In the latter half of the 20th century and first few decades of the 21st, for whatever ill-advised reason, there was a trend in a lot of paleoart to reconstruct dinosaurs and pterosaurs with weirdly scant amounts of soft tissue, leading to under-muscled bodies and even being able to see the fenestrae in skulls and other skeletal details that probably were not visible on a healthy living animal.

It's really important to remember that dinosaurs and pterosaurs had muscles and connective tissue and fat and organs just like every other animal. Just because a certain generation grew up seeing dinosaurs a certain way, doesn't mean it's not terribly, terribly wrong. So I drew this very unfortunate Lambeosaurus to remind us all to give our dinosaurs plenty of soft tissue.

I've been reading retro dinosaur books for fun, but I usually just find myself commenting on the artwork out loud to nobody (or my cat if he's around). I'm trying to be patient with the whole "the 20th century didn't know as much about dinosaurs as we do now" thing, but for Pete's sake, treat these creatures like real functioning organisms, not warty toothy movie monsters. 

I still can't get over this truly cursed Deinonychus from one book where not only were the hands all sorts of wrong (and reminded me way too much of aye-aye hands), but the eye was in the wrong fenestra. I was really shocked to see this from an artist who was pretty well-known for his dino art back in the day. If you make an occupation out of drawing dinosaurs, you ought to be familiar enough with them to know which fenestra in theropods is the orbital fenestra. And even if you didn't know that (but you honestly really should know that), spending just a few minutes with some research papers will set the record straight. There's absolutely no excuse for that kind of thing.

(And no, you don't get the excuse that in the 80's, in the pre-Internet days, it was harder to access scientific journals. If you're a professional paleoartist, you owe it to yourself and the world to make sure you're well-stocked with reference material. And, if you're in the 80's, you could totally just call John Ostrom, the man who discovered Deinonychus, and ask him about it because he's still alive.)

Put in the work, people. Taking the time to do your research may take you a few hours or a few days or maybe a week tops. But cringey paleoart will forever stand as a testament to your lack of effort.

... Okay, back to more rage-reading! I have such strange hobbies.

 Earl Dervish is certainly an unforgettable NPC. Just... don't follow him too closely. I get kinda dizzy just reading this one.

 So it either smells like fresh-baked cookies, or old perfume and too many cats.

You've Mastered the Basics--Now What? Part 2

Part 1 - Part 2

Welcome back to my guide for intermediate-level Neopian Times story writers! In part 1, we discussed why it’s important to plan ahead, as well as a big ol’ stack of guidelines for getting your prose to read right. Now that we’ve got the technicalities down, let’s start talking about story.

The law of setup and payoff

One of the fundamental tenets of a cohesive, emotionally satisfying story is the law of setup and payoff. It states: Don’t set up for something that doesn’t pay off, and don’t reveal a payoff for something you haven’t adequately set up.

What it means is, plot twists and other events that significantly impact/alter the plot are great—but you can’t suddenly introduce something drastic that doesn’t tie in with the story at any other point beforehand, and you can’t act like you’re building up to something that never happens.

 I dunno. One day I was drawing an RTG and this popped into my head and I just had to draw it.

The 70's was a groovy time for space exploration, man.

(I draw a shocking number of RTGs. Such is the life of a space geek artist.)

The line between supporting your kid growing up and just plain kicking them out can be blurry sometimes.

An Argument for the Chinese Dragon Taking Inspiration from Sauropod Fossils

As one of those insufferable people with an interest in both paleontology and world mythology, I'm fascinated by the origins of mythical creatures, and I really believe fossil finds inspired or at least fueled monster legends around the world. I got to reading about the origins of the Chinese dragon and realized that it actually has quite a bit in common with sauropods. I decided to write an essay elaborating on this and breaking down a Han Dynasty scholar's account of folk descriptions of dragons to show some possible similarities with sauropod skeletons.

It's okay if you think I'm full of beans. All this is just wild conjecture. Maybe someday we'll find some good evidence one way or the other.

An Argument for the Chinese Dragon Taking Inspiration from Sauropod Fossils

The Chinese dragon 龍 long is an unusual mythological creature that does not appear to be a clear chimera of extant animals in the manner of other mythical beasts such as the gryphon (lion and eagle), the cockatrice (snake and rooster) or Makara (deer or elephant and fish or dolphin). The form of the long was solidified very early in Chinese history and has not deviated from the base ancient design in over 7000 years.

This remarkable consistency in describing and depicting the long from a very ancient date, coupled with the presence of sauropod remains throughout China, makes it plausible that the Chinese concept of the dragon was heavily influenced by ancient discoveries of articulated sauropod remains. Some of the oldest descriptions of long incorporate multiple features that fit sauropod skeletal anatomy, further lending support to this idea.