Reply To: No fur on miniatures please!

[Rhoderic]

Victoria Dickson wrote:

Because GW figures are not based on any reality, so there is no reason other than ‘it looks cool’ for having them wear fur?

That’s true, but still, a sci-fi setting that completely excludes the wearing of dead animal parts would have to sterilise itself of some basic thematic concepts. The 40K universe, for instance, would basically have to amputate Snakebites and Kroot entirely, and make Space Wolves and Eldar Exodites into blander versions of themselves. Any thematic concept wherein a culture would have natural reason or inclination to wear dead animal would be a no-go zone.

Now, if a sci-fi setting does completely exclude the wearing of dead animal, then I may still very well be a fan of that setting if it’s cool for other reasons. Indeed, such a setting might be interestingly different, exploring other directions of sci-fi that shed the “cultural throwback” concept in favour of bolder, more explorative concepts of as-yet-unattained modes of human/sophont existence (Greg Egan would approve). For instance, I’d still like Beyond the Gates of Antares even if it didn’t have Bovan Tuk and the Mhagris in it. I have no need to “defy” animal rights ideals for the sake of it, even less so out of antipathy.

All that being said, I also happen to like sci-fi settings that do include cultural throwbacks. That’s where PETA and I part ways (casually from my point of view, I can’t speak as to theirs).

By the way, come to think of it, shouldn’t PETA be more concerned that GW sells sable brushes? I’m sure there are extremely few people in this hobby who don’t own sable brushes.