Tuesday, 20 April 2010 11:41 am

(no subject)

deckardcanine: (Default)
[personal profile] deckardcanine
Someone on the "Kevin & Kell" listserv asked whether Bill Holbrook kept the furry characters unshod because of a fetish. I was sure he was wrong, because Bill rarely does anything apparent as even mild fanservice. (There are some suggestive punchlines in K&K, but even shameless furverts probably wouldn't make pinups of them.)

That said, I didn't consider it a bad question, because the real reason for otherwise fully clad anthros with bare feet was not immediately obvious. Was it out of sheer deference to a tradition, like big white gloves in tribute to the likes of Mickey Mouse? But traditions need a reason to start, like gloves making humanoid hands look more natural somehow. Besides, I wasn't sure how common the practice was before K&K, which was surely the first Web comic to observe it. (Can't think of any earlier newspaper comics in which most animals were more than half dressed.)

Then it hit me: geometric aesthetics -- virtual feng shui for character design. These furry artists like to put species reminders at every periphery. It becomes all the more important on the occasions that we see only the legs, especially when the tail doesn't hang down that low. Heck, in most of these cases of anthropomorphism, the normally covered parts of the body look basically human aside from the fur, feathers, or scales.

I voiced my notions, and Bill said I was right on all counts.

I love it when my intuition works this well.
Date: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 09:52 pm (UTC)

richardf8: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardf8
Another point - Holbrook makes use of the characteristics of the animal features in his gags. Shod feet would interfere with paw prints, toe-gripping (Fenton with shoes?!?!?) etc.
Date: Wednesday, 21 April 2010 02:29 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] deckardcanine.livejournal.com
True, and since K&K has more animal gags than most furry worlds, he'll take what he can get.
Date: Thursday, 22 April 2010 07:47 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] thatcatgirl.livejournal.com
I never thought of it as being intentional to have animal traits at the edges (I've noticed that kind of thing when the differences are really drastic), but it makes a kind of sense, I guess. Do their hands show animal features? it's been ages since I've read K&K.
Date: Thursday, 22 April 2010 02:04 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] deckardcanine.livejournal.com
Hands vary. Only Lindesfarne's, aptly enough, look like they could belong to a human in "Safe Havens" or "On the Fastrack." Others have noticeable claws, colors that couldn't pass for human skin, or (most obviously) wings.

Profile

deckardcanine: (Default)
Stephen Gilberg

December 2025

S M T W T F S
 1234 5 6
789101112 13
141516171819 20
212223 24252627
28293031   

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Friday, 26 December 2025 05:41 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios