you intend invent a desired ending and change the character to make it happen

2 Likes

Yeah we’re definitely talking past one another.

A toast to your health, Rip. May your nib never run dry.

3 Likes

To you as well fluffus

3 Likes

Superman ain’t outdated, he’s classic.

Also, check out the song Nobody Likes Superman Anymore. By I Fight Dragons. It’s totally relevant to this discussion.

3 Likes

You’re projecting. You’re assuming that broadening and experimenting with the core aspects of fluffies means we can’t create internally consistent stories, but that’s just not the case.

2 Likes

No what I am saying is every story becomes a pointless one off since there is no consistency in what a fluffy is in one story to the next

1 Like

Did you just dismiss both mythology and genre fiction?

4 Likes

do mythology and genre fiction not have consistent characterization in there characters from story to story told by the same author

1 Like

Mythology doesn’t. Greek mythology has enough cases of some Greek god having more than one origin

5 Likes

different authors different story is not the same as same author having different characters be one characters

1 Like