I know that art is subjective and all that, but can we just be super honest here for just a moment? That cover is shockingly bad, I can't believe any artist with any self-respect would ever even submit something in that state for consideration. When I first read this post, I hadn't seen the cover art yet, I just figured.. ok they're mad because someone from the old guard wasn't picked over some young artist trying to get their foot in the door.. But if THIS is the best young artists can do, they don't deserve a shot because.. wow... That is sooo bad, not even remotely close to professional work.
The artist who did the cover for something I will have out next month took less than a day to have the preliminary sketches done and back to me. The work was completed over the course of the next couple of weeks. You have a very unrealistic view of how long it takes artists to produce work. You can watch artists draw or paint something to completion in real time on Instagram, and it looks vastly more accomplished and professional than does the digital art on the cover of the book in question. Do you think Elmore is going to take as long as it took Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
Why are less popular authors of the genre even obtaining better art? The latest series by the twin authors of one of the most popular and best selling fantasy trilogies in recent decades gets that. But older authors who have fallen into near obscurity except among fantasy diehards get Brom? Tom Kidd? Julie Bell? Sam Weber?
Um... best selling trilogies in recent decades? The 1980s do not qualify as 'recent'. Dragonlance (as well as Weis and Hickmann) have been largely nonfactors since then.
I know that art is subjective and all that, but can we just be super honest here for just a moment? That cover is shockingly bad, I can't believe any artist with any self-respect would ever even submit something in that state for consideration. When I first read this post, I hadn't seen the cover art yet, I just figured.. ok they're mad because someone from the old guard wasn't picked over some young artist trying to get their foot in the door.. But if THIS is the best young artists can do, they don't deserve a shot because.. wow... That is sooo bad, not even remotely close to professional work.
I don't disagree. I also don't like the art. I just wanted people to have a first hand account of who was involved and how much.
I know that art is subjective and all that, but can we just be super honest here for just a moment? That cover is shockingly bad, I can't believe any artist with any self-respect would ever even submit something in that state for consideration. When I first read this post, I hadn't seen the cover art yet, I just figured.. ok they're mad because someone from the old guard wasn't picked over some young artist trying to get their foot in the door.. But if THIS is the best young artists can do, they don't deserve a shot because.. wow... That is sooo bad, not even remotely close to professional work.
Oh, it's bad. Even the building and the background look all wonky, but those figures? Their faces? It looks rushed and unfinished. I have seen better work from middle and high school students who take art as an elective. (I draw portraits of characters of mine from time to time and do a better job.) I am not trying to be mean. That work is objectively poor draftsmanship. If the publisher wanted digital art, if they truly believed digital art 'pops,' as if this ain't meaningless corporate speak to justify a quantity over quality approach, the least they could have done is given the artist more time to produce something that wasn't going to get the response it should have been obvious it was going to get. I get what you are saying about Elmore and instead giving new blood a go. I agree. Many are the amazing new artists out there. But Elmore's work is something someone would put on the wall. Wear on a shirt. It is of an artistry almost comparable to that of Frazetta. As is the work of Caldwell and Easley. Not all digital art is bad. I don't personally like it. But I've seen some that shows great skill. This ain't it.
Why are less popular authors of the genre even obtaining better art? The latest series by the twin authors of one of the most popular and best selling fantasy trilogies in recent decades gets that. But older authors who have fallen into near obscurity except among fantasy diehards get Brom? Tom Kidd? Julie Bell? Sam Weber?
Um... best selling trilogies in recent decades? The 1980s do not qualify as 'recent'. Dragonlance (as well as Weis and Hickmann) have been largely nonfactors since then.
"Recent decades refers to the period of time within the last 30 to 40 years ..."
Please don't play semantics about whether or not the '80s 'quality as recent,' when in fact they do, and address the main point I was making: More obscure authors from the 1950s and 1960s are getting better treatment. Heck, Clash Ashton Smith has been all but forgotten since decades even prior to that, but a five-volume set of his fiction that came out in the 2000s had works featuring him commissioned for each volume. Go look at the faces of the figures on the covers of the Spatterlight Press (a lilliputian publisher compared to Random House) editions of Vance's four Dying Earth volumes. Why is it Random House couldn't even afford to pay someone who can draw faces properly for a book by Weis and Hickman, which will have a guaranteed audience among many hobbyists who love Dragonlance, as well as more than few fans of fantasy fiction, but someone rarely even read today despite his influence on the hobby gets Korobov? Oh, and Dragonlance as well as its authors 'has largely been a nonfactor,' so it's just not worth paying much for the cover art for anything the pair of them are going to write, but we are giving the pair of them money to write a whole new series of books for us? Yeah, that makes 'sense.' It was only yesterday there were talks to commit the Dragonlance Chronicles to the small screen. Given how far TV programs have come with many actors and actresses viewing the medium as even superior to film that is not nothing. That project has been shelved for now. But you are underestimating how popular that setting and that series is. No work of fiction related to D&D has ever done so well. It has been translated into multiple languages. It has sold extremely well. It remains in print. It is one of the most popular fantasy series of all time. And the characters remain favorites among many who didn't just discover D&D when COVID struck.
Hmm, three characters standing, an expression of dull surprise on at least one of them, and a dragon that nobody's reacting to in a scene that probably doesn't actually happen in the book.
Looks pretty standard to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Hmm, three characters standing, an expression of dull surprise on at least one of them, and a dragon that nobody's reacting to in a scene that probably doesn't actually happen in the book.
Looks pretty standard to me.
This thread isn't about what it depicts. But how badly. Are you saying you believe it's a good piece of art? That there is nothing wrong with the faces on the figures depicted in it? That the artist is a skilled draftsperson? [Redacted]
This thread isn't about what it depicts. But how badly. Are you saying you believe it's a good piece of art?
I don't think any Dragonlance covers were good pieces of art.
Anyone who has studied at art college can tell you Elmore—like or dislike his style—can paint and do so well. Particularly figures. Like I said before: some people can objectively play a musical instrument proficiently. Whether you like or dislike their songs has no bearing on their ability.
And in case you missed it:
"Recent decades refers to the period of time within the last 30 to 40 years ..."
Please don't play semantics about whether or not the '80s 'quality as recent,' when in fact they do, and address the main point I was making: More obscure authors from the 1950s and 1960s are getting better treatment. Heck, Clash Ashton Smith has been all but forgotten since decades even prior to that, but a five-volume set of his fiction that came out in the 2000s had works featuring him commissioned for each volume. Go look at the faces of the figures on the covers of the Spatterlight Press (a lilliputian publisher compared to Random House) editions of Vance's four Dying Earth volumes. Why is it Random House couldn't even afford to pay someone who can draw faces properly for a book by Weis and Hickman, which will have a guaranteed audience among many hobbyists who love Dragonlance, as well as more than few fans of fantasy fiction, but someone rarely even read today despite his influence on the hobby gets Korobov? Oh, and Dragonlance as well as its authors 'has largely been a nonfactor,' so it's just not worth paying much for the cover art for anything the pair of them are going to write, but we are giving the pair of them money to write a whole new series of books for us? Yeah, that makes 'sense.' It was only yesterday there were talks to commit the Dragonlance Chronicles to the small screen. Given how far TV programs have come with many actors and actresses viewing the medium as even superior to film that is not nothing. That project has been shelved for now. But you are underestimating how popular that setting and that series is. No work of fiction related to D&D has ever done so well. It has been translated into multiple languages. It has sold extremely well. It remains in print. It is one of the most popular fantasy series of all time. And the characters remain favorites among many who didn't just discover D&D when COVID struck.
No work of fiction related to D&D has ever done so well.
That is not a hard bar to meet, most D&D related fiction is both terrible and irrelevant. Also, bear in mind that Weis and Hickmann have been publishing books since then, they're in the category of "sell well enough to keep publishing, but not well enough for a lot of people to care", and the publisher is entirely aware of that, so they're getting the level of support that would be expected from their recent results, not from what they did forty years ago.
Why does the cover art matter when it's a novel... Shouldnt the contents of the book be what matters rather then the cover art?? Hence why the phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" comes to mind.
You are not getting the book to hang on the wall like a piece of art, you are getting the book to read...
No work of fiction related to D&D has ever done so well.
That is not a hard bar to meet, most D&D related fiction is both terrible and irrelevant. Also, bear in mind that Weis and Hickmann have been publishing books since then, they're in the category of "sell well enough to keep publishing, but not well enough for a lot of people to care", and the publisher is entirely aware of that, so they're getting the level of support that would be expected from their recent results, not from what they did forty years ago.
The 80s as a whole qualify. It's decades. Recent decades. This encompasses decades in their entirely. I ain't responding to you no more because you are clearly not engaging in good faith.
No work of fiction related to D&D has ever done so well.
That is not a hard bar to meet, most D&D related fiction is both terrible and irrelevant. Also, bear in mind that Weis and Hickmann have been publishing books since then, they're in the category of "sell well enough to keep publishing, but not well enough for a lot of people to care", and the publisher is entirely aware of that, so they're getting the level of support that would be expected from their recent results, not from what they did forty years ago.
Why did you remove everything I said about more obscure authors with smaller readerships published by smaller publishers getting better art? Because you are engaging in bad faith. This is why I won't be responding to you no more.
Since I'm a little confused as to the point of debating whether the art is good or bad when it is but a fraction of the product which doesn't appear to be a picture book but instead a novel where the writing is the important part. Ultimately how long is someone going to look at the cover art compared to the contents...
The publisher's made a decision to use that artist and that cover, they are unlikely to change the cover art, so whats the goal of debating it after voicing your initial dislikes for the art....
I buy the standard covers to use, and the alt covers to display, I have alt covers that I don't have standard covers of simply to display as I would never use them in a game. This also carries over to non ttrpg books I own. Some books I own are just for looking at not reading or using 🫣😱🙃
I know that art is subjective and all that, but can we just be super honest here for just a moment? That cover is shockingly bad, I can't believe any artist with any self-respect would ever even submit something in that state for consideration. When I first read this post, I hadn't seen the cover art yet, I just figured.. ok they're mad because someone from the old guard wasn't picked over some young artist trying to get their foot in the door.. But if THIS is the best young artists can do, they don't deserve a shot because.. wow... That is sooo bad, not even remotely close to professional work.
The artist who did the cover for something I will have out next month took less than a day to have the preliminary sketches done and back to me. The work was completed over the course of the next couple of weeks. You have a very unrealistic view of how long it takes artists to produce work. You can watch artists draw or paint something to completion in real time on Instagram, and it looks vastly more accomplished and professional than does the digital art on the cover of the book in question. Do you think Elmore is going to take as long as it took Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
Um... best selling trilogies in recent decades? The 1980s do not qualify as 'recent'. Dragonlance (as well as Weis and Hickmann) have been largely nonfactors since then.
I don't disagree. I also don't like the art. I just wanted people to have a first hand account of who was involved and how much.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Oh, it's bad. Even the building and the background look all wonky, but those figures? Their faces? It looks rushed and unfinished. I have seen better work from middle and high school students who take art as an elective. (I draw portraits of characters of mine from time to time and do a better job.) I am not trying to be mean. That work is objectively poor draftsmanship. If the publisher wanted digital art, if they truly believed digital art 'pops,' as if this ain't meaningless corporate speak to justify a quantity over quality approach, the least they could have done is given the artist more time to produce something that wasn't going to get the response it should have been obvious it was going to get. I get what you are saying about Elmore and instead giving new blood a go. I agree. Many are the amazing new artists out there. But Elmore's work is something someone would put on the wall. Wear on a shirt. It is of an artistry almost comparable to that of Frazetta. As is the work of Caldwell and Easley. Not all digital art is bad. I don't personally like it. But I've seen some that shows great skill. This ain't it.
"Recent decades refers to the period of time within the last 30 to 40 years ..."
Please don't play semantics about whether or not the '80s 'quality as recent,' when in fact they do, and address the main point I was making: More obscure authors from the 1950s and 1960s are getting better treatment. Heck, Clash Ashton Smith has been all but forgotten since decades even prior to that, but a five-volume set of his fiction that came out in the 2000s had works featuring him commissioned for each volume. Go look at the faces of the figures on the covers of the Spatterlight Press (a lilliputian publisher compared to Random House) editions of Vance's four Dying Earth volumes. Why is it Random House couldn't even afford to pay someone who can draw faces properly for a book by Weis and Hickman, which will have a guaranteed audience among many hobbyists who love Dragonlance, as well as more than few fans of fantasy fiction, but someone rarely even read today despite his influence on the hobby gets Korobov? Oh, and Dragonlance as well as its authors 'has largely been a nonfactor,' so it's just not worth paying much for the cover art for anything the pair of them are going to write, but we are giving the pair of them money to write a whole new series of books for us? Yeah, that makes 'sense.' It was only yesterday there were talks to commit the Dragonlance Chronicles to the small screen. Given how far TV programs have come with many actors and actresses viewing the medium as even superior to film that is not nothing. That project has been shelved for now. But you are underestimating how popular that setting and that series is. No work of fiction related to D&D has ever done so well. It has been translated into multiple languages. It has sold extremely well. It remains in print. It is one of the most popular fantasy series of all time. And the characters remain favorites among many who didn't just discover D&D when COVID struck.
Hmm, three characters standing, an expression of dull surprise on at least one of them, and a dragon that nobody's reacting to in a scene that probably doesn't actually happen in the book.
Looks pretty standard to me.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This thread isn't about what it depicts. But how badly. Are you saying you believe it's a good piece of art? That there is nothing wrong with the faces on the figures depicted in it? That the artist is a skilled draftsperson? [Redacted]
I don't think any Dragonlance covers were good pieces of art.
Anyone who has studied at art college can tell you Elmore—like or dislike his style—can paint and do so well. Particularly figures. Like I said before: some people can objectively play a musical instrument proficiently. Whether you like or dislike their songs has no bearing on their ability.
And in case you missed it:
"Recent decades refers to the period of time within the last 30 to 40 years ..."
Please don't play semantics about whether or not the '80s 'quality as recent,' when in fact they do, and address the main point I was making: More obscure authors from the 1950s and 1960s are getting better treatment. Heck, Clash Ashton Smith has been all but forgotten since decades even prior to that, but a five-volume set of his fiction that came out in the 2000s had works featuring him commissioned for each volume. Go look at the faces of the figures on the covers of the Spatterlight Press (a lilliputian publisher compared to Random House) editions of Vance's four Dying Earth volumes. Why is it Random House couldn't even afford to pay someone who can draw faces properly for a book by Weis and Hickman, which will have a guaranteed audience among many hobbyists who love Dragonlance, as well as more than few fans of fantasy fiction, but someone rarely even read today despite his influence on the hobby gets Korobov? Oh, and Dragonlance as well as its authors 'has largely been a nonfactor,' so it's just not worth paying much for the cover art for anything the pair of them are going to write, but we are giving the pair of them money to write a whole new series of books for us? Yeah, that makes 'sense.' It was only yesterday there were talks to commit the Dragonlance Chronicles to the small screen. Given how far TV programs have come with many actors and actresses viewing the medium as even superior to film that is not nothing. That project has been shelved for now. But you are underestimating how popular that setting and that series is. No work of fiction related to D&D has ever done so well. It has been translated into multiple languages. It has sold extremely well. It remains in print. It is one of the most popular fantasy series of all time. And the characters remain favorites among many who didn't just discover D&D when COVID struck.
I'm sorry, he may be technically competent but they're still bad art.
So, one of them doesn't qualify at all (published 1984), and the other two only squeak in at the bare margins (published 1985).
That is not a hard bar to meet, most D&D related fiction is both terrible and irrelevant. Also, bear in mind that Weis and Hickmann have been publishing books since then, they're in the category of "sell well enough to keep publishing, but not well enough for a lot of people to care", and the publisher is entirely aware of that, so they're getting the level of support that would be expected from their recent results, not from what they did forty years ago.
Why does the cover art matter when it's a novel... Shouldnt the contents of the book be what matters rather then the cover art?? Hence why the phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" comes to mind.
You are not getting the book to hang on the wall like a piece of art, you are getting the book to read...
Many that buy D&D alt covers may disagree.
The 80s as a whole qualify. It's decades. Recent decades. This encompasses decades in their entirely. I ain't responding to you no more because you are clearly not engaging in good faith.
Why did you remove everything I said about more obscure authors with smaller readerships published by smaller publishers getting better art? Because you are engaging in bad faith. This is why I won't be responding to you no more.
Are you not judging a book by the cover.....
Since I'm a little confused as to the point of debating whether the art is good or bad when it is but a fraction of the product which doesn't appear to be a picture book but instead a novel where the writing is the important part. Ultimately how long is someone going to look at the cover art compared to the contents...
The publisher's made a decision to use that artist and that cover, they are unlikely to change the cover art, so whats the goal of debating it after voicing your initial dislikes for the art....
If a person is not going to read the book and only display it the the only way to judge a book purchased for that purpose is by the cover.
WHAT?!
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I buy the standard covers to use, and the alt covers to display, I have alt covers that I don't have standard covers of simply to display as I would never use them in a game. This also carries over to non ttrpg books I own. Some books I own are just for looking at not reading or using 🫣😱🙃
I feel sorry for any novel only displayed for it cover while it's story is left unread... Feels like a waste
Each to their own I guess