Last week's Girl With Sword was one of this blog's most well-read posts. No wonder. It's a great painting.
I wanted to make two more comments. Or, rather, one correction and one comment:
1. The girl is the Flame Princess. Apparently, in a post or interview somewhere or another, James Raggi confirmed this. But all you have to do is look at her hair, which is clearly Flame Princess orange-red, in contrast of course with everyone else's 'normal' hair. This obvious fact eluded me, at least initially. Three things are implied:
a) Spalding can be an idiot (well, that's not really news, but still).
b) She survived.
c) Presumably this is the beginning of the story as to how the Flame Princess became the Flame Princess.
2. Some have said that the painting puts the viewer in the position of being the attacker or attackers. I understand this point of view, and in saying what I'm about to say, I don't mean to personally criticize those who hold it. But I don't buy it. If I did buy it, I would of course hate the piece. For the record, before I originally posted, I asked a number of my friends and co-workers whether they felt the painting put them in that position. And no one said that it did. That isn't by itself completely determinative of course, but it does mean something. I believe the painting is set up as it is because the artist believed it to be about the girl, not the bandits or monster, or even about the girl plus the bandits or monster. And the only way to do that was to frame it from that particular angle. As I see it, the girl (and the woman with the baby) isn't looking at me, but someone or something slightly over my shoulder. Okay, so Raggi may revel (!) in showing a sexy Medusa doing what sexy Medusas probably do (if you really stop to think about it) or graphically portraying an adventurer being horribly slimed to death. Or whatever. But I don't think he wants us to look at things from the perspective of a child murderer.
Among the best fantasy art of contemporary 'Old School' games is that commissioned for James Raggi's Lamentations of the Flame Princess (LOTFP) products line. The above piece graces the cover of the Rules and Magic booklet for the 'Grindhouse' edition of the LOTFP roleplaying game. It is by Jason Rainville and I assume was created sometime in 2010 or 2011. More of Rainville's work can be found at deviantArt.
Raggi's game and related supplements are almost defined by the art they contain. They are generally not for children. The illustrations are often graphically violent and/or sexual, sometimes macabre and often cynical or at least, well, arch. Some would say it's nihilistic, though I don't think that gets it quite right.
I like it.
The best pieces almost always tell a story. Scratch that. The best pieces almost always tell an interesting story that makes you think. Indeed, the attraction of many of them is that it isn't completely clear what the story is. That is they are subject to multiple interpretations, and part of the fun is puzzling out which one works best.
Contrast the above scene of implicit combat with, say a typical 3e, 4e or 5e illustration. Most of those are also of combat scenes. And almost always they catch the figures in mid-jump or mid-charge or mid-something or other that is supposedly incredibly exciting. But in fact they are dramatically static, equivalent to (as has been pointed out before) an almost arbitrary screenshot from a video game.
What is going on above? The first interpretation for many is that it's a girl suddenly finding herself in the position of defending her family against some unseen attacker, perhaps someone or something supernaturally horrific. Her father is almost certainly dead-killed first (though how did the girl get between him and the attacker?). Her mother stares at the unseen (by us) attacker in fear, instinctively protecting her baby. The girl grips the adult sword steadily but awkwardly. It's obviously too heavy. How did she get it? Are the tears due to to simple terror at what now confronts her, or the realization that she herself is already 'tainted' by perhaps wounding or killing one of the attackers? Logically there is no hope. But somehow one thinks that this girl may have a chance, surprising all of us-even and especially the enemy who thought it would be easy.
An alternative view is that the bleeding man was himself one of the enemy (would her father have been sleeping in his breastplate?) that unfortunately (for him), took no account of the young girl. Who would have?
She's not a victim. She's a heroine. That's why we like this piece.
She might die. They all might die. Bad things happen-even to innocent girls. That's not cynical. Just, well, accurate. But you can go down fighting...
