Rule 102 of the internet rules, a subrule of rule 34...if it exists, there will be furry versions. Unfortunately, as much as I hate it, there will be furries that come in and taint it.
Just be glad it's not furry pr0n...*shudders at the idea of nc-17 furry Jooster*
I don't really understand the kneejerk reaction against furries. I was on Furrymuck back in the day, and I saw the stuff that went on there (in public, yike!) and I was suitably scarred, but at the same time I think there were honest feelings there, and quite possibly strong relationships forged in that cauldron of insanity. Actually, my relationship with Eor really started there, although it was quite non-sexual in the beginning as if in reaction to all the sexuality of the place.
The thing that really bothered me was that the people there considered themselves good writers, and mostly they were all about hyperbole and crack. But that seems to be the case in any online text-based role-playing situation, from what I can see, so I just don't get why it's furries who get the bad rap. Just because they're obvious?
Because furries can't stay self contained, that's what irks me.
In a concrit note, the coloring is really good, Jeeves' right ear is a little off, and you have a pretty good grasp on their personalities reflected in the expressions.
If furries would stay in their own dark corners of the internet, and not insinuate themselves in other fandoms and force furry versions of their other fandoms on people, I'd like them a lot more. I avoid things I don't like, because I know I don't like it, and thus have nothing good to say about it. It's hard to avoid something you don't like when it takes over a fandom that i do, without even so much as a warning. Just *boom* furry art in friend's list.
I don't understand the fulminations I have seen here about animalised artwork. No-one made a scene at other animalised J&W cartoons drawn just for fun and enjoyed by the community. I suppose some people are rather strange. But I found the 'lionised' J&W rather sweet!
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 01:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 02:07 am (UTC)PurpleFluffyCat x
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 04:01 am (UTC)what is this.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 04:03 am (UTC)what the fuck
they don't need to be fucking lions
why is there furry in my wodehouse
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 07:00 am (UTC)Just be glad it's not furry pr0n...*shudders at the idea of nc-17 furry Jooster*
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 01:05 pm (UTC)The thing that really bothered me was that the people there considered themselves good writers, and mostly they were all about hyperbole and crack. But that seems to be the case in any online text-based role-playing situation, from what I can see, so I just don't get why it's furries who get the bad rap. Just because they're obvious?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 06:45 pm (UTC)In a concrit note, the coloring is really good, Jeeves' right ear is a little off, and you have a pretty good grasp on their personalities reflected in the expressions.
If furries would stay in their own dark corners of the internet, and not insinuate themselves in other fandoms and force furry versions of their other fandoms on people, I'd like them a lot more. I avoid things I don't like, because I know I don't like it, and thus have nothing good to say about it. It's hard to avoid something you don't like when it takes over a fandom that i do, without even so much as a warning. Just *boom* furry art in friend's list.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 10:49 pm (UTC)I have no opinion one way or the other, but if it's not to your taste, can't you just ignore it? What's the big deal?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 08:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 05:00 am (UTC)I think the drawing's strange, but hey. Any contribution is, I think, better than nothing constructive, so way to go.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 06:00 am (UTC)The Lady 529
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 07:03 am (UTC)I like the Jeeves lions expression. Very, very canon.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 08:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-24 02:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-24 10:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-26 12:10 am (UTC)