Timewaster's Guide Archive

This must be somewhat frustrating for you as an artist, I guess? It can be easy to be pigeonholed if people just see the cliché.

Not so much... if I add goggles to a character design, it's for one of two reasons: They're functionally appropriate for the character's role, or I'm actively attempting to tap that trope as visual shorthand (which is what's being done here). I'd be interested in knowing if these goggles were McGrath's idea or someone else's.

In current visual parlance, goggles added to a character design indicate a technological aspect. They're usually welding goggles because that implies dirty industrial technology (welding=gas and sparks and molten metal), as opposed to a sleeker design that might imply clean futurist technology, or a simpler design which might just imply vision correction. Plus, dark lenses are inherently embedded in popular culture as "cool", and welding goggles are straight black... if they were clear and made you look like you had googly-eyes, it wouldn't work so well.

What I love about this cover is that McGrath captured the characters well, regardless of their clothing or props. I feel like he nailed their features, expressions and body language. And the overall tone of the illustration is  suitable for the book inside... I don't think anyone is going to pick this up and read it and then complain that it wasn't the book they were expecting from the cover art.

They might complain that there wasn't enough goggles. 

Personally I think that the miniseries model (like HBO is using, and like a frickin' billion BBC productions) is the best for adapting written works into film/television.

I'm looking forward to seeing how HBO does with its adaptation of A Game of Thrones... if it goes well, it might help to serve as a model for future adaptations of novels. Online distributors like Netflix are now showing an interest in original programming along the lines of the HBO model. And where Netflix goes Hulu (and others) tend to follow, so there's good potential in the market for more of whatever succeeds for HBO.

Haha, yeah if there's one thing you can be certain of, it's that fans will call you out if you miss something.

The helmets are described as skullcaps (literally, I guess), so I imagine they'd contour pretty closely. Remember that the design mandate for most anything related to nature on Roshar is going to be arthropods, crustaceans and coral. If you take that into account as you go, it's easier to stay on track. But the best thing to do is make note of descriptors in the text (much easier in a searchable e-book) and draw directly from that. I think the best place to look is during the chasm scavenging scenes with Bridge Four... there's a good description of their armor and how it grows out when Kaladin tries to strip one the first time. There's descriptors of their clothing and weapons as well.

It's also worth remembering that while the parshendi look primitive, their weapons are very finely made... I wouldn't necessarily make them look too rough. They carry short bows rather than long bows, and I think a smaller hand-axe might be more suitable than a long-hafted battle-axe. Maybe look into Mongolian weapon design and extrapolate from there.

I have Martin Gardener's The Annotated Alice as well as an annotated Gulliver's Travels (by Isaac Asimov!), and they're a treat to read.

The annotations really add to the text. Asimov's annotations to Swift are especially interesting, as I had no idea that  Gulliver's Travels was originally intended to be a sociopolitical satire (I only knew the bowdlerised versions of the story as a children's fable).

Shardblades are exceptionally light.

I'm just happy as hell that he appears to have gotten all her details right. I could nitpick the design of the glass knives (clip-point? gahhhh...) but that is because I am a jerk.

It's a sweet cover.

 

Quote from: Inkthinker on January 25, 2011, 06:57:26 AM

In all cases I urge artists to never think in terms of "pose", but rather to think in terms of "performance" or "action". Think about what the character you draw is doing, and then work out how that affects their body language, their clothing, and the world they're inhabiting. Even standing still is an action of a sort.

That's some really good advice, thanks. (I know you're not talking to me but I'm going to go ahead and take it anyway. )

It's not a particularly directed statement. Advice is cheap, people are welcome to make what they can make of it. 

I couldn't draw anything beyond kindergarten stick figures if my life depended on it myself, I bow before the awesome of those who can.

Illustration is a craft, like building furniture. The basics are well-defined and can be learned, it's not magic.

I start most drawings with what is basically a stick figure. The trick is in knowing what to do next, but it's a trick anyone can learn.