Mordar
2019-02-25, 01:55 PM
Debated where the best place for this would be, and elected to go with "Media Discussions" on account of it not being a game book, though its all about the game...
Anyway, a few months ago I got a copy of "Art and Arcane: A Visual History" from Target for 30% off. I was reasonably excited when I learned about the book - a huge coffee table illustrated history of Dungeons and Dragons - and then more excited when I saw it at Target on the cheap. So, hooray.
The book is large, both in terms of physical dimensions and number of pages. The paper quality seems to be very good, and the printing - both text and graphics - looks very sharp. It is divided into chapters approximating "eras" of D&D and promises a deep look at the history of the game through the visuals that were produced during each "era".
Thus far I've made it through about 230 pages and have entered chapter four, wherein we learn of AD&D Second Edition and the goings-on after 1989 or so.
I really want to like the book...and perhaps if it were just art I'd like it better. Why?
The introduction - While I realize that we no longer live in the era of mainstream media promoting stories of children committing suicide because their character died, or losing touch with reality, I lived through all of that first hand, so I'm probably a little sensitive to questionable word choice in describing RPGs. (I suspect the majority of the purchasing audience for this work is of a similar age...I wonder if they feel the same). So when the introduction to what could have been a serious and valuable history of a innovative and seminal game/company uses terms like "gateway drug" and attempts to garner street cred by admitting to shoplifting to maintain his habit I'm a little put off. Coupled with what I think is a miss in who they chose to pen the introduction - I would have preferred an actual artist or art director over a "pop" figure from another media, no matter his affection for the game or perceived hotness - this did not start me off on the right foot at all.
Editing errors - I've noticed a handful of glaring errors, most of which should have been caught by an appropriate editor. While the occasional typo is probably nearly inevitable in large, dense scripts, there really isn't that much text in Art and Arcane, so the issues can pop out more than in a Crichton or Martin novel, for instance. Things like dropping "thousand" from the phrase "...over one hundred units were sold, a reasonable start on the way to sales in excess of a quarter million" wouldn't be a big deal in most cases, and is clear from the context, but in a relatively text light book (for 500-ish pages, anyway) it seems the kind of thing that should be caught.
And then, when it is clear the editor isn't familiar with the subject matter, it's even worse. The opening commentary about Dragonlance and how vital it was to expanding the reach and market for D&D, speaks about the diversity of characters presented, leading off with "...the incorruptible elf warrior Caramon...". This isn't just a name swap issue, because the incorruptible warrior *Strum* isn't an elf. And even Sturm would be much better presented in text as a "knight" to capture the characterization. Did the author only have a passing familiarity with Dragonlance? Maybe...but then maybe they shouldn't be writing this section as a historian. The same goes for the editor...this isn't a work of fiction where the editor should be reading for text/grammar or story flow issues but should also be effectively fact-checking as well. When such an error is made it undermines the credibility of the whole work, even if just marginally, so that I can't be sure that I should trust the facts/numbers/opinions on which I don't already have first-hand knowledge. This follows after some other questionable mistakes in terminology and appellation.
Though not an editing error per se, the use of the word "fad" as applied to D&D in the early 80s also strained my trust. Hula hoops were a fad. Atari was a fad. Pound Puppies, Cabbage Patch Kids, Beanie Babies...those were fads. They sold millions of units all over the country/world in a short period of time. D&D was a game that struggled for shelf space. It was a niche inside a niche that never even came close to market saturation in any demographic. Additionally it didn't appear to be short-lived (though there were ebbs and flows), so it just doesn't seem like good word choice.
Focus on covers - While there are pieces of internal art filtered throughout the book (thus far), the focus has definitely been on cover illustrations. On the one hand, I can understand that...there's a lot of work to show, and the cover paintings are the big pieces that draw the eye...but I think the evolution of D&D art is even better typified by the quality and frequency of internal artwork. There are occasional "critter/character through the years" splashes that are presented and are really interesting. A bit more of these might have helped expand on the story of the evolution even more, particularly since I am of the opinion that the cover art quality has been pretty consistent since the area of the "orange spine" books. I freely admit YMMV.
All in all I'm impressed by the artwork throughout the book and I really like the idea of a visual history. Sadly I just think it could have been better, and what I've seen so far comes off a little shallow. Given the price point and the condition issues I've seen in the Amazon reviews I'm really glad I got my copy from a brick and mortar retailer and at a price as good as Amazon.
- M
Anyway, a few months ago I got a copy of "Art and Arcane: A Visual History" from Target for 30% off. I was reasonably excited when I learned about the book - a huge coffee table illustrated history of Dungeons and Dragons - and then more excited when I saw it at Target on the cheap. So, hooray.
The book is large, both in terms of physical dimensions and number of pages. The paper quality seems to be very good, and the printing - both text and graphics - looks very sharp. It is divided into chapters approximating "eras" of D&D and promises a deep look at the history of the game through the visuals that were produced during each "era".
Thus far I've made it through about 230 pages and have entered chapter four, wherein we learn of AD&D Second Edition and the goings-on after 1989 or so.
I really want to like the book...and perhaps if it were just art I'd like it better. Why?
The introduction - While I realize that we no longer live in the era of mainstream media promoting stories of children committing suicide because their character died, or losing touch with reality, I lived through all of that first hand, so I'm probably a little sensitive to questionable word choice in describing RPGs. (I suspect the majority of the purchasing audience for this work is of a similar age...I wonder if they feel the same). So when the introduction to what could have been a serious and valuable history of a innovative and seminal game/company uses terms like "gateway drug" and attempts to garner street cred by admitting to shoplifting to maintain his habit I'm a little put off. Coupled with what I think is a miss in who they chose to pen the introduction - I would have preferred an actual artist or art director over a "pop" figure from another media, no matter his affection for the game or perceived hotness - this did not start me off on the right foot at all.
Editing errors - I've noticed a handful of glaring errors, most of which should have been caught by an appropriate editor. While the occasional typo is probably nearly inevitable in large, dense scripts, there really isn't that much text in Art and Arcane, so the issues can pop out more than in a Crichton or Martin novel, for instance. Things like dropping "thousand" from the phrase "...over one hundred units were sold, a reasonable start on the way to sales in excess of a quarter million" wouldn't be a big deal in most cases, and is clear from the context, but in a relatively text light book (for 500-ish pages, anyway) it seems the kind of thing that should be caught.
And then, when it is clear the editor isn't familiar with the subject matter, it's even worse. The opening commentary about Dragonlance and how vital it was to expanding the reach and market for D&D, speaks about the diversity of characters presented, leading off with "...the incorruptible elf warrior Caramon...". This isn't just a name swap issue, because the incorruptible warrior *Strum* isn't an elf. And even Sturm would be much better presented in text as a "knight" to capture the characterization. Did the author only have a passing familiarity with Dragonlance? Maybe...but then maybe they shouldn't be writing this section as a historian. The same goes for the editor...this isn't a work of fiction where the editor should be reading for text/grammar or story flow issues but should also be effectively fact-checking as well. When such an error is made it undermines the credibility of the whole work, even if just marginally, so that I can't be sure that I should trust the facts/numbers/opinions on which I don't already have first-hand knowledge. This follows after some other questionable mistakes in terminology and appellation.
Though not an editing error per se, the use of the word "fad" as applied to D&D in the early 80s also strained my trust. Hula hoops were a fad. Atari was a fad. Pound Puppies, Cabbage Patch Kids, Beanie Babies...those were fads. They sold millions of units all over the country/world in a short period of time. D&D was a game that struggled for shelf space. It was a niche inside a niche that never even came close to market saturation in any demographic. Additionally it didn't appear to be short-lived (though there were ebbs and flows), so it just doesn't seem like good word choice.
Focus on covers - While there are pieces of internal art filtered throughout the book (thus far), the focus has definitely been on cover illustrations. On the one hand, I can understand that...there's a lot of work to show, and the cover paintings are the big pieces that draw the eye...but I think the evolution of D&D art is even better typified by the quality and frequency of internal artwork. There are occasional "critter/character through the years" splashes that are presented and are really interesting. A bit more of these might have helped expand on the story of the evolution even more, particularly since I am of the opinion that the cover art quality has been pretty consistent since the area of the "orange spine" books. I freely admit YMMV.
All in all I'm impressed by the artwork throughout the book and I really like the idea of a visual history. Sadly I just think it could have been better, and what I've seen so far comes off a little shallow. Given the price point and the condition issues I've seen in the Amazon reviews I'm really glad I got my copy from a brick and mortar retailer and at a price as good as Amazon.
- M