A few more thoughts regarding fursuitting
Generally when I've gone to a furcon that kinkyturtle has also attended, I find myself looking at his cartoon diary of the event and feeling just a bit down at one point or another, due to an "Aww, I missed that." feeling about something. But that was not the case with Midwest FurFest 2006. When I looked at KT's cartoon diary of that, even though I had missed many of the things he drew, my reaction was not "Aww, I missed that." but rather, "Hey, my MFF was more fun than that!" I credit fursuitting for this change. While Orvan had only three ACME deliveries, there was also the candy shtick, and just plain wandering around and letting things happen - or instigating some. As Orvan, I am no longer merely an observer, but a participant. For me, it made a difference.
That switch changes things. Before, I was just looking and watching. I was pretty much strictly audience. And there's nothing wrong with being audience. After all, no audience, no show. Whether that "show" is written story, image artwork, puppetry, fursuit performance, or something else. It's also not just the obvious performers or artists who are participant. The folks keeping things running might not be seen much, but their absence would be felt. Someone has to do stage direction and make sure the curtain moves the right way at the right times, as just one simple and fairly obvious example.
When I was looking at some HR Pufnstuf I looked around at some other old kids shows and I started to wonder if all that planted a seed, or perhaps fertilized the ground, for a later interest in fursuitting. Most of the characters were, while live actors, full costumed characters. And even though there was a problem, as there must be a for even a simple plot, there was a general sense of fun and nothing was truly serious. Perhaps the lack of "production values" helped there - how bad can things really be when it's all so obviously fake?
I noticed this most when I watched the Mechanical Boy segment on youtube. While H.R. has lines before and after the tune, during the song itself he's silent, but not just watching. He's reacting about as much as possible to Jimmy and his singing explanation of things.
One thing I've been wondering about how others "act" in suit is if they get into the emotion being portrayed to the point that under the fursuit head, they have the facial expression for the emotion. I do. I know nobody can see it, but when Orvan is happy, I'm grinning and when Orvan is annoyed or upset, my unseen facial expression matches - though it might be strangely mixed with a grin as I am having that much fun. I expect not everyone gets that far "into" things and might be working with more detachment, not so much being the character as controlling the character like a giant walk-in puppet. And I mean no offense to any puppeteers who might get as involved in their character(s) and the character's emotions.
That nobody can see my face, or any of my skin, is a tremendous advantage to me. Sometimes when I'm physically active, or in some situation though I don't feel embarrassed at all, I will appear to blush. I can't control this, and it is bothersome. It causes people to assume that I am embarrassed when I'm not, or to figure that I am over-exerting myself when that is also not the case. It fouls up the message, as my body jams the signal my mind is trying to transmit. Being fully covered eliminates this nuisance and lets me do things as I intend, without sending misleading signals I can't really control and do not wish to send.
This sort of thing, annoyingly, is also probably why some people seem to be "creeped out" by fursuits and other costumes (clowns and mimes in full makeup, for instance) as these folks seem to believe that denying such unintended signals is less rather than more honest. They don't seem to be listening so much as watching and going, "Ah, you say that, but I know what you're really thinking." If the purpose is to be truly deceitful, then I might agree. But some people can show their faces with no covering at all and be quite deceitful indeed. If you don't believe that, go car shopping for a while. I wonder if folks who are creeped out by being obviously denied that signal are more likely to be taken in by pathological liars, as the signals they so depend on are conditioned to transmit false information. I suspect that that is the case. It might explain a bit of why some people I consider to be otherwise fairly intelligent seem to be taken in by what I consider to be blatantly obvious falsehoods.
Orvan's face might be frozen in a rather happy expression, but body language, actions, and gestures can make it plain when he isn't thrilled about things. I recall my first MFF when a happy-faced raccoon managed to look very upset and angry in reaction to something. I figure anyone in full makeup or fursuit is performing (maybe not acting, but certainly performing) and thus the traditional facial signals are not really important. It's obviously performance, opposed to the pathological liar's non-obvious performance, so the "honest face" thing doesn't really apply, even if it were true.