| 26Report |
at 20 Jun 2008: 22:37
>>25
Well, that has nothing to do with the definitions, per se, of either 'furry' or 'anthropomorphic', but have to do with the quality of the writer. Bad writing is bad writing, period, and is rife throughout all fandoms, and even throughout the mainstream. It isn't that furry = bad writing, but that bad furry writing = bad writing. There are a ton of examples of good writing throughout furry fandom, but you're not going to find them if you automatically reject them out of hand because they happen to be furry.
Go through the examples given in >>23 for a smapling of some good stories. Paul Kidd's work all by itself meets the simple requirement that you're demanding for good writing -- and he's not alone.
|