An interesting analysis.

Your footnotes, they are such a delight. =3

Apparently, i can't write more than one line of serious text remaining serious

I guess thats acutally a really good way to put it.

I enjoy your analysis, my good man. It is insightful in a means not typically found on this superficial-tending community.

It's probably because you're not from here in the US, isn't it? |:

The solution is probably along the lines of "too much free time" lol

:o

Ive started quoting rules all the time, its quite bad.

That sir, was a fantastic analysis.

Something similar could be said for video games. It's happened fairly recently and I remember when I was in my mid teens my Dad was telling me to "Stop playing those silly games of yours. It's time to grow up." Now that I'm 24 and getting a pretty intimidating education he's become more open to the concept that games are not just for kids. I think him catching a glimpse of one of my 18+ games (like Dragon Age) helped. I also think that he's started to see me as a successful adult is helping.

That's a very good example :)

Defining what's childish and what isn't is one of the most arbitrary things our society dictates.

Well said, man. Thanks for the insight. :)

As children we have a much smaller “reality” with simpler answers. Obviously as we grow older those answers (even though we may try very hard to force our lives to fit them) do not adequately solve our problems. Just try falling on the floor and throwing a temper tantrum the next time your boss tells you that you have to work on the weekend. Similarly, those “suggestions” that come from the authority figures in our lives to “grow up and stop acting like a kid” are merely instructions that our childish views of the world and its answers (everyone in the world is nice, loves us and will give us whatever we want because we are small and cute) no longer apply.

Rule 34-ing the avatars of that childhood and that way of seeing the world may actually be helpful. Burn all your toys & comic books -- welcome to the wonderful world of Adulthood.

Well-thought and well-said Thank you for sharing this!

I TOTALLY have a thing for teen transitioning Calvin and Hobbes XDD

I couldn't agree more, this to 500%--about that pic, about childhood vs. adulthood, about how furry is actually ahead rather than just a den of perverts, and so on. Really do wish I could fave journals.

The only thing I would take exception with is your portrayal of Harry Potter. No, this is not because I am a butthurt fan, it's because I actually think you have it backwards. Whether or not the world of Harry Potter is just a cutesy fairytale world (a claim I would strongly dispute), the fact is Voldemort does not represent change, but stasis. Yes he wants to change the world--but BACK to the way it used to be, an oppressive, prejudiced, arrogant regime. He's all about maintaining purity of blood and standards of perfection. He isn't a symbol of change being bad, but of closed-mindedness, pride, hatred, and destruction. In any event, I think Harry Potter actually represents exactly what you are talking about re: the joining of childhood with adulthood--the fact so many adults love the series too, but at the same time they feel ashamed of reading 'kiddie' books and thus either have to remove the covers or buy versions without the 'kiddie' art on them so they can read them in public, speaks to the heart of this aversion society has with anything of childhood entering the adult world, but also how maybe, finally, some of these boundaries are coming down.

All of that said, I couldn't agree more with your analysis of Calvin and Hobbes in particular, and how special that pic is. :)

I'm a big fan of HP's books and i've defended them many times when talking with my teachers (in Italy "fantasy" is a STRONGLY derogatory term for a book, even today reading something like the Lord of the Rings is considered stupid and unacceptable for an adult, but this is quickly changing nowadays).

So why i identify the magic world of HP as childhood, and the world of Voldemort as adulthood? First of all, Rowling did a good job at making Voldemort an hitlerian-like villain with serious personal problems, and this makes very hard to find anything good about his "realm", it's hard to characterize it as anything other than madness.

Think of TLotR, when the adventure starts? When Frodo goes out of Hobbiton, after that the book is a continuous stream of new places, people and situations some of which nor Frodo nor the reader can understand (from where Shelob come from? What is Sauron? You don't know that only from reading the book, nor can Frodo), and Frodo can't stop to be at ease in any of those places, he only has a purpose to go foward (destroy the ring) and he has memory of what he left behind (the life of Hobbiton), but he must go on.
Hobbiton is childhood, the travel is life, and the rind is necessity. The book is about growing, in an abstract sense, and when Frodo returns to the place of childhood, he's changed inside. He can no longer be a mindless hobbit: you can't be a child again.

HP is exactly the opposite. Adventure in HP happens without him leaving his house (and Rowling makes sure that the reader know that Hogwarts IS his house, while the Dudleys are nothing more than a temporary prison with no sentimental attachment). And what HP does? He protects his house and "enlarged" family year after year, never even thinking about changing Hogwarts. In the last book he goes away, but not by choice and responsibility, as Frodo did, but out of being forced to go. And even then he may go around, but never stops being with his heart at Hogwarts. At the end of the book, change is defeated, and the world continues as HP first saw it. In a very abstract sense, LotR is about ineluctable change life requires and leaving your things behind, while HP is about fighting change and protect what you already have as much as you can.

And protecting what you have without concessions is the trend i wanted to highlight.

*rubs his chin* I see your point, but I think you are still missing something. Hogwarts does not represent childhood, at least not from Harry's POV. (In a symbolic sense, to the reader, it might, but bear with me here.) His 'childhood' is what he experienced with the Dursleys, and he is certainly not fighting to protect that. The reason he fights to protect Hogwarts is not because it represents innocence, freedom, or status quo, but because a) it is the first place he has ever been truly happy and b) it is a place of goodness and open-mindedness, as opposed to the evil and oppression of the Ministry and Voldemort's regime.

The fact the Ministry (the adult world) so badly mishandles everything, and that even Dumbledore is proven to have made mistakes and not be perfect, is not a condemnation of adulthood as a bad thing, but proof that no one is perfect and those in authority should not be blindly trusted. Harry and his friends, while hardly perfect either, prove to be much better at handling things than the Ministry is, showing maturity and wisdom beyond their years at several points. I think this is not a suggestion that childhood is intrinsically better, in fact I would say that's showing that there isn't anything wrong with growing up--Harry and his friends become adults, and in some ways they're better adults than the ones they know.

And lastly, while at the end of the series it seems nothing has changed, Rowling has stated in many interviews that Kingsley and others have made great changes in the Ministry and the wizarding world to deal with the inequalities and unfairness that made Voldemort's ascension so much easier. We may not get to see it as we should have, but this information shows that Harry wasn't protecting a world in order to keep it the same--he was protecting his way of life, yes, but at the same time he wanted to improve it. And he did so, I think, by retaining the determination to believe in idealism and love and freedom that we have as children while adding in the understanding that comes with adulthood and the ability to do something about the wrongs we see.

And if you view Harry Potter as being part of this trend of protecting what you have without concessions, I am puzzled then as to why you would defend it. Or are you saying that because you view Harry's world as childhood, and it's being defended so vigorously to the detriment of the adult world, and adult readers are embracing this, you see that as a good thing? If so, then I do agree with you 100%. I just think things are a bit more complicated than "Hogwarts=childhood, Voldemort=adulthood". Dichotomies rarely ever work, especially in literary analysis; reducing a work to such generalizations may make discussion easier but it tends to ignore other aspects of the work. Or rather, if a work can be reduced to such pairings, that rather makes the work look weak IMO. And yes that includes LOTR.

Note: I am not trying to convince you of my POV, just trying to understand yours better, and perhaps in the process have a fun debate. Please don't mistake this as me being a closed-minded ass or anything.

I've seen the picture, and I must admit, it is one of the best things I have seen from the fandom in a long time. Your analysis is spot on, and I thought much of the same when I saw the picture for the first time myself.

You are right with your analysis, and that picture of Calvin and Hobbes could not ever be more perfect then it is in expressing the mood it expresses.

Agreed.

There's some dissonance going on here... what exactly is bridging the gap between our childhoods and adulthoods? Are you saying it's our innocent past becoming sexualized (loss of innocence), or our adult present clinging to our innocent past (retainment of innocence)?

I would avoid using the adjective "innocent" because it has a strong moral implication.

As life expands new elements become part of it, for an experience to be worth to you all your life, that experience must be re-read many times, enriched with what you discover going on in life. What is making us to all those reimaging, rewiring, rewriting? That's an extremely complex question (i pointed at this as a worldwide trend, not a simple fashion in the furry subculture).

In short: i don't know what is doing this. It could be fear of the changing world, a general disaffection with society, the diffused bleak view of economy and old institutions. The general perception that our parents, the adults, tried to change the world and failed, so it's no longer worth to becoming an adult in the classical sense... who knows?

Plus, a lot of the old "good stuff" adults used to do isn't exclusive to "classical" adulthood nowadays, things like "having a family" and "make your work your life" have forever lost their appeal.

Okay, that clears up what you were saying.

I believe our firm grip on our childhood has something to do with how each generation is more and more lax with their parenting because we are growing and branching out as a society: each generation opposing the repression of it's previous with greater strength. This has lead to the deconstruction of both rites of passage and duty to the upholding of traditional institutions. We have less to prove to society and less urge to do so as well. Whether it's out of self-actualization as a people, or laziness, I can't say.

Essentially, we're like the Peanuts character Linus with his blanket, in a society that cares less and less whether he carries it around with him or not. Childhood memories, Calvin & Hobbes, are the blanket.

To make a further point, we're evolving to the point of returning to primitive ideology. When everything becomes perfect and wonderful, what will there be to thin out the weak from the herd? Should our obsession with not growing up be panned as a weakness for our own good as it was in the past, or is it at a manageable enough level where we're not headed for a regressive distopia?

Well isn't that a pessimistic view of things. :(

Like Alpha, I would caution the usage of such terms as "traditional", "laziness", "primitive", and "regressive" as they are not only morally loaded, but clearly judgmental as well. Though it seems you disapprove highly of the way the world is headed. While I would agree things are not necessarily getting better, and are most likely doing the opposite, I would hesitate to place the blame for this on a refusal to let go of childhood.

For all the fact that childhood is associated with laziness, irresponsibility, and temper tantrums when you don't get your own way, while adulthood is conflated with maturity, progress, and traditions, this neglects the fact that a) you don't have to be an adult to be mature and b) childhood is also associated with freedom, enjoyment, and innocence--in the sense that they look at the world and can genuinely ask simple questions (like "Why can't everyone just get along?") and believe the answer is just as simple. The answers aren't simple, but that doesn't mean we should stop believing in them as possible or worthwhile.

It is possible to discipline children without being repressive; it's also possible to retain certain aspects of childhood we sorely need without losing the maturity and understanding of adulthood, to set aside certain traditions without completely dismissing everything that went before, to simplify without oversimplifying, and to long for a time when we could see the world as we wanted it and make it so without being lazy. Like anything else, there is a danger in such thinking, or as you put it an obsession, but I would not call it a weakness at all. But maybe, despite my own pessimism, I am still an idealist. Or maybe I'm just clinging to my childhood too?

I guess my post was pessimistic, but that wasn't my intention. You make many good points about the child mindset that I wouldn't disagree with.

There are pros and cons of the current pattern of sociological evolution. People are becoming less anal-retentive and able to enjoy life more, which is a good thing. Breaking from tradition is great. Laziness in terms of living up to other peoples' standards is great. Hell, primitivism is great when it's combined with intellectualism. But yeah, as for a regressive distopia, see the first ten minutes of Idiocracy. I do not have high hopes for the future.

I would also have to say that while many parents bring up children who have the same social standards as they do, most do not. If it weren't true, our society would never make strides in getting over things like racism, sexism, or homophobia. You almost HAVE to not listen to your parents in order to make evolutionary progress. Parenting has made great changes since the free-love era of the '60s. It's safe to say hippies were more lax in their parenting than their own parents were. It's more about educating your kids now than it is discipline and punishment, like you said. But when you grow up without ever being punished, your parents' actions are all relative on a scale. "No, you can't have the car tonight," is an ass-beating to a kid who's used to hearing "You can do whatever." Not the best analogy, but I'm trying to say that the repression is purely subjective, but the perception becomes the reality.

Ah I see, you do make some very good, and sobering, points there.

I guess all I can say, other than to keep having hope that maybe eventually things will get better if we keep trying, is to point out again that since breaking from traditions, laziness, enjoying life, and primitivism can all be great, and that doing so in order to resist the ways of your parents is good when, as you say, it is the only way for sociological and tolerant evolution, this still doesn't mean we can't grow up and become mature while retaining the good things of childhood. Keeping the balance is harder than ever...but no one ever said it would be easy.

I couldn't agree more with you, that picture is something else.

wow, that is serious insight here...

really, you said stuff i were never able to put on words

it's not only emotional, this applies to the real world too, if we do not reciclate, junk piles-up, and somehow, we die...

but if we apply this to the things rule34 does... recycling our old stuff so it may be used again, that somehow keeps us the way we are, special...

plus, if i were to see everything i loved when i was 4-10 years old turn to junk and be throwed away, somehow i would be erasing that time... and then, my life would be full of missing days and hours, not counting the part that i love my cartoons and games too much to leave them behind XD

throwing that away so i can follow society, i am not only casting away the things i love, but casting away my mind, my freedom, the man i am today, maybe i'm going too far here, but if you think on it a bit, this bit of insight can applied to more things than just freedonm of thinking and life style

it's not a thing of changing completetly or stay the same, it's to balance it so you don't bend too much and "break" thusfar, dying on the inside, but you can't abide change or else you'll stay stactic and unchanged, frozen, like you were dead.

i know that in some years i'll not look at the stuff i like the same way, but 'ill never change my feelings because i changed, actually, people think i'm crazy because the game "Klonoa: the door to phantomille", makes me so happy my eyes fill themselfs with tears, it doesn't matter if i were a 6 year-old kid when i played for the first time or if i am a much older guy playing the remake for wii after lots of years, i still feel the exact same way i did.

i think we keep our old stuff, not because we are kids on the inside, but because we NEED to drag it everywhere, so we never forget how that game/cartoon/book/movie made us feel.

maybe our parents and other adults weren't so attached to objects or characters the way we are today because they forgot what their their time was like... than, they change too much to understand to wich point fantasy is "stupid" or "constructive"

maybe that is what is happening to us today, we are keeping the things that brought-out some of the stronges feelings in ou hearts, and guaranteeing that time does not erase them...

actually, i don't know where my argument is going anymore, you picked an subject that is far too deep to one to see all points of view, and that is far too ambiguos, too many branches of the said subject, connecting to various subjects, freedom, keeping memories alive, innocence, morals and the list of points of views goes forever on...

...it's a shame we may never be able to reach a conclusion in this subject...

...since this is a fascinating text, i'll be keeping it registered, i'll be saving this journal so i won't forget anyone ever mentioned this...

Agreed, very well said!

You make a great point. It's not about childhood as much as it is memories.

Very interesting, thank you for sharing this. I've long felt that the furry subculture is about attachment to childhood first and that all the fetishism and the other odd things make sense only in the light of such attachment, but this note expresses the feeling perfectly.

Many furries have gone on for decades portraying the inner worlds and the characters they developed in their childhood, or choosing artists which showed a similar mindset to portray them. To some people such inner worlds are definitely the most treasured things in their life and something they would never leave willingly. That's true for me too, even though I swear every other day that I'm fed up and I'm gonna quit furries forever and get a RL life X-D (FFFFFFF nowadays you even have to specify WHICH life you are talking about!!!)

I have abandoned a few "inner worlds" since childhood but the core of my fantasy is a stream which keeps coming from very old ideas, and reusing characters, settings, images, updating them with stuff I learn now or stuff which happens to me... I think I've never set aside anything completely.

What makes the fandom so alluring for me is that the art resulting from all this often feels really alive. If I were a believer I'd say it's like looking at portraits of people's souls, incoherent and childish as I'd expect them to be, rather than portraits of people's presence in the world and in society like the classical portraits used to be. But this is a wildly abused metaphor and a kitch way of describing the situation, so probably it's better to leave souls out of the picture.

As for the deep reasons of all this, I vote for good ol' overpopulation.

Huh...I never thought of it that way. Our "souls" (whatever meaning you want to ascribe to that), who we are inside--not in the sense of an animal totem, but just our own inner world. And we attach to it the things of adulthood that we enjoy (i.e. fetishes) as a way to bring our inner selves into the adult world without losing the things we were attached to in childhood. Definitely food for thought.

I do know what you mean about the art and what's in it feeling alive, and not just due to the realism of a particular art style.

I agree

That's some deep shit man...

Also FAP FAP FAP

Damn materialists, they ruin everything...