Once again, my readers have demonstrated that they have better memories than I. There is indeed an illustration of a gnoll in The Secret of Bone Hill. The illustration in question is by Harry Quinn, an underappreciated TSR artist whose name is rarely brought up in discussions like these.
A couple of things immediately strike me about this piece. Most obviously, the gnoll definitely looks more wolfish than hyena-like, an impression that's probably heightened by the fact that there are also two actual wolves depicted here. In addition, this gnoll seems to be wearing the same kind of attire (padded or scaled shirt with a leather skirt and huge girdle) originally seen in Sutherland's Monster Manual illustration. Likewise, he wields a spear, which, based on previous illustrations seems to be the signature weapon of gnolls (assuming we count polearms as a flavor of spear).
I find it fascinating how often a single artist set the terms for all those who followed him. As I look more closely at the depictions of various humanoid monsters in D&D, it becomes ever clearer how common this is throughout the game's early history. This is especially true, I think, for monsters, humanoid or otherwise, that are unique to Dungeons & Dragons. Since there was no prior tradition of them on which to draw, there was a good chance that the work of the first artist to draw a given monster would become definitive – the one later artists would look to for inspiration in their own work. That's clearly what has happened in the case of gnolls, even if, as in Harry Quinn's case, he introduced some variations of his own.
I think it speaks to the hobbyist roots of D&D that there doesn't seem to have been any sort of style guide to how individual monsters were depicted.
ReplyDeleteOne is reminded of how Gollum was depicted in various foreign editions of the Hobbit, which became a real problem for Tolkien when he went to write LOTR. (my favorite is Tove Jansson's Gollum, btw. I think it's both charming and alien, and in perfect keeping with the spirit of The Hobbit.)
I'm looking forward to the inevitable look at orc art pieces through the years, particularly in regard to the recent WotC 5.5e art for them that's gotten so many people's knickers in a twist.
ReplyDeleteI actually did one on orcs a long time ago. Use the search box to find "A (Very) Partial Pictorial History of Orcs."
DeleteNot as long ago as I thought (2021): https://grognardia.blogspot.com/2021/07/a-very-partial-pictorial-history-of-orcs.html
DeleteIn case you have not tired of the game (fun for me) of excavating gnoll art, there is a depiction of two gnolls in Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh…not a very close-up image, but it is an entire splash page of art on page 14, drawn i believe by Stephen D. Sullivan.
ReplyDeleteAnthony (toronto)
That's a good catch!
DeleteOn the subject of the original art for a humanoid setting the image for subsequent art: this helps people identify what's being pictured. If we see not only the hyenoid/canine head, but also the characteristic armor, belt, etc., we quickly realize we're looking at a gnoll. This is also why so many drawings of wights have the peculiar flaring hair we see in Tramp's MM picture of the wight: again, a distinctive unique feature. When artists don't do this, it can cause problems like you had with the picture from Horror on the Hill. Are those goblins? Hobgoblins? Without iconic details, it can be tough to tell.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that almost none of the gnolls in the illustrations are carrying swords, considering that the 1e MM expressly says "all carry swords".
ReplyDeleteIf you hadn't told us that it's a picture of a gnoll, I would have assumed it was a picture of a (human) dude wearing a wolf's skin as headgear.
ReplyDelete(FWIW, I really enjoy these single-topic art history reviews!)
L1 may be the finest wine. It simply gets better and better over time.
ReplyDelete