To continue on the discussion started in the comments on the last post, here are some of the best lo-fi swords & sorcery art I could find in a quick scouring of the web. I'd been planning to do this, but Raphael Ordonez's comment inspired me to actually do it.
I have to like the cover if I'm going to read the book. I'm embarrassingly superficial like that. I recently saw a number of old Arkham House books for sale, and I totally would have bought them for the dust jackets, if I'd had the money, which I didn't. It's interesting what you say about the amateurishness, which I've often noticed. For some strange reason that only increases the appeal for me. It seems to go hand-in-hand with their unapologetic enthusiasm.
I see nothing strange at all about liking the "unapologetic enthusiasm." That's what gets me the most about this art. It makes no bones about being done by fans for fans without the mediation of professional marketing or focus groups. It was created by artists who love monsters, heroes with big honking weapons, mad sorcerers, and exotic, dangerous worlds and know that's exactly what we S&S fans love as well.
Other than pictures my friends or I drew, the earliest fantasy artwork that stuck in my brain were from the original D&D pamphlet my friend Densel E. used to teach us how to play. I was only eleven or twelve, so I didn't understand they were "crappy," I just knew they were cool. And I still do.
I don't hate covers that don't take the lo-fi road, not at all. There's just something cool about illustrations that don't try to include every detail, and every shade mentioned in the text. Instead, they present a picture that's impressionistic, capturing the feel and intensity of what it's depicting but leaving the details for my brain to fill in.
Several people have told me that the awful photshopped art endemic to modern fantasy covers are what have been proven to sell. Even though the many of these covers still contain some of the standard fantasy elements (swords, magic blasts, etc.), they seem like they're reluctant to embrace the genre. They seem to reject the pulp roots of fantasy, instead striving to look more mainstream. I get it, but I just don't like it. These pictures, I like. Can you imagine any of these being in a gaming supplement or on a cover today?
Dark Fantasy and AMRA. I have a box full of copies of both. Gene Day and Joe Erslavas in DF and Roy G. Krenkel and Ray Capella (who wrote the Arquel of Argos Hyborian stories that were originally published) in AMRA.
ReplyDeleteDamn! Now I h'm going to have to go into the closet, move a lot stuff, and take that box down.
It was a real downer when AMRA ceased publication, but nowhere near as bad as when Gene died and that was the end of DF. Midnight Sun, Weirdbook, and a host of others. The period from the early 70's to the mid 80's was a great time if you were into "inexpensively produced" Fanzines.
Wait A Second!! I just blew up the cover of the image you have for Dark Fantasy and my name is on the cover!! It's one of the issues Gene put one of my pieces in. Holy Shit!!
ReplyDeleteFreaking chance. I just kinda picked that one at random. Now, which piece is yours, the poem, the story, or the review?
DeletePage 23, 'Glories, Lost and Won". Vignette would be the best description. Gene published 4 or 5 of my pieces, all in the sub 1,000 word category. I kept changing how he put my name down as far as mixing my first and middle names or sometimes the initials, just couldn't make up my mind. But if it's in a copy of DF and the last name is Sullivan, it's me.
DeleteOh, man, I loved this post. I agree with you. I'm not sure why readers like the photoshopped stuff, whether there is a certain ambiance that attracts them because it's certainly lost on me. A couple of weeks ago, I opened some boxes that had been in my garage for years and I discovered a bunch of old books from my younger days, all with illustrated covers you don't see anymore. From full-on paint jobs to two-toned rush jobs. Damn, nostalgia fell heavily on my shoulders that weekend.
ReplyDeleteThanx, sir. I don't want people to get me wrong, I appreciate and love well done, professional covers, but that means things like Michael Whelan's, or Darrell K. Sweet's work. In fact, I'm going to write something specifically contrasting similar old and contemporary covers.
DeleteNo, I understand completely. I'm mostly talking about my personal preference, which is a general approach. I've seen beautiful abstract covers and photoshopped stock properly woven with magic that I liked. I just haven't seen many of them. Anyway, I look forward to reading your post.
Delete