Among the many monsters whose origins can definitively be linked to Dungeons & Dragons is the shapeshifting mimic, which first appeared in the AD&D Monster Manual (1977). Here's Dave Sutherland's illustration of the creature:
I'm both a fan of mimics in general and of this illustration in particular, because it accurately depicts the mimic punching the nearby adventure. The text of the Monster Manual states plainly that the mimic "lashes out with a pseudopod, delivering 3–12 points of damage per hit." There's no mention, let alone implication, that the mimic can bite its prey.
The illustration accompanying Ed Greenwood's "The Ecology of the Mimic" in issue #75 of Dragon (July 1983) is similarly accurate to the MM description. Indeed, it also includes another detail from the Monster Manual description that is often forgotten: the glue a mimic's skin secretes and that holds its victim fast, thereby making them an easier target to pummel with its pseudopod.
Unless I have missed another example – and please tell me in the comments if I have – the above illustration (by Roger Raupp) is only the second time this iconic D&D monster had been portrayed in artwork. What strikes me about Raupp's illustration (no pun intended) is that it's completely in keeping with the text of the Monster Manual. If anything, it's even truer to the text than Sutherland's original, since it also highlights the creature's sticky qualities.
The next time we get a mimic illustration – again, unless I am mistaken – is volume 2 of the AD&D Second Edition Monstrous Compendium (1989).
This illustration, by Daniel Horne, interests me for a couple of reasons. Most obviously, this is the first time – if I'm mistaken, you know the drill – a mimic is depicted as having a tooth-filled mouth, though it's notable that the mouth here is not associated with the hinged top of the chest it's mimicking, as is commonplace nowadays. Equally notable are the secondary mouth and clawed finger and foot that also extrude from the monster's body, though I'm not certain what purpose they serve. The 2e written description of the mimic makes no mention of its ability to bite an opponent. Instead, there's still a reference to "lash[ing] out with a pseudopod."
For the sake of completeness, here's the illustration of the mimic found in 1993's Monstrous Manual (by an unknown artist, or at least one I cannot identify easily):
This one looks very similar to and possibly inspired by the one in the 1989 Monstrous Compendium, although it possesses only a single extrusion beyond the tooth-filled mouth. The accompanying text is, so far as I can tell, identical to that of the Monstrous Compendium of a few years previous, right down to its attacking with a pseudopod.
What fascinates me is how limited our collective imagination of mimics has become over the years. Gary Gygax's original description of them in 1977 notes that "they are able to perfectly mimic stone or wood" and "pose as stonework, door, chests, or any other substance or item they can imitate." Greenwood's ecology article picks up on this, offering an example of a mimic that had assumed the form of a statue in a market square and then preyed on unsuspecting derelicts on dark nights. By contrast, the Monstrous Compendium description, while retaining the original's ability to mimic stone or wood, states only that "they usually appear in the form of treasure chests."
I won't go so far as to lay the blame for the popular conception of mimics as monstrous chests with big teeth solely on the Monstrous Compendium, though I'm sure it played a role. Rather, I think the fault lies with the simple fact every illustration of the monster from the TSR era of Dungeons & Dragons depicts it as a chest and that's proved a difficult image to shake – so difficult that that's what mimics are for most players of the game. They simply cannot imagine them any other way. Needless to say, I think that's a shame, but what can you do?
ReplyDeleteFor the record this is the origin of the mimic https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nMktqiBO-7c&pp=ygUVc2V0aCBza29ya293c2t5IG1pbWlj
Your not-a-minis-gamer background is tripping you up a bit here. Unless I've got my dates scrambled, the toothy chest look in 1989 either coincides with or slightly post-dates the Ral Partha AD&D mimics pack - but that very famous (to minis historians, anyway) set also included a similarly toothy bed and a mimic imitating one of those barrel chairs you see in some old-timey taverns. Ral Partha also made "straight" versions of all three figs which were sold in various furniture/accessory sets, really hammering home the fact that they could look like almost anything. Can't guarantee the minis inspired the mouths in the drawings, but it's a possibility the artists were taking inspiration from the sculptors. You can see the pack over here:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.miniatures-workshop.com/lostminiswiki/index.php?title=AD%26D_Monsters#11-456
The "chest" mimic sculpt has been copied with minor variations many times by other companies, but other varieties are rare. That, I think, can definitely be blamed on TSR using a chest in the artwork so often, rather than sculptors disliking beds or chairs. Still, I've seen some nice bookcase and cabinet mimic sculpts over the years, and they're very popular subjects for conversions using "straight" scenery pieces with added pseudopods, eyes, mouths, etc. Anyone can do it pretty easily, and I converted a nice bedroom set for one of my old employers that sadly never went into production.
There's also quite a few individual "magic book" minis out there that have teeth, eyes and/or tentacles, which are pretty great for smaller, younger mimics.
FWIW I hypothetically prefer the more amorphous original mimic, where the thing is more of a giant protozoan kind of things that probably engulfs prey to feed on it after bludgeoning it to death rather than having an identifiable mouth or other organs. OTOH, that would also be a lot less interesting interesting to paint as a mini, which is a good enough excuse for the updated look to me. :)
Thanks for pointing out those Ral Partha minis. They're wonderful!
DeleteThat's why they're famous in minis circles - some of the most iconic figs in the whole Ral Partha AD&D range. Sadly, that also makes them dauntingly expensive to acquire these days, as that license has been gone for a very long time now.
DeleteThe "chest with toothy lid" look for the mimic also appeared in Dragon Quest III, released in Japan in 1988. Toriyama's designs for that series have definite D&D influences--it's one of the last places you'll find pig-faced orcs today, for example.
ReplyDeletePorcs are pretty common in the minis community to this day, with at least half a dozen companies making variations of them - some loosely based on MM depictions, some not so much. You can even get them (in 15mm scale) in Nazi uniforms carrying WW2 era firearms.
DeleteDiscworld's "Luggage" appeared in 1983 and has been generally depicted as a chest with the lid as a toothy maw with a tongue. The feet are supposed to be multiple pseudopods, however, review of the earliest art by Josh Kirby always depicts it with a bunch of human feet and more importantly- closed. Five Discworld books were released in the 3 years leading up to the release year of the Monstrous Compendium, so given the popularity of the novels I think this may have been an influence. What is interesting is this cover to the Japanese translation (can't get a date but it looks mid-80's to me): https://terrypratchettandme.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/the-colour-of-magic-various-artwork/the-colour-of-magic-japanese-cover/ depicts The Luggage with a toothy maw (albeit closed). DQ3 being released in 1988 is probably also influenced by this. But it wasn't released in North America until 91. So, I think the mimic with toothy maw might just be a direct nod to Discworld.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be surprised if the toothy mimic was influenced by John Carpenter's The Thing. Particularly the defibrillator scene.
ReplyDeleteTerry Pratchett's The Colour of Magic was released in 1983, 6 years before Daniel Horne's image. Now the Luggage wasn't a mimic, but such a very popular chest with a tongue and teeth certainly sounds like it might have been inevitable to conflate with the in-game creature.
ReplyDelete