Kevin's Watch

Romeo wrote:I saw an early draft, which was very close to the final. I pointed out all the previous descriptions of Wildwood, and suggested that the artist at least add some purple flowers or something. And heels on the Staff (which I believe is the Staff of Law - not the Forestal's staff). But that decision is with the editors - and they may have preferred to keep it more Gandalf-like. I say - anything to get people to read the book!

Isn't this proof enough?

It's proof that Romeo thought it was Wildwood, too. Which was never actually confirmed by the publisher AFAICT.

If it wasn't Wildwood, why would Romeo, one of SRDs readers, speak to the artist about past renderings of Wildwood in relation to the cover art?

Quick note: At the reading in Portland, OR for the release of FR, SRD commented on the cover art, and the fact that it was entirely inappropriate for the book.

He stated, "I know you're all wondering what Gandalf is doing on the cover of my book. But don't worry, it's not Gandalf; it's actually Saruman!"

He went on about how cover art is procured, that most of it is generic art, and how covers rarely (if ever) pertain to the books they're used on. Stuff that he's repeated a hundred times in the GI.

I always thought it looked more Sauruman-ish, but yeah, he made a similar comment at the Bellevue, WA reading. Actually, he won't say in public who it is supposed to be because he considers it a spoiler - even acknowledging that it (theoretically) represents an actual character is more than he really wants to do.

IrrationalSanity wrote:I always thought it looked more Sauruman-ish, but yeah, he made a similar comment at the Bellevue, WA reading. Actually, he won't say in public who it is supposed to be because he considers it a spoiler - even acknowledging that it (theoretically) represents an actual character is more than he really wants to do.

Which, for me, all but says that it's Wildwood. Who else in that book remotely resembles the abomination on the cover?

I don't remember if I've said this in this particular thread, and am too lazy to check, but if it's the movies, then yes, it resembles Saruman. Jackson dirtied him up quite a bit - he wore white robes that looked to be dusted with charcoal, which was undoubtedly on purpose, and probably meant to be symbolic of his downfall and servitude to Sauron.

burgs wrote:

IrrationalSanity wrote:I always thought it looked more Sauruman-ish, but yeah, he made a similar comment at the Bellevue, WA reading. Actually, he won't say in public who it is supposed to be because he considers it a spoiler - even acknowledging that it (theoretically) represents an actual character is more than he really wants to do.

Which, for me, all but says that it's Wildwood. Who else in that book remotely resembles the abomination on the cover?

It's Wildwood (well, it's Saruman...but it's supposed to be Wildwood! ) I mean, aren't the eyes a dead give-away.

I don't know about anyone else, but I did not notice anything with the eyes until someone told me it was supposed to be Wildwood *AND* I went and read a description of Wildwood just to see.

The first unusual thing I noticed was that the cape was transparent. Which said "ghost" to me.

The second unusual thing I noticed was that the legs go down far longer than they are supposed to. Which said "ghost" to me.

So I was fully and completely prepared for this to be a Revenant!

As much as the eyes are indicative, the incorrect staff and the missing crook-branch and the missing lei are counter-indicative. How could anyone guess which subtle clues are spot on and which are completely inaccurate?

The vagaries of fantasy art...

I was looking for clues in the cape myself, and didn't realize it was Wildwood until I reached that point in the book.