In message dated Jan. 27, from Chas Warren:
< In my case, yes. I was reading for years before I could afford
< paperbacks, books fromn the library with boring dust-jackets, and I
< enjoyed them thoroughly. Truthfully, I am annoyed by illustrations
< more often than not. I often consider that they waste valuable
< space, and, frequently, the artwork is so amateurish that it repels
< rather than compels. Does anyone remember the hideous artwork in the
< old Fantastic or Amazing? If I had not already been a devoted SF fan
< before first perusing these magazines, the gaudy covers and
< illustrations would have put me off forever.
For my sake Chas, all I can say is thank God you're in the minority. One of
the magazine's I illustrate for (Keen Science Fiction!) always has at least
one letter praising the illustrations (no, and not mine--I just began
contributing!). As for myself, I never send anything out that does not meet
my standards, so I definitely don't think my illustrations "waste valuable
space". Having said that, within some of the semi-pro and small press
magazines I have seen illustrations that did waste space--illustrations that
actually (to my eyes) did more harm than good. The thing is, you just have to
keep your eyes open for the good stuff, and believe me, it's out there.
Within the semi-pro/small press zines, Dawn Kimberling and Kevin Duncan do
superb work. As for book covers, Don Dixon, Whelan, Eggleton, Kukalis, and
Pamela Lee and Pat Rawlings have all done wonderful covers. Also, I would
recommend picking up David Hardy's Visions of Space book--it's filled with
superb astronomical art from the best doing it. If you look at all these
images and think, "wow, what a waste of space", I'm going to be seriously
wondering about you.
Jeff Ward
|