Wolfe covers

Daniel Petersen · 01 Jan 2011, 18:26 · from 2011-January.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com (Daniel Petersen)
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 18:26:54 +0000
Subject: (urth) Wolfe covers
In-Reply-To: <B933A8AFA8C64D1891581684907F20AA@jill>
References: <SNT123-W647D885A84906891388E3ECF030 at phx.gbl>
	<7C47147D4F5F458A814F9D73AB686580@jill>
	<4D1CDBC2.3070009 at gmail.com> <4D1E2A63.1010902 at verizon.net>
	<AANLkTikbRapwycQM6Cq_Bo_DtL7rbXJCAadXZzk6fkZ4 at mail.gmail.com>
	<8C7A82ACA7EF406EAC077F5EED882463@jill>
	<AANLkTikc4ruos56bykkBNvXJijE5fCpK=2bUg+_NzCfn at mail.gmail.com>
	<B933A8AFA8C64D1891581684907F20AA@jill>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim2pE4cFf9YwSAjx3kbSk6sSNitERSP11geZ51Q at mail.gmail.com>

Gerry Quinn <gerryq at indigo.ie> wrote:

> Still, I think it's an interesting point that we are apt to consider these
> images terribly naff in visual form and yet they are pretty much exactly
> what is described in the text.
>

No, no, that's the whole point.  They are not at all 'exactly what is
described in the text'.  To do that you would need a rather genius,
innovative, subtle, knowledgeable artist who knows the history of 'fantasy
painting' as it were and visually 'describes' these scenes in a way that
does justice to the way Wolfe treats traditional fantastic material.  His
prose is seriously some of the very best anyone is ever going to read, his
ideas and twisting of ideas are so thought-provoking.  The covers should
bring at least *something* of that out - or at the very least not point in
the exact opposite direction so that people expect... not just 'standard
fare' but *sub*standard fantasy tripe and trash!  I am utterly mortified to
be seen reading a book with the cover of OBW!

I mean, if one of Wolfe's biggest fans, Neil Gaiman, can have tasteful,
well-designed, stylish covers, why can't Wolfe?

By the bye, I would have no problem with the covers looking *intentionally*
kitschy and pulpy in a self-aware naff way that has some fun and ironic
class and... SKILL.  They could at least look like old Edgar Rice Burroughs
or Robert E. Howard or Michael Moorcock covers.  That would be an
improvement!

DOJP

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Gerry Quinn <gerryq at indigo.ie> wrote:

>  I think IGJ is the one I would be most embarrassed to be seen reading on
> the train - I'd sooner have a sexy mermaid on the cover than that ridiculous
> Neighbour falling over his feet!   RTTW is fine IMO.  The Knight/Wizard
> covers are at least fairly monotone and don't jump out.
>
> I admit I would also prefer something more abstract or less exotic.
>
> Still, I think it's an interesting point that we are apt to consider these
> images terribly naff in visual form and yet they are pretty much exactly
> what is described in the text.  Perhaps we should not be so precious about
> them.
>
> Anyway, embarrassment at SF covers has a long and honourable history,
> though perhaps the advent of e-readers will before long bring it to an
> end...
>
> - Gerry Quinn
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
> *To:* The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 01, 2011 5:30 PM
> *Subject:* Re: (urth) Wolfe covers
>
> Gerry Quinn <gerryq at indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>>  On the other hand, people have objected to the Short Sun covers - but
>> are they not, essentially, very faithful and literal representations of the
>> contents of the books?
>>
>
> Em, not so sure about that.  Is Seawrack's hair colour wrong?  Horn's hair
> doesn't look balding at all.  Babbie and the Neighbour would require much
> speculation on the part of the artist and these are not particularly
> impressive.  And the godling looks more giant than I remember him being
> described when he's holding Silk-Horn.
>
> But that aside, even if they depict accurate content from the stories, they
> are terrible 'unicorns and rainbows' fantasy drawing styles, not
> particularly skillful or tasteful or interesting.  They're some of the worst
> and most embarrassing fantasy kitsch I've ever seen.  (RttW is not as
> painful as the others - OBW is the worst.)   Is it even a good idea to try
> to depict some of the most pulp-fantastic elements of Wolfe's stories on his
> covers?  That can be so susceptible to misapprehending the literary
> excellence and subtlety of the writing that simultaneously celebrates,
> subverts, and transfigures the subgenre(s) Wolfe is drawing from (alongside
> his 'mainstream' influences).  Why not try something more subtle or quite
> clearly 'beautiful'?  If it has to be straightforward representational
> figurative paintings of events in the stories, then AT LEAST GET AN ARTIST
> WHO HAS A CLUE ABOUT GOOD REALISTIC PAINTING.
>
> These paperback covers for The Knight:
> http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/gene+wolfe/the+knight+28ebook29/6515022/
>
> and The Wizard:
> http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/gene+wolfe/the+wizard/5596395/
>
> are just the worst!  Looks like they would be the Twilight of heroic
> fantasy!  Yech!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110101/f966a08e/attachment-0001.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net