|
Post by insidethecylinder on Aug 6, 2005 11:09:31 GMT
Well, just as the subject line states. What does everyone think of Goble's illustrations? I've never seen any straight comments on them here on the board, so my question to you is just that.
What do you think of them? I'll post my thoughts a little later, but for now, commance o' festivale'.
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Aug 6, 2005 12:14:04 GMT
I tend to agree with Wells that they're a bit stiff, but on the other hand they they do have a victorian quality to them that many other illustrations lack, despite the stiffness of the poses, with regard to the legs though,t hey do have a certian kinitic quality to them that I like, the machines are almost never shown standing stifflegged and upright, but careening along, tentacles sweeping out....
On the otherhand, some of them are aslo fustratingly vague, particularly the veiws of the handling machine, and the cylinder, where the illustration seems more like a -suggestion- of the machine, than an illustration of one...
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Aug 6, 2005 12:29:10 GMT
I'd agree there, there's a definite dynamic quality to the way they're posed. Some illustrations have a great viewpoint (there's one that seems to be from the same height as the machines as a group stride across the countryside). And some of the details, like the 'davit' that holds the Heat Ray, are bizarrely intriguing. I can't say I'm bothered by the sketchiness of some - the Handling Machine illustration, with a Martian sitting atop with what appears to be a hacksaw hanging over the front edge, is a great image, full of smoke or steam and movement.
|
|
|
Post by BrutalDeluxe on Aug 8, 2005 3:52:11 GMT
LMAO! It does look like the Martian has a hacksaw. The way the tripods are pitching forward and back in the illustrations does give the rough impression I think of a milking stool bowled violently along the floor.
|
|
|
Post by Carioca on Aug 8, 2005 21:05:45 GMT
According to the lore, Wells wasn't terribly keen on Goble's work, which is why he chose Alvim Corrêa to illustrate the 1906 deluxe edition. The rest, as they say, is history...
Carioca
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Aug 8, 2005 21:40:48 GMT
That's as may be, but it still doesn't stop Goble's illustrations being interesting in their own right. And he was the first to illustrate WotW after all...
|
|
|
Post by Carioca on Aug 8, 2005 22:59:52 GMT
That is true and I don't want to take anything away from his contribution to the genre.
Carioca
|
|
|
Post by insidethecylinder on Aug 9, 2005 14:31:08 GMT
Exactly, and let's not forget that while you and me, and most everyone here on the boards, enjoy Correa, there are quite a few who don't. I'm not one of 'em, but to each him own.
|
|
|
Post by Carioca on Aug 9, 2005 17:35:58 GMT
There are people who don't enjoy Corrêa?! ;-)
Well, at least we know Wells did, so there you go. :-)
Carioca
|
|
|
Post by insidethecylinder on Aug 10, 2005 20:28:20 GMT
Carioca, do you enjoy Edward Gorey?
|
|
|
Post by Carioca on Aug 10, 2005 21:13:34 GMT
I've only seen the illustrations from the 1960 edition on Dr. Zeus' site, so my knowledge of Gorey's work is somewhat limited.
What fascinates me about Corrêa is that, between 1903 - 1906, he really didn't have anything but his own imagination from which to base his work. By 1960, Gorey had decades of science fiction art to inspire his vision of the story.
Carioca
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on Aug 14, 2005 11:28:26 GMT
I like them but I know H.G.Wells added another piece to his book to show he didn't like Gobles Illustrations.
Tripod
|
|
|
Post by Thunder Child on Aug 14, 2005 21:01:11 GMT
That's right, that's the little piece of text about the pamphlets that were distibuted after the war:
I recall particularly the illustration of one of the first pamphlets to give a consecutive account of the war. The artist had evidently made a hasty study of one of the fighting-machines, and there his knowledge ended. He presented them as tilted, stiff tripods, without either flexibility or subtlety, and with an altogether misleading monotony of effect. The pamphlet containing these renderings had a considerable vogue, and I mention them here simply to warn the reader against the impression they may have created. They were no more like the Martians I saw in action than a Dutch doll is like a human being. To my mind, the pamphlet would have been much better without them.
This is clearly about the Goble images...
Johan
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on Aug 15, 2005 17:21:54 GMT
That's right, that's the little piece of text about the pamphlets that were distibuted after the war: I recall particularly the illustration of one of the first pamphlets to give a consecutive account of the war. The artist had evidently made a hasty study of one of the fighting-machines, and there his knowledge ended. He presented them as tilted, stiff tripods, without either flexibility or subtlety, and with an altogether misleading monotony of effect. The pamphlet containing these renderings had a considerable vogue, and I mention them here simply to warn the reader against the impression they may have created. They were no more like the Martians I saw in action than a Dutch doll is like a human being. To my mind, the pamphlet would have been much better without them. This is clearly about the Goble images... Johan Thanks for searching up the text Thunders. Tripod
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Aug 20, 2005 8:24:23 GMT
I find them crude, and-- as mentioned above-- there's evidence that Wells himself didn't care for them. 'Nuff said!
|
|
|
Post by insidethecylinder on Aug 20, 2005 15:19:08 GMT
I don't think you really believe that...
Just because Wells didn't like them doesn't mean we can't. It's not about the writer's opinion in some cases, but of the reader's. Fer' example. Bob Kane actually enjoyed that travesty known as "Batman and Robin." Did the fans? No! See? That's my point.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Aug 20, 2005 19:37:27 GMT
I don't think you really believe that... To quote Bugs Bunny: "Hmmmm... He don't know me too well, do he?"
|
|
|
Post by Carioca on Aug 22, 2005 19:52:46 GMT
It goes without saying that I agree with Lensman's analysis of Goble's illustrations.
Carioca
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Nov 23, 2005 16:26:36 GMT
Well, I found somthing out last night, that explains a -lot- about what bothered me about the Gobble Handling machines...
In the -novel- the handling machines are described as agile 5 legged spiders, and what had bothered me about the Gobble illustrations was that they were round bottomed cones -without any legs- leading to my comment that they were "vague"
Then I found out something, or something I should have figured out, I knew that Gobble had done the illustrations for the magizine and that Wells had gone back an chewed him out, I didn' realize how much additionally Wells had re-written the chapter "What we saw from the Ruined House"...
In it, while much of Wells expounding on the nature of the martians is the same, and takes up the bulk of the chapter, the descriptions of their -activities- is very much diffrent, with the description of the handling machines coming much later -and much diffrently- in the magazine, the Handling Machines are describe as "A two score rayed star, with the martian in the middle, actvating the tentacles by way of a type of ket (leading to the somewhat piano type upper half of the machine)
In short the Gobble illustrations of the Handling machines, don't have legs, because Wells didn't describe them that way initally, the machines , moving about on their tentacles instead...
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Nov 26, 2005 20:52:45 GMT
I've never been particularly fond of Goble's work. I think he captures the mood of the scenes very well, but the machines themselves look like mid-industrial water towers. Blech.
|
|