That is the root of the problem right now there are rules everyone knows there are rules to what is considered a fluffy but no one knows what the rules are so every decision a mod makes looks arbitrary
Oh boy, got a mini I thought I read the start of a witch hunt here.
5 Likes
I understand enough about the history of this fandom that I think that’s the absolute last thing we should want.
I was gonna say the only anthrofluff i’ve ever really liked was the psychic one overwhelmed with the agony of the species, i forget who did that one but it was pretty cool. Wish i could remember who did it.
3 Likes
Not that someone like me has much of a say but…
It has got out of hand in some ways. Fox fluffies, bread fluffies, garden fluffies. In the case of Anthro, while I like furry stuff as much as the next guy, they strike me as horse furs with low intelligence, not fluffies.
IMHO, the requirements should require them to walk on all fours, have pony like stature and characteristics (hooves/tail), speak in some semblance of fluffspeak (at least some of the time), and most importantly, have colorful fluff. The backstory seems to be pretty much agreed upon.
While I admire some of the creatively, I honestly think the line between “fluffy pony” and “creative liberty” is a pretty defined one.
That said, ultimately like what you like and don’t be a dick.
3 Likes
In this case I disagree with you. Even many of the folks you mention use fluffies perceived pathetic-ness, though I think they use it as a means of subverting expectations.
Most of us would, and usually do, assume fluffies in Tumbly’s situation would be miserable. 99% of the time they would be right to assume that. Working against that assumption, against the inherent trait of being pathetic, is what makes those disabled fluffies inspiring/rewarding to read about.
2 Likes
I get where you’re coming from, and I do agree with you in regards of some of those folks. Muffin, Marcusmaximus, Coalheart and Waggytail all did depict fluffies as “exciting pathos” hence the term “pathetic” but in the more positive meaning of inciting “sympathy and empathy” out of the reader. And I do agree that there is some reward to reading stories about working against assumptions and the supposed inherent trait of being “pathetic”.
Perhaps a much better example then would be @Pinkyfluffy. I do really mean it when I say that I don’t see his fluffies as being “pathetic”. Pinkyfluffy has often depicted fluffy versions of various well-known properties, and while on can see it as cute and even weirdbox, that doesn’t mean its pathetic. When I look at his work on depicting fluffies in his native Italy, or his rather controversial picture of a fluffy parent saving a foal from a “foal to sketti” machine, I don’t see a fluffy being pathetic. It could be argue that Pinkyfluffy did the latter pic as a response to the general depiction of fluffies being pathetic in most canons, but due to how unique Pinkyfluffy’s own fluffies and depictions are, I wouldn’t consider his particular canon as revolving around that approach. And there are one or two others who have their own unique take on non-pathetic fluffies, but many have been chased out in the past because they dislike the approach, or are too “beholden” to expectation. Again, its the reason why I don’t believe in keeping a trait of “patheticness” as necessity.
In my mind there are a few core characteristics to a fluffy
- They were originally created by Hasbio through genetic engineering and look vaguely horse-like
- They can speak but have a lisp
- They are around the size of a small dog or a large cat
- They were released into the wild before they were completed which means they have some defects
- They were designed with certain preprogrammed responses
- They have at best the intelligence of a toddler
- Surviving can be a struggle for them ( Part of this is because they are small creatures at the whims of nature and men, part is because they are incomplete creations.)
Anthros have always struck me as their own separate thing. I’m having a hard time articulating it but to me it seems that while they still have some characteristics of the creature they’ve lost too many of the core characteristics.
1 Like
I can see why @Pinkyfluffy came to mind, though in the second example I’d argue that the primary source of humour comes from the expectation of helplessness and impending failure being ignored for a jarring upset. The picture would not have much of the same effect if most of us didn’t see fluffies as pitiful, weak, stupid creatures.
But the Italian fluffs are where my argument falters, tbh. I find them utterly adorable, definitely fluffies, but not really pathetic in the slightest.
Perhaps there’s a better word than pathetic? But largely, when we get into what is/what isn’t a fluffy, I guess I don’t have any hard rules that can’t be made exception to. Maybe just “uncool”? They can be charming, they can be inspiring, they can be sweet, they can be assholes, they can be disgusting, but once you start adding spikes and fangs and special powers and all the extraneous bullshit that appeals to thirteen year olds, it starts feeling less like a fluffy, and more like a early 2000’s deviant art OC.
(I will also say I’m working on a series where there is a spider fluffy in the first chapter and I’m actually having some difficulty finding the fine line between fluffy/bug hybrid, and idiot chibi anime spider girl, so I can appreciate how impossible this distinction is)
3 Likes
I’m sure there’s bound to be more examples in the history of the booru, but Pinkyfluffy’s always strikes me as the best due to how unique his approach is.
Its something I’ve been grappling with. Part of the problem of saying that “fluffies shouldn’t be cool” is that, if people do agree to that, there’s nothing stopping them from latching themselves to the other derivatives of the fluffy fandom thats supposedly cooler. One reason why I think jellenheimers were so overly popular last year, as mentioned here, was because they were arguably “cool”. Compared to the “uncool” fluffies that were supposedly only good for shitting and being a nuisance, jellenheimers seemed to be this cool eldritch thing that could do anything, teleport behind you nothing personell and doesn’t afraid anything.
And I think there have been fluffies that I think have a rather unique look to them. One of the more interesting fluffies I have to research is Deadweight’s Xibalba which was an alicorn OC with psychic powers that was designed to cull ferals. From what I understand, DW’s story was very good, and Xibalba is a fluffy but also rather cool. I do agree that the bulk of fluffies in a setting, like normal people, shouldn’t be too interesting or all be overly powerful/cool, but, that doesn’t mean that the automatic assumption of a fluffy is that they are all pathetic, or than “only a few” have to be non-pathetic.
It definitely is. Its been something I’ve been grappling with for the longest time now, and I don’t think its fair to malign or discount certain peoples ideas on fluffies.
That said, an idea I just thought of (though this is also just an opinion) I do think fluffies shouldn’t be too overly designed. Adding additional spikes on top of fangs and wings could be seen as overly designing a fluffy, and I could argue that part of the appeal of fluffies is a degree of “simplicity”. Even a fluffy with powers could have a simplistic power, or a simplistic grasp of power. Mind you though this is just a thought that came to mind while writing all this, and I might have to work on it a bit more. (or even discard it, who knows)
2 Likes
I would disagree there
Because off course I would, I got the fox fluffies ( kitsune fluffies ) so I would expected to be biased.
If anything i just applaud the unbridled creativity of the community.
As far as I am concerned they are all still fluffies little multi colored rat horses, that talk in fluff speak just with extra attributes.
Which just makes them slightly different.
If anything it just heightens their artificial nature as biotoys and designer pets, to me.
Real cat and dog breeds have been destroyed to pursue “desirable traits” that makes them popular.
A 2021 Siamese cat is nothing like a 1921 Siamese cat.
And I can imagine fluffies being like that, they are easier to alter because they are artificial to begin with and can be marketed to different people.
Some are a bit of a stretch, others a more natural extension.
3 Likes
Good god that’s a lot to read through. Before I do I thought I’d give my take. It’s pretty broad since the flexibility in what fluffies can be and do is part of the appeal.
Fluffies need to be artificially created lifeforms intended to be biological toys that resemble tiny colorful horses that either weren’t finished or are just…unfortunately made. As such their intended instincts aren’t quite right so they act in counterproductive ways.
There come in four varieties: Earthie, Unicorn, Pegasus, and Alicorn. Fluffies are dumb and can’t process that a fluffy could have both a horn and wings so they think alicorns are monsters.
They should have a fluffy coat of fur, quadrupedal, and generally not too smart or are very naïve. Babies chirp and peep (either like baby birds or like baby rodents I.e. guinea pigs, etc.) and give birth to a litter of foals. Fluffies also have an unhealthy obsession with spaghetti. They normally have a speech impediment and have their own baby-talk vocabulary to go with it (munstah, poopies, wowstest huwties, etc.)
They usually have poor bowel control.
Fluffies are terrified of water.
Whether they do the whole “bestest babbeh” and “poopy babbeh” is up to the writer/artist. Generally more brightly colored fluffies are considered worth more than more natural colors.
Other than that you can do whatever you want really. I think anthro fluffies are weird but that just means I personally won’t use them in my stories.
The farther they get from the things I listed the less they are fluffies, in my opinion.
4 Likes
If I knew that a simple question i had at that moment would turn into a all-out community-wide discussion, I would have skipped that step
4 Likes
A fluffy pony is a pony that’s fluffy. They’re mostly small and a bit stupid. Fluffy ponies come in a variety of colors, often similar in appearance to characters from mlp, though not always. They die in odd and amusing ways. Some of them talk, most often in stilted cutesy fashion.
Fluffy ponies come in several varieties, including but not limited to unicorns, pegasi and earth ponies. There are other creatures similar to fluffy ponies, often based on toy gimmicks, or creatures found in mlp or mythology. Fluffy ponies can exist in a variety of settings.
Fluffy pony drowns.
That’s it. Everything else is optional.
Anthrofluffs are fluffy ponies with a humanoid body plan. They think and act like other fluffy ponies. They also have thumbs.
3 Likes
Oh boy. Shall I add my 5 cents to the already giant pile? I feel like “what is a fluffy?” is pretty much the fandom’s version of philosophy’s “what is human?” When I was researching KMEB, I came across comments that claimed that what KMEB drew wasn’t fluffies. That is most definitely spite, but the fact that there are disagreements on what fluffies are still stands.
Now, my perspective. First of all, “a fluffy” is a concept that commonly consists of these components:
1, it’s an unnatural, artificial creature
2, it obviously has noticeable amounts of fluff
3, its fluff has a large range of possible colors; rarely, it can also have simple patterns
4, it has stunted intelligence around the level of a human child
5, it talks in fluffspeak
6, its physical capabilities are very limited
7, it is capable of breeding very quickly
8, it normally gravitates towards humans and seeks their attention and love
9, it matures quickly and doesn’t have a very long life span
Those are the basic ideas. Some of them are not set in stone and instead depend on a creative’s vision. Therefore, aberrations that come outside of the common framework may naturally appear, but are not looked upon favourably when overdone. Some ideas may be added up to the already existing, sometimes even replacing one or two. In that case, the rest need to be clearly present to signify that it is, indeed, a fluffy. Certain boxes allow for more experimentation, specifically, weirdbox and horrorbox.
As for anthros, I don’t feel that it is that complicated. The most important difference is that they are upright and have more prominent human-like features. But those features can’t completely overshadow thoes of a fluffy, because anthros as a concept are derived from fluffies. A question may arise, how do you compare anthros to fluffies if their features are also unclear? It’s simple: compare the artist’s basic anthro to their basic fluffy. If their fluffy doesn’t clearly go way beyond the basic concept and the anthro is clearly derived from that fluffy, then it’s definitely an anthro fluffy and not furry. By “derived” I mean that, despite the addition of more human features, a lot of intrinsic fluffy traits are still present.
That’s it for me, hope this perspective is useful.
1 Like
What the actual fuck lmao
You mean that you never saw any, or that you don’t know how someone can think of it as a problem?
Never saw any.
But I do quarantine myself a lot of the time so
Makes sense. I believe anthro is the only place where that happens.
1 Like
I apologize if my dogybarafluffy caused an uproar in a fluffy canon, but I feel like canon is extremely difficult to enforce. For me, the Dogybarafluffy was literally just a dogs loyalty in a fluffies body. It still likes huggies and Wub, still enjoys Italian cuisine, but being non vocal it relies on other means of communication, and should last a little longer. I still subscribe to the idea that all artists have their own breed that fits their headcanon. It perfectly explains why some are delightful little balls of fur and others are miserable sobbing mangy bastards.
1 Like
Someone tried to make fluffy dragons once.
You’re good.
1 Like