The anatomy of Glaurung

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

He didn't support himself writing books either.

Touché. But hey, I'm not trying to disrespect his artwork, which is not without a certain charm. Besides, many wonderful artists can't support themselves on their art but remain wonderful. Yet I suppose you did get my point, though it was poorly expressed. I meant to say that Tolkien was a better writer than he was a painter or illustrator and that naturalistic representations of Middle Earth and its inhabitants were hard for him to pull off successfully.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I meant to say that Tolkien was a better writer than he was a painter or illustrator and that naturalistic representations of Middle Earth and its inhabitants were hard for him to pull off successfully.

My points have also been unclear, so let me explain a bit.

Is there any evidence that Tolkien ever wanted to be what you are calling a naturalistic illustrator? Did he ever try? I don't think so. I don't think he drew the way he did because he couldn't draw like Lee or Howe or Nasmith (for example). His style is not a default. I think he drew the way he did because that's how his artistic imagination worked.

And his illustrations were acceptable enough to his publishers for them to be used in the first edition of The Hobbit.

So it goes back to my opening comment here: "I suppose things hinge on what one wants in an illustrator."

You want "naturalistic" illustrations. Which is your taste and okay. Nothing wrong with that. But I don't think it's necessarily the case that such illustrations are the one criterion by which to evaluate the many different styles of illustrations.

Now the question of how to imagine the creatures that Tolkien's text gives us--which is how this thread started--now that's something different and an interesting question I think. There are those who say that any and all illustrations defeat the written word because they inhibit or limit the reader's imagination. Dragons especially are creatures of imagination, so maybe there's no one way to draw them to suit every reader. What is most fearful might be different for each reader. So maybe that is why the description is so tantalising but inconclusive. It's beyond naturalising.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Beth

Is there any evidence that Tolkien ever wanted to be what you are calling a naturalistic illustrator? Did he ever try? I don't think so. I don't think he drew the way he did because he couldn't draw like Lee or Howe or Nasmith (for example). His style is not a default. I think he drew the way he did because that's how his artistic imagination worked.

I don't know what kind of illustrator Tolkien wanted to be and I have hardly read anything about the subject, although I faintly recall Tolkien saying something about how he couldn't or wouldn't draw detailed close-ups of characters. Not sure if that was because he lacked the ability or if he wanted to leave that up to the imagination of the readers or a combination thereof. Probably the last one. Having seen many (but far from all) of his ME inspired paintings and illustrations, it is my opinion that he was a decent hobby-illustrator (or Hobbit-), and not without talent, but he was also rather limited. Some of his pictures are lovely in their own way, but I think he lacked the skills and artistic vision to be considered really good. Not because he wasn't into naturalistic paintings. And hey, some of his pictures do appear to be attempts to depict motives more "realistically". That Smaug and Bilbo illustration is an example. Smaug and his hall do nor appear very stylized to me. I also recall a painting of the Shire. It is my impression is that he couldn't paint in perspective even if he tried, but I could be wrong. But appreciation of art is obviously subjective, and even though he couldn't draw or paint people and get the perspectives right, one can still enjoy his work.

Originally Posted by Beth

You want "naturalistic" illustrations. Which is your taste and okay. Nothing wrong with that. But I don't think it's necessarily the case that such illustrations are the one criterion by which to evaluate the many different styles of illustrations.

To be fair I have never said I only appreciate naturalistic illustrations or paintings, and that is not the case either. Maybe you got that impression because of the context of this thread, where a good, realistic depiction of the dragon as the text describes him would've been godsent. But I certainly wouldn't say that Tolkien's picture of Glaurung that Galin provided was poor because it wasn't a naturalistic depiction. Actually appears too small for me to judge at all, anyway.

Now the question of how to imagine the creatures that Tolkien's text gives us--which is how this thread started--now that's something different and an interesting question I think. There are those who say that any and all illustrations defeat the written word because they inhibit or limit the reader's imagination. Dragons especially are creatures of imagination, so maybe there's no one way to draw them to suit every reader. What is most fearful might be different for each reader. So maybe that is why the description is so tantalising but inconclusive. It's beyond naturalising.

I don't think all illustrations inhibit or limit the imagination. A good one may stimulate it as well. What peeves me I suppose are pictures that obviously go against what is written in the text, such as the one I provided above. Those I cannot accept. It is clear from his texts that Tolkien did not imagine his Glaurung like that. Where are his hypnotic eyes fex? Of course, like you say, the description of the dragon is inconclusive. Some characteristics can be guessed indirectly. Others are left for the imagination, which indeed is tantalizing. I like it that way too.