Tails in a Tail-less World

As Pellicia expanded in complexity and scope, I began to wonder whether or not such a concept was worth my time. It was not the lack of enjoyment that brought the question, nor was it the fear of losing the work I'd made. My concern spiraled around feasibility; was this creation plausible enough to be accepted? Or was the central conceit of a world filled with anthropomorphic animals (fursons) too fantastic for the average person to comprehend?

Using animals as characters is not a new idea. The 'talking creature' has always been of fascination to humanity, though with very specific caveats. Seldom do the talking creatures gain a life of their own. They are often reduced to secondary characters, or allegorical equivalents with some kind of didactic purpose. Their primary audience seems to be children, a concept that strikes me as both logical and humorous at the same time. To recognize a furson for what he or she is, one must be able to distinguish between self and non-self, decentralize, and understand salient features of the creature in question.

Developmentalists argue over the specific time when a human child learns the ability to distinguish self from non-self, though most agree that it happens early in life. Young animals also struggle with this task, and the solution for both groups is similar: play. Through play, human children and most young animals learn the basal information necessary to develop a construct of their world and how to interact in it. This acknowledgement of physical identity teaches a child simple lessons: don't drop a toy or it may break. It also teaches non-human animals simple lessons: don't claw your mother, or she will cuff you.

The issue of decentralization, or, being able to acknowledge the world outside of the perspective of 'self', is a much more complex mental task than physical identity. For example, if we were to present a young child with a puppy, we would expect the child to be able to understand that the puppy is not part of itself; but, the child may not understand the 'needs' and 'desires' of the puppy. For the purpose of argument, the definition of needs and desires need not be specific; only a rudimentary understanding of inner drive and free will as it relates to physical survival are necessary to meet the criterion. Arguably, some adults may not be able to understand this concept either, as evidenced by the prevalence of poor pet care. The puppy's 'needs' and 'desires' are considered adorable; the seriousness of which is secondary to its 'cute' existence. The child's on the other hand, while considered cute, is also treated with more viability because of its future role as a fully formed human being. From a truly decentralized point, there should be no stratification of importance between the needs and desires of a child, and the needs and desires of a puppy.

An understanding of salient animal features is key to the recognition of a furson, just as it is key to recognizing other humans. Gender identity, for example, is one of the first steps in stratifying those that humans encounter. Being male or female is a critical step that places a human in a predefined category. From there, more information can be gathered about personality, likes and dislikes, etcetera. Even humans, with our refined mental capabilities, trip over the concept of being neither male nor female. It takes a special leap of thought to move past this hurdle and learn about the person within. Consider the difficulties presented by the furson. In this environment, one must deal with multiple species, not just multiple genders. Despite the increase in number, physical differences aid in identifying fursons. Tail length, muzzle length, and fur patterns, all provide an easy mental crutch for identification. However, great care must be taken not to over generalize. For example, it is commonplace in the human world to mix up a lion and a tiger, despite the fact that they live in very different societies and have very different appearances. To do so is an error in thought, no better than lumping all human females together due to similar hair coloration. As such, a level of sophistication must be attained before a furson can be truly understood as a viable being, just as a level of sophistication must be attained before a human can see other humans as 'individual'.

Reaching back to my previous statement, the inherent logic and humor in presenting fursons as 'children's characters' becomes clear. From birth, the child begins the long process of building a mental cache. As this mental cache develops through age and experience, the child is expected to apply the knowledge to further its 'needs' and 'desires' in its specific environment. Somewhere along the line, the amount of information being learned is overshadowed by the amount of information being applied to the rest of the world. This, from an empirical point of view, could be considered the beginning of human adulthood. It is much simpler to add new concepts to a child's developing mental cache than it is to press the ideas into an adult's established cache that is being used for continued existence. It makes sense, therefore, that a child could accept a simple furson with less trouble than an adult.

But what happens when a furson no longer remains 'simple'?

What happens when a furson ceases to exist simply because 'it does', and instead exists because it was born that way? What happens when these fursons have a history as well as 'needs' and 'desires' that relate to that history and how it has changed the course of fursons everywhere? What happens when fursons are no longer didactic tools but viable beings that have a stepwise developmental scheme that can place them at any stage in their life? The furson becomes more than just a human allegory; he or she becomes a character in his or her own right and existence.

The humor in presenting children with such characters is very clear. How can a child begin to comprehend the subtleties inherent to fursons? The human child might be able to imagine having a tail. He or she might be able to understand how annoying it would be to close it in a door. But, I would not expect a child to extrapolate further to how the entire society has developed to keep one's tail from being placed in uncomfortable positions. I wouldn't expect the child to comprehend the complex social rules and structures that dictate when it is appropriate to do certain actions with the tail. And it'd be hard for them to grasp the significance of the structural details necessary to have a tail and bipedal stances at the same time. Instead of appreciating the furson as viable and interesting creatures, human adults have foisted it upon children to comprehend something from which they can only gain a rudimentary knowledge in the name of developing 'imagination'.

So we return to the initial questions: Is a world populated by such fursons too fantastic to comprehend? No, I don't think so. I did not create Pellicia to be thrown into the realm of childhood literature; pushed to the wayside. While children may be able to relate to the characters on a rudimentary level, intellectuals should also be able to enjoy the complexities of life on the planet. At one time, Science Fiction was restricted to dollar books and underground communication. The ideas within may have been too much for the average person to understand; and even now, there are an invariant number of people who still 'don't like' science fiction for whatever reason. Anthropomorphics, as a genre, is still part of science fiction as it rightfully should be. The evolution of a world comprised of animals easily qualified. But, anthropomorphics should not be relegated to the backseat of 'children's literature'. Seeing other species in a scientific environment may be the stepping-stone needed to introduce people to the world of speculative thought. Too much can be learned from well-developed worlds, both about ourselves, and our self-created environment.