)
take you back to the top of the page.
This sketchbook was compiled in a different manner from most. One noted anthro artist remarked that it was the most stuctured sketchbook he'd ever seen. I think this is good. Always have something unusual that folks can remember you by. What I did was to have an unidentified third party "ask" my characters questions I have fielded about them over the years. The characters, in turn, would "answer" them, with their individual personalities coloring their responses. To date, there hasn't been a whole lot of actual Q&A, since I've purposefully limited their exposure, even after I discovered an entire fandom devoted to appreciating cartoon animals. For that reason, and to fill things out a bit, I also made up some hypothetical questions that might be brought up by someone who is fully immersed in furry fandom. The answers aren't direct quotes--true to the way I designed them, some of the characters ran off at the mouth, some were evasive, some got defensive, and some even got offended. So the answers presented are my own, or at least how I think I would answer, given the hypothetical nature of some of the questions.
Haven't I seen these on TV?/ These look like they're
from a TV show:
What's the name of the group?
Are they supposed to be Japanese/Manga/Anime
characters?
So, these are all cats, right?
Why isn't the bird anthro like the others?
And why a meerkat?
I notice the sneakers are drawn really well
I recognize some of the stuff they're wearing.
Those earrings must be painful.
Are they ever drawn naked?
What about fur texture? Or fur patterns?
What's this about co-starring?
Are there more characters? Is this all there is?
Where's the adult art?
You refer to these as cartoon characters. Yet they have human
names.
Is any of your work online?
Will any of your work appear on Ebay?
You should apply to Yerf (.com)
Why so many girls?
Why do they curse?
Why do so many of their names begin with "T"?
How do their respective species influence their
behavior?
Which of these characters are you?
BTW, the little arrows ()
take you back to the top of the page.
Haven't I seen these on TV?/ These look like they're from a
TV show:
I intentionally made the character design "animation friendly" since it was
an animated TV show that I took my initial inspiration from : DiC's "Cats
& Co", a series of cartoon shorts made to accompany the 1980's revival
of "Heathcliff". Well, maybe I should say "loosely inspired" since my characters
bore little resemblance to their TV inspiration even then, and much less
so today. The idea was not so much to create my own versions of those specific
characters as it was simply to have an original-looking group of cartoon
characters for my own amusement.
What's the name of the group?
They don't have one. At least not yet. For a long time I've contemplated
naming the group, but could never come up with anything satisfactory. I had
basically two requirements: 1. that the group name not make it painfully
obvious that it was a group of cartoon cats, and 2: that it didn't sound
like a name you'd give to a group of superheroes or singers. After all this
time, it really didn't seem to be all that crucial anymore, and as such I
no longer give it a whole lot of thought . I figure it's been almost
18 years or so since I started the group--it can't possibly hurt that
much now not to have a group name.
Are they supposed to be Japanese/Manga/Anime
characters?
While I do admire the attention to detail in that genre (where else would
you see mundane, everyday objects drawn as they're supposed to look
even though it's not crucial to the story?), I'm not trying to "go there".
I would have a very long way to go just to approach the level of expertise
exhibited by some of the better manga/anime' fansites/shrine sites. As far
as my characters are concerned, the eyes sort of evolved to their
present size (and are presently moving to a smaller design). These characters
are very much straight-up U.S.
So, these are all cats, right?
Up to the summer of 1999, yes. Seven of the nine are feline, an eighth is
a bird, the ninth is a meerkat, and in 2002, I added a skunk. Trivial factoid:
Of adults who have seen these characters, only those who watch cartoons on
a regular basis can correctly identify the cats as being cats. I'm reasonably
certain this is not due to any fault in my drawing ability. As for the meerkat,
I doubt most people know what one is supposed to look like in real life,
much less what a cartoon one would, but I've already created the character,
so there's little I can do about that now. It's a known problem with creating
anthro characters out of less well-known animals.
Why isn't the bird anthro like the others?
Initially, I created the bird character as a "pet" presented to one of
the other characters as a secret booby prize (i.e. the bird is a nutcase
and was supposed to drive his new master up the wall. It didn't work out
that way). Since most of the characters are somewhat restrained in behavior,
the bird serves as comic relief when I can think of something appropriatley
silly for him to do. As for why he's not as anthropomorphic as the others,
birds are really tough to turn into bipedal anthros. I mean, it can be done,
but it seldom looks attractive.
And why a meerkat?
After discovering there was an entire fandom centered around anthropomorphics
(and after taking in Anthrocon '98) I gained an inspiration to try
drawing something other than a feline character. This prompted me to see
if I could design another character, (a process that, at the time, had not
occurred in about nine years) of a different species. After examining all
the animal characters prevalent in "furry fandom" (foxes, wolves, skunks
etc) and passing on them as being too commonplace, I took a shot at designing
a meerkat character, which happened to come to mind thanks to the Lion
King character Timon and his spinoff TV series. After looking at photographs
of real meerkats, I came up with a design that would fit in with the existing
characters, and named him (a process that took a few more days).
I notice the sneakers are drawn really well
Sneakers were the first thing I learned to draw reasonably well (About 1981-1982.
Originally the characters were exclusivley barefooted like many cartoon animals,
but the attraction of having recognizable stuff on them was too great (and
a couple of co-workers designed outfits for them that included shoes). Since
I was already drawing the characters dressed in clothing items you see people
wearing everyday, it was only natural that I include an assortment of sneakers
and/or shoes. If you can recognize anything worn by these characters, rest
assured it was done that way on purpose. Early on, the inclusion of shoes
was something I defined to use when these characters were interacting with
human characters, and to leave them barefoot when they were by themselves,
not interacting with anyone outside the group. Nowadays, I draw them with
shoes just to keep in practice, and because people still recognize the specific
styles I draw. But this isn't set in stone--any of them can appear barefooted
(though within individual pictures--except for the skunk--shoes are an all-or
nothing proposition).
I recognize some of the stuff they're wearing.
One of the things I did from day one was to draw the characters dressed dressed
in a variety of outfits--in contrast to "regular" cartoon characters who
wear the same clothes over and over and over ad nauseum. I recall another
DiC series, Beverley Hills Teens, featuring a bunch of ridiculously
rich teenagers--and even they wore the same outfits repeatedly,
even when a story spanned more than one day within a single episode. So,
to sidestep this annoying (for me) lapse of believability, I designed the
characters so that their identities were not tied to the clothes they wore.
To be sure, all but the most recent ones have "default" outfits, but over
time they've been depicted wearing more stuff than I can remember--just like
anyone else you know. And the easiest way to create a variety of outfits
was to simply draw what I saw people wearing. If I notice something
distinctive (or common) about someone's outfit, I'll try to memorize the
details, and apply the outfit to an appropriate character. Most people notice
that the clothes are drawn accurately (as can be for a cartoon character),
and having something noteworthy like this is another one of those Good Things.
Another plus (for me) is that since the characters dress in more or less
current fashions, it becomes hard for observers to pin down what decade they
represent or originated in (I occasionally mix in stuff from recent
years that has passed from the forefront, but is still being worn). I mean,
come on, can you imagine the cast of Scooby Doo existing anywhere
but the Seventies?
There is, however a limit to how far this goes. Some fads are just so far-out that they're destined to flame out before they've persisted long enough for anyone to remember them after they're gone. Those fashions will probably be ignored.
Those earrings must be painful.
I hadn't thought about this until the above comment was made at Anthrocon
'99. It's safe to say the earrings are hollow (and thus lightweight), but
have yet to get accidentally dented or flattened, a fate that befell many
big, gaudy earrings during the 1980's.
Are they ever drawn naked?
These characters have always been depicted wearing clothes. There
was the attraction of having recognizable styles of dress for others to ooh
and aah at. I recognize that a number of furry characters are drawn without
clothes--the justification being that they are animals bearing full coats
of fur and thus do not need them, but my characters were created more than
a decade before I became aware of furry fandom. So no, I don't draw them
naked (exception below). And, knowing the character's personalities so well,
it would seem strange to have them walking around in the nude as if it were
nothing (because to them, like most folks, it wouldn't be a trivial
matter). If there arose an external situation that called for any
of them to be depicted in the nude, such as being included in a comic
or standalone picture along with characters that by design or as a plot device,
(or 'adult' content) went about their business without clothes, then there'd
be a "When in Rome" context for depicting them like that. But that hasn't
happened yet.
2002-2003 update: With the addition of the newest character, this is no longer as set-in-stone as it once was. Because this new character's persona is adamant over the notion of fur-as-primary body covering, she's bound to force the issue from within from time to time. However, whether any of the older characters will appear in the buff is still subject to the character's personalities, which still do not lend themselves to casual nudity, potential interactions with other creator's characters excluded.
What about fur texture? Or fur patterns?
Since my characters (except for the meerkat and skunk) pre-date my knowlege
of furry fandom, the idea of drawing them with visible fur texture or with
patterned fur never occured to me--I was imitating animated characters when
I designed them, so they weren't intended to be physically intricate. To
date, the only modifications I've made in this regard is to add hints of
fur poking out at the sides of their heads, ears and at the outside of the
elbows and knees when they're bent. The meerkat character is drawn with a
slightly fuzzy appearance and has patterns/ coloration in his fur matching
(as best as I could) what I could see in photos of real-life meerkats (however,
most of it is covered by his clothing), and the skunk is just plain fuzzy.
As for further modifications on the rest of the characters, there are no
plans for permanent changes, but I'll consider temporary modifications on
characters called upon to co-star in illustrations or comics with other artists'
characters who feature markings. If it's necessary for them to 'fit in',
that is.
What's this about co-starring?
Basically it refers to cross-creator character interaction, either in a one-shot
picture or a comic. See the readme in my VCL gallery for details.
Are there more characters? Is this all there is?
A long time ago, I recall reading an article (I don't remember who wrote
it, or in what publication) lamenting the trend toward creating cartoons
with an army of characters sporting cookie-cutter personalities. This was
during the 80's, and was presumably aimed toward shows like Smurfs,
The Get-Along Gang, Paw Paws, and similar "horde of cute
characters"-type shows. The article went on to point out that older cartoon
stars did not require an army of supporting cast to be effective, and I agreed
with that sentiment. I still do, which probably explains the 9-year gap before
the addition of the meerkat character.
I tend to create characters for the long haul, so adding more characters is hard to justify because of a lack of distictive personalities for them. For this reason, I am open to drawing other's creations, but only with the blessing of the character's owner. In my VCL gallery, you'll find details of an informal comic that permits others' creations to appear in cameos.
Where's the adult art?
Short answer: I haven't drawn any.
Long answer: Historically, I've limited these characters to what prevailing
broadcast standards and practices ("BS&P") would allow, even though they
were never intended to be kids' characters in the first place. The idea was
that if I kept it clean, there would be no skeletons to come out of their
closet in the event these characters found themselves some mainstream exposure
like TV, comics or a newspaper strip. This despite not having a continuous
stream of strip ideas, or a story that could carry a comic or TV series.
I kinda knew it was an extremely long shot all the while, but what finally
changed my mind was reading an interview with the creator of The
Boondocks , just how much the odds are against one getting
a comic strip syndicated.
As it stands, I've rescinded the requirement that my characters adhere to broadcast standards and practices. As you might've guessed, that opens the door to their doing sexually explicit pictures. While I certainly can draw pr0n, and the characters' personalities (especially the newest one) allow for sexual activity, I in no rush to draw sexually explicit artworks. I have a sufficiently large pool of inspiration that I have plenty of clean ideas to explore before dabbling in porn, so it's not a priority. But I 'm not promising to never draw it.
.
You refer to these as cartoon characters. Yet they have
human names.
I never considered typical 'toon' names like "(name/species)" or
"(attribute/species)". The characters are based on human personalities. In
fact, when I've described the personalities of these characters to people
who were curious about that aspect, they've told me they know folks who behave
the same way. As for "furry" or fantasy-type names (generally meaning "really
weird spelling", or "Pseudo Native-American-sounding
make-myself-look-unusually-fierce-or-cunning"), I wasn't aware of them when
it could've made a difference. As for future characters, I can't promise
they'll be any different.
Is any of your work online?
Old question, you know the answer to this already. But if you haven't...
Since November 1999, it's been here, albeit hidden behind a camoflauged link.
As of 3/12/2000, the hidden link to it was removed and a regular link from
the main menu was substituted..
Will any of your work appear on Ebay or any of the other furry
art auction sites?
The first time someone told me that my artwork was actually saleable in fandom,
I was left speechless. Literally. After seeing examples of stuff that furries
were paying for, it occurs to me that the aforementioned person may
not have been lying after all. Still, I'm not exactly cash-strapped, and
have no real need to sell anything I draw. While I might be
persuaded to accept a comission, I don't have any solid plans to
participate in dealer's room or artist-alley-type activities.
You should apply to Yerf.com
I've been told a number of times in the distant past that I should try to
join. By people not given to fanboyish praise, no less.
But in the meantime, their entry standards have escalated a little faster than my abilities (I think). Unless one of their application reviewers examines my work and tells me I stand a good chance of meeting the standard, I'm not likely to seek membership there. In the interim , instead hooked up with VCL, and the exact link to my gallery can be found on the main Anthromedia menu.
Why so many girls?
Back in the early days I found it easier to create original-looking characters
if they were female, because I could simply vary the hairstyles around a
common facial design to create additional characters. It wasn't until after
I graduated high school that I began to draw their bodies with differing
physiques, and the first male character appeared about two years after the
first female. One challenge was to make a uniform level of caricature across
the genders, since male characters are often more heavily caricatured than
their female counterparts (think Blondie & Dagwood). I decided
not to follow suit, just to be different. Facially, the only difference is
heavier, angular eyebrows and a slightly different shape to the eyes, even
though they are of similar size.
Why do they curse?
Some of the characters use profanities in their normal conversation,
like many (if not most) of the people you know or see everyday. Not all of
'em do, though. Having said that, the ones that do probably don't swear as
much as you might expect them to now that you know this, and probably not
as much as you, assuming you use obscenities yourself. These aren't "kiddie"
characters, and material I, or anyone else create for them should not
automatically be considered 'kid friendly'. If profanities appear in
any comic strips on this site, however, those strips will be
[flagged for
content.] and marked with appropriate
"Safe Surf" tags.
Why do so many of their names begin with "T"?
I voluntarily avoided names of people I knew when I first named the characters.
(What this has to do with the question I have no idea.) Other than that,
pure coincidence.
How do their respective species influence their
behavior?
This is another concept I only became aware of after encountering furry fandom.
I would have to say that I never explored this. My characters have always
been metaphors for human personalities. It was never my intent to create
characters that were entirely nonreplacable with human ones--so if that's
what you were looking for, look elsewhere. Since I haven't written any stories
with these characters, I haven't had the oppurtunity to experiment with
species-influenced behavior. However, I have not defined any personality
aspects that rule out such influences, in the event someone wishes to corroborate
with me to write any of these characters into a story.
Which of these characters are you?
None of them. I don't have an 'avatar', 'personal furry', 'spirit guide',
'fursona' or even a 'fan name'. Never had one, and probably never will. While
at times it may seem that I 'm roleplaying through these characters by involving
them in situations lifted from my own experiences, be assured that I am not.
My experiences give me a framework to construct situations for these characters
to act in, and nothing more. I am not a participant in their activities,
beyond setting up and depicting them in the first place.
Revised: 6/11/04