There are a few things I had not touched on earlier that I will do so now.
Without directly responding to a specific person, I know enough people who consider fluffies to be “animals marketed as a biotoys”, which is something I consider when making my official definition. Fluffies have been depicted as coming out directly from the lab, or having a natural birth, and some people have fluffies have very animalistic behaviour, while others do have them be very programmed. It varies between different people.
I am one of those people who never liked the preprogrammed headcanon, nor do I like to restrict my fluffy depictions to having them be preprogrammed. Its something I mentioned in the Fluffy intelligence topic, and I am raising it here because depicting fluffies as if they’re scripted or have specific responses limits their potential for character and identity development. Of course, some would argue “that’s the point”, but I would argue that it limits innovation for the genre.
One artist who I’ve always expressed a love for is Waggytail, and Waggytail has on many occasions depicted fluffies having a general sense of curiosity, like in this case of fluffy Rainbow Dash being interested in lightning. If the fluffy was pre-programmed as in, following a script or a specific programming) the dash fluffy should arguably be more afraid of the lightning, or depict some other scripted response. Curiosity is not something that can be preprogrammed. It’s a very sentient and sapient trait, and its something that many people have depicted fluffies as doing. Its similar to how Squeakyfriend’s Crazystein has been depicted as having an interest in conducting experiments. Even if you treat these depiction of fluffies as 'weirdbox", it would in my book still count as a valid depiction of fluffies as they still have “hooves”, “fluffspeak” and maintain their genetic-engineered origin.
Finally,
I don’t agree with this. First, I will go by a definition of pathetic as provided by wikitionary, which states the following:
- Arousing pity, sympathy, or compassion; exciting pathos.
the child’s pathetic pleas for forgiveness stirred the young man’s heart.
- Arousing scorn or contempt, often due to miserable inadequacy.
you can’t even run two miles? That’s pathetic.
you’re almost 26 years old and you still can’t hold a real job? That’s pathetic.
Of course, one could point out that I have a hugboxer bias (and yes I am a hugboxer) but I do know that many hugboxers, as well as myself, have demonstrated a genuine love and interest in fluffies. I am relating this to people like Gowdie, Coalheart, Waggytail and Marcusmaximus, who have all depicted fluffies as being loveable and unique in varying degrees, despite their handicaps. This thus contradicts the idea of scorn and contempt, which is why I disagree with a general idea of fluffies as “pathethic”.
Secondly, and related to the first definition, it is true that I have a big sympathy and empathy for fluffies in general. And one could argue that fluffies by nature of being loveable despite their deficience makes them “pathetic”, as in exciting pathos. But it is not the only measure by which I have an interest in various fluffy characters. To me, @Muffin Tumbly is not pathetic because, and despite his inadequacies, he had worked hard to inspire hope in pillowfluffs, showing how they can be happy and mobile without the need for legs. Squeakyfriend’s Crazystein is not pathetic because he is an actual scientist, even if he is working within his limitations as a fluffy character. And @Carpdime’s Avocado interested me, not because he was pathetic, but because he displayed genuine empathy and love, as well as the occasional self-awareness.
The point I am making here is that, even if fluffies demonstrates deficient mental faculties or lacking certain traits, it should not mean that they “all” have to be seen as “pathetic”.
