It was announced a couple of days ago that both Dungeon and Dragon magazines were coming to an end. If you don't play role-playing games, that really doesn't seem like a big deal, but to those of us that are big-time gamers, it's a sad passing.
I haven't played Dungeons and Dragons for years. I've flirted with coming back with the release of 3.0 and 3.5, but to date I haven't made it back for anything but an occassional game or two. There are other games that have held my attention more.
But those magazines have still caught my eye every month. I don't always read them, but I always look through them. It takes me back to when I was in high school and first was introduced to role-playing. When every issue was something exciting and new, and inevitably everyone would try to incorporate what was in the issue almost immediately in the game. But there wasn't as much material available then, so each and every thing they added was precious.
Things today are not the same. The material from Wizards of the Coast is ten-fold everything that was available 25 years ago when I first started playing D&D, and there is plenty of additional material coming out from third-party companies every month. Both Dungeon and Dragon became specialty magazines, with each issue focusing on a niche aspect of the game, trying to flesh it out completely. But I don't know if that's what has brought about their demise.
Dungeons and Dragons still sells very well. And both Dungeon and Dragon magazine have strong sales from what I can determine talking to distributors. So I can't say what caused them to lose their place on the shelves. Paizo Publishing is planning to release a new magazine called Pathfinder that will be, well, expensive. And it's said that Dragon Magazine will continue using an online model...but it won't be the same.
No longer will there be that made rush through a stack of magazines to find the write-up on the Anti-Paladin. You won't be scanning over every page looking for the last hidden "Growf" that Phil Foglio drew.
And what's more, it seems to be an indication to me that the RPG industry really is heading down an online road, aimed at a smaller and smaller audience of people who appreciate the social and creative aspects of the game.
So, to Dungeon magazine: farewell, and good luck. To Dragon Magazine: good-bye old friend, I wish that we could have had more time together, even though we've grown apart some in the past couple of decades...or so.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
A Brush With Greatness
Due to actions beyond my control, I have been dealing with a lot of Conan lately. Savage Sword of Conan, actually. If you want to know why, check out Cliff and Charles' blogs.
But in any case, while dealing with these magazines, I had a moment of reflection. About comic art, so don't think I was getting deep or anything.
Specifically, I thought about Alex Ross. Not because of all the work he did for Savage Sword, because to the best of my knowledge, he didn't do any, but rather about how he is currently the end-all of comic painters. He wasn't the first, and he won't be the last.
In fact, I saw the work of three of his more noted predecesors on the pages of those magazines. And it pretty much reflected three decades worth of comic painters in one series.
For the 1990's we had the work of Joe Jusko. Joe did some fine work, filled with bright colors and neo-classical design. But, I am sad to say, there was nothing about Joe's work that spoke to me. I found him technically good, but uninspired. But I was obviously in the minority, as he garnered a world of fans that had him up on the highest pedestal.
For the 1980's there was Bill Sienkiewicz. That's pronounced "Bill" for those wondering (as he once told me himself). Now I was, and remain, a huge fan of this man's work. It shows passion and design, along with an understanding of storytelling in his panel-to-panel work and dynamicism in his stand-alone paintings. I have always wanted to own one of his painted originals, and perhaps one day will. I already have some of his black and white linework, so that's a start. But I digress...Bill was very popular, but had much more of a schism to his following, as it seemed just as many people hated his stuff as loved it. To me though, it's brilliant.
And for the 1970's we have Richard Corben. Corben's airbrush style landed him at the top of the comic game for a while, and also brought him to the attention of the marketing industry as his work appeared on any number of books, albums, and whatnot. His style was always hit-or-miss for me, with some pieces looking brilliant and others horribly deformed, but in his day he was king of comic painters.
Now, this is far from a complete list. There have been a wealth of painters who have made significant contributions to the comic field. Some guy named Frazetta leaps to mind. But this is me talking about the three folks whose work struck out at me from the cover of Conan, and what they are in my mind.
And all three of these people are still active in the comic community. They still produce work for companies, and there are still folks who are thrilled to see their work. But they aren't the top dog anymore. That's where Alex Ross sits. Ross' near photo-realistic styling has people ooh-ing and ahh-ing left and right--for now. But there will come a time when he will fade. Someone else will come along and he will thrown out like yesterday's guache.
But in any case, while dealing with these magazines, I had a moment of reflection. About comic art, so don't think I was getting deep or anything.
Specifically, I thought about Alex Ross. Not because of all the work he did for Savage Sword, because to the best of my knowledge, he didn't do any, but rather about how he is currently the end-all of comic painters. He wasn't the first, and he won't be the last.
In fact, I saw the work of three of his more noted predecesors on the pages of those magazines. And it pretty much reflected three decades worth of comic painters in one series.
For the 1990's we had the work of Joe Jusko. Joe did some fine work, filled with bright colors and neo-classical design. But, I am sad to say, there was nothing about Joe's work that spoke to me. I found him technically good, but uninspired. But I was obviously in the minority, as he garnered a world of fans that had him up on the highest pedestal.
For the 1980's there was Bill Sienkiewicz. That's pronounced "Bill" for those wondering (as he once told me himself). Now I was, and remain, a huge fan of this man's work. It shows passion and design, along with an understanding of storytelling in his panel-to-panel work and dynamicism in his stand-alone paintings. I have always wanted to own one of his painted originals, and perhaps one day will. I already have some of his black and white linework, so that's a start. But I digress...Bill was very popular, but had much more of a schism to his following, as it seemed just as many people hated his stuff as loved it. To me though, it's brilliant.
And for the 1970's we have Richard Corben. Corben's airbrush style landed him at the top of the comic game for a while, and also brought him to the attention of the marketing industry as his work appeared on any number of books, albums, and whatnot. His style was always hit-or-miss for me, with some pieces looking brilliant and others horribly deformed, but in his day he was king of comic painters.
Now, this is far from a complete list. There have been a wealth of painters who have made significant contributions to the comic field. Some guy named Frazetta leaps to mind. But this is me talking about the three folks whose work struck out at me from the cover of Conan, and what they are in my mind.
And all three of these people are still active in the comic community. They still produce work for companies, and there are still folks who are thrilled to see their work. But they aren't the top dog anymore. That's where Alex Ross sits. Ross' near photo-realistic styling has people ooh-ing and ahh-ing left and right--for now. But there will come a time when he will fade. Someone else will come along and he will thrown out like yesterday's guache.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Zombie?...or Vampire?
If there is anything that I've learned from my many days of horror, sci-fi and gaming, it's that when something dies and comes back from the dead, it isn't natural. In fact, it's never a good thing.
When something comes back from the dead, it is either a zombie or a vampire.
Which of course raises the question: is Jesus a zombie or a vampire?
Every year around this time, my mind is flooded with this dilemma, but as a result I've had plenty of time to think about it. Zombies are brain-eating shamblers with social skill issues and horrible wardrobes. Vampires on the other hand are exactly the opposite, at least in the social skill and wardrobe department. Granted, vampires don't eat brains, but they do feed off of the blood of the living, so I do consider that one a wash.
Now, granted that the majority of the Christian faith does seem to fall into the zombie catagory, but we're looking at the head man of the operation and not the little guys.
It has been documented that Jesus had a little party once upon a time where he was insistant that his closest followers eat of his flesh and drink of his blood--paraphrasing of course. To me, this smacks completely of the actions of a vampire. I mean, drink of my blood? Vampires are known to procreate and amass an army of followers through the exact same system.
The one problem with this is that the whole last supper story is said to happen BEFORE his death and not after. That flies directly against the vampire arguement. But the zombie angle doesn't hold up either, mostly due to the complex actions Jesus was involved with after his death. The speeches and the total lack of brain eating are a dead giveaway--pun intended.
So, that brings me back to vampire. But there is a story of Jesus meeting some women on the road to Bethany and appearing in a shower of sunlight. That goes very much against the whole vampire thing again, so we're back to zombie. But Jesus is appearing and disappearing and moving giant stones and such, which is far beyond the capabilities of any zombie.
Where does that leave us then?
I have a theory. I think that Jesus is a Super-Zombie-Vampire! He is the only one of his kind, showing the strength and abilities of a vampire, with the resilience of a zombie. And he was able to create his own personal fashion sense as well.
We may never really know the answer to this dilemma, but that doesn't mean that we can't think about it whenever the amazing story of a man dying for saying "be nice" too often and then coming back for his vengeance comes up.
Happy Easter.
When something comes back from the dead, it is either a zombie or a vampire.
Which of course raises the question: is Jesus a zombie or a vampire?
Every year around this time, my mind is flooded with this dilemma, but as a result I've had plenty of time to think about it. Zombies are brain-eating shamblers with social skill issues and horrible wardrobes. Vampires on the other hand are exactly the opposite, at least in the social skill and wardrobe department. Granted, vampires don't eat brains, but they do feed off of the blood of the living, so I do consider that one a wash.
Now, granted that the majority of the Christian faith does seem to fall into the zombie catagory, but we're looking at the head man of the operation and not the little guys.
It has been documented that Jesus had a little party once upon a time where he was insistant that his closest followers eat of his flesh and drink of his blood--paraphrasing of course. To me, this smacks completely of the actions of a vampire. I mean, drink of my blood? Vampires are known to procreate and amass an army of followers through the exact same system.
The one problem with this is that the whole last supper story is said to happen BEFORE his death and not after. That flies directly against the vampire arguement. But the zombie angle doesn't hold up either, mostly due to the complex actions Jesus was involved with after his death. The speeches and the total lack of brain eating are a dead giveaway--pun intended.
So, that brings me back to vampire. But there is a story of Jesus meeting some women on the road to Bethany and appearing in a shower of sunlight. That goes very much against the whole vampire thing again, so we're back to zombie. But Jesus is appearing and disappearing and moving giant stones and such, which is far beyond the capabilities of any zombie.
Where does that leave us then?
I have a theory. I think that Jesus is a Super-Zombie-Vampire! He is the only one of his kind, showing the strength and abilities of a vampire, with the resilience of a zombie. And he was able to create his own personal fashion sense as well.
We may never really know the answer to this dilemma, but that doesn't mean that we can't think about it whenever the amazing story of a man dying for saying "be nice" too often and then coming back for his vengeance comes up.
Happy Easter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
