Dougal Dixon vs Wayne Barlowe
Andrew C. Plotkin
the author of _After Man_, _The New Dinosaurs_, and _Man After Man_,
three very nifty books of extrapolated evolution. _MAM_ was his last
book (1990), and I was wondering if he was working on anything
newer. No replies. Oh well.
Yesterday I wandered through my local comic book store and came
across a new collection of Wayne Barlowe's art. (It was called
either _The Art of Wayne Barlowe_ or something very close to that. I
didn't buy it, so all quotes and descriptions below are from recent
memory. Sorry.) Barlowe, you will recall, is the author/artist of
_Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials_ and _Expedition_, two very
nifty SF art books. (And _Expedition_ was speculative evolution, as
well.) This new collection is all reprinted art: mostly book covers,
plus some plates from _Expedition_, and some other stuff. And the
usual paragraphs of commentary by the artist. A reasonable buy for
the Barlowe fan.
But, lo, near the end there is a single page entitled "Future Man".
The caption says (paraphrased) "These sketches are from a book I
proposed in 1984, about the future evolution of mankind.
Unfortunately, it's a book that will never be created, since the
sketches were plagiarized and used by another author."
Hm, *hm*, I think. The page shows three sketch-pages: a water-adapted
creature labelled "Homo Aquaticus", a desert-dweller labelled "Homo
Deserticus", and an unlabelled creature adapted for frozen climates.
And they did indeed look awfully damn familiar.
So today I stuffed my copy of Dixon's _Man After Man_ into my
backpack and returned to the store. (I have it here now, so what I
say below is safe from the ravages of my guttering memory. :-)
Conclusion: something stinks. The images in Dixon's book and in
Barlowe's obviously have a common origin, to my eye at least. (In
_MAM_, see p.110 for the desert form; p.59 and p.77 for the aquatic;
p.57 for the tundra-dweller.) In some places, particularly the
desert form, the resemblance is exact down to the posture of the
toes and the wrinkles on the heel. And Barlowe's name does not
appear anywhere in _MAM_.
Further details, at random:
Dixon doesn't do his own art; all the illustrations in _MAM_ are
credited to Philip Hood. (Be it important, the illustrations in
Dixon's first two books were done by many different artists,
including Philip Hood in both cases.)
Barlowe's sketches are detailed, with lots of little notes about what
anatomical features do. Many of those features do not appear in
Dixon's book, particularly the wackier features, such as a
propulsive siphon tube in the aquatic. Other details are wackier in
Barlowe's pictures and tamer in Dixon's. I mean wackier and tamer in
terms of variance from real-world biology, and human biology in
particular. For example, Barlowe's desert-leaper has large
water-bladders on the back of its neck, which I don't think any real
land animal has; Dixon's creature has fatty humps there, a la the
camel. The hands of Dixon's aquatic are pretty much human hands;
Barlowe has the last three fingers fused and extended into a
flipper, leaving two opposable digits for manipulation. (This is, I
think, consistent with both author's other works. _After Man_ is
quite conservative, taking body plans and lifestyles from real
animals. _Expedition_ has much more bizarre creatures -- no eyes,
nearly featureless "heads", and generally tripedal -- but they
weren't very biologically plausible, I decided. You just *can't*
have a big heavy slow-moving lumbering triped! Not when the limbs
are arranged at the front left corner, front right corner, and back
end of the body. It take one step, fall down go thud.) (Then again,
_MAM_ includes creatures building boats from racial memory after a
half-million years of no technology, and others with telepathy.)
I saw Barlowe's book in Barnes&Noble today, so it should be findable
just about anywhere. Dixon's stuff is out of print (I think) and I
haven't seen it for sale in a while.
Barlowe says he proposed his future-man book in 1984. (I can't make
out the date on the sketches; it could be '81 or '84, for whatever
that's worth.) The copyright page of _MAM_ says "Copyright (C) 1990 by
Dougal Dixon. Illustrations copyright (C) 1990 by Philip Hood."
So is Barlowe telling the truth here? I don't the hell know. My guess
is yes, based only on a feeling that it's easier to make less-
detailed paintings from more-detailed sketches than vice versa. And
that the plagiarist is less likely to bring plagiarism out into the
open than the plagiaree. But the matter could be more complicated
than that anyway.
I don't suppose anyone here knows? (And, uh, is not legally or
morally restrained from talking about it.)
Either way, it sucks, because I've really enjoyed both Dixon's and
Barlowe's books.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Robert J. Sawyer
you are correct that it is indeed Dixon (or Dixon's artist) that Barlowe
had the complaint against -- that much, at least, has appeared in the
trade press.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
R O B E R T J . S A W Y E R
author of THE TERMINAL EXPERIMENT (HarperPrism, May 1995;
serialized in ANALOG as HOBSON'S CHOICE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loki
but do let us know if you find out anything about it...
Loki
--
+----------------------+---------------------------------+------------------+
| gwis...@uoguelph.ca | cs1...@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca | Geoffrey Wiseman |
+---------------+------+---------------------------------+------+-----------+
| http://tdg.uoguelph.ca/~ontarion/users/geoff |
+-----------------------------------------------+
"It was the day my grandmother exploded. I sat in the
crematorium, listening to my Uncle Hamish quietly snoring in
harmony to Bach's Mass in B Minor and I reflected that it
always seemed to be death that drew me back to Gallanach."
Ethan A Merritt
Andrew C. Plotkin <erky...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
>A month ago or so, I posted asking what had become of Dougal Dixon,
>the author of _After Man_, _The New Dinosaurs_, and _Man After Man_,
>three very nifty books of extrapolated evolution. _MAM_ was his last
>book (1990), and I was wondering if he was working on anything
>newer. No replies. Oh well.
>
Dougal Dixon is quite prolific, but he is a geologist/paleontologist rather
that an SF writer or artist. Here is a list of recent Dixon titles:
1995: Dinosaurs: THe Fossil Hunters
1995: Dinosaurs: The Real Monsters
1995: Dinosaurs: Giants of the Earth
1995: Dinosaurs: All Shapes and Sizes
1993: Dougal Dixon's Dinosaurs
1996: Dinosaurs
1995: Dinosaurs: A Closer Look
1995: Questions and Answers about Dinosaurs
1992: Prehistoric Life and Evolution
1991: Jungles
1994: Dinosaurs: All Shapes and Sizes
1995: The Search for Dinosaurs
1992: The Practical Geologist
1993: Macmillan Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric
1994: Dinosaur
1993: The Changing Earth
1992: Illustrated Encyclopedia of Prehistoric Life
1992: Explore the World of Prehistoric Life
1991: Big Book of Earth
hope that helps,
Ethan A Merritt
mer...@u.washington.edu
Matt Nelsen
>animals. _Expedition_ has much more bizarre creatures -- no eyes,
>nearly featureless "heads", and generally tripedal -- but they
>weren't very biologically plausible, I decided. You just *can't*
>have a big heavy slow-moving lumbering triped! Not when the limbs
>are arranged at the front left corner, front right corner, and back
>end of the body. It take one step, fall down go thud.)
Actually I thought that they were somewhat plausible (although they
were at the very far end of plausibility, but that makes them look
cool, good for an art book). It's important to remember that the planet
that they are on has a low gravity, which might suport larger creatures
(though, it might not, not too much empiracle evidence out there).
The only triped I can remember offhand is the thornback, about the size
of a small horse (?) and I whould think that it might have a gait
that tipedialism might support. Actually the most implausible creature
in my opinion are those giant jumping pogostick things.
Sorry I can't comment on the main topic of this message, but I am
not familiar with Dixon's work (but I'll go check it out now).
--
Matt Nelsen | "The way to a man's heart is through his chest"
min...@tam2000.tamu.edu | Iain M. Banks, _Use of Weapons_
Ethan A Merritt
>the author of _After Man_, _The New Dinosaurs_, and _Man After Man_,
>three very nifty books of extrapolated evolution. _MAM_ was his last
>book (1990), and I was wondering if he was working on anything
>newer. No replies. Oh well.
>
>Dixon doesn't do his own art; all the illustrations in _MAM_ are
>credited to Philip Hood. (Be it important, the illustrations in
>Dixon's first two books were done by many different artists,
>including Philip Hood in both cases.)
I don't know anything special about this; it's the first I've heard
of a question of plagierism in connection with Dougal Dixon.
I will note, however, that Dixon _does_ do his own art, in the form
of both pencil sketches and very intricately constructed models
which are a marvel to behold. The illustrations in "After Man"
were done in color from pencil sketches provided by Dixon (or so
it says in the introduction anyway). For photos of Dixon's model
creatures I can only refer you to an article in "Natural History"
magazine which appeared some years ago, and for which I can't find
a proper reference at the moment. It appeared at roughly the time
_After Man_ was published in 1981.
>I don't suppose anyone here knows? (And, uh, is not legally or
>morally restrained from talking about it.)
>
>Either way, it sucks, because I've really enjoyed both Dixon's and
>Barlowe's books.
I agree there.
Ethan A Merritt
mer...@u.washington.edu
Andrew C. Plotkin
[ long list of useful data on Dixon snipped -- see his posts)
Thanks.
mer...@u.washington.edu (Ethan A Merritt) writes:
> I don't know anything special about this; it's the first I've heard
> of a question of plagierism in connection with Dougal Dixon.
> I will note, however, that Dixon _does_ do his own art, in the form
> of both pencil sketches and very intricately constructed models
> which are a marvel to behold. The illustrations in "After Man"
> were done in color from pencil sketches provided by Dixon (or so
> it says in the introduction anyway). For photos of Dixon's model
> creatures I can only refer you to an article in "Natural History"
> magazine which appeared some years ago, and for which I can't find
> a proper reference at the moment. It appeared at roughly the time
> _After Man_ was published in 1981.
Thanks for this correction as well. In fact, I should have known
better, since the author-photos in all three Dixon books that I own
show him posing with his models.
Totally getting away from the plagiarism question, I once actually saw
an exhibit in a science museum, which was a totally deadpan
presentation of the world of _After Man_. Big wall signs of the charts
in the front of the book; dioramas of the critters; plaster casts of
footprints; a few full-scale animatronic models... I got a terrific
charge out of it. Nothing like having a nightstalker -- the flightless
hunting bat -- wave its leg/arms and roar at you. Heh.
This was at the Baltimore Science Center in Maryland, but it was a
travelling exhibit, and long since gone. Anyone know where it is now?
If anywhere?
Benedict Walmisley
>A month ago or so, I posted asking what had become of Dougal Dixon,
>the author of _After Man_, _The New Dinosaurs_, and _Man After Man_,
>three very nifty books of extrapolated evolution. _MAM_ was his last
>book (1990), and I was wondering if he was working on anything
>newer. No replies. Oh well.
Oops I must have missed it!. At the 1992 Eastercon Dougal Dixon did a
talk on stuff that he had drawn. It appeared he was working on a book
about alien life. Jack Cohen was, of course, pleased...
Benedict Walmisley - Reality is Insanity