Monday, June 16, 2008

Shotgun

Wow. Yeah, busy. I started the notes for that last post at least two weeks ago, and never finished it, and never posted it. Now I've got a lot of topics to hit scattershot.

I just said that I thought an inherent weakness of the comic book medium was its inability to express strong emotion. Then I read the story arc in Ultimate Spiderman where Norm and Harry Osborne are killed. I'm gonna hafta retract my earlier statement. Comics can pack an emotional punch.

Part of the reason I've been so busy is that I've finally broken down and picked up The Dresden Files and found them great fun to read. I charged through the first three books before running out of what was readily available at my local libraries, and rather than wait for #4 to get turned back in, I think I'm gonna trawl through the local used bookstores to see if I can find a copy on the cheap. I find it very amusing that Butcher—who wanted to write high fantasy and only penned the first Dresedn novel to prove a point; namely that it'd be formulaic and terrible—was caught quote off guard by the success of the series.

In general, I think that's a mistake our society often makes; discounting formula. Those formulae exist for a reason: namely because they're brilliant. They work. They've been repeatedly tried "in the field" and proven themselves over and over again. Writers ignore formula at their peril. That doesn't mean it should be strictly followed either, but it should never be ignored. In general, I'd much rather see a well-done execution of formula—with a twist—than something innovative that doesn't work and is barely readable.

In addition to the Dresden books, I've just read the first four Myth Adventures (RIP Robert Asprin) books again as well as some nonfiction—a book that posits that the evolution of the first eyes and an active predatory lifestyle is responsible for the Cambrian Explosion as well as a big encyclopedia-like dinosaur book by Thomas Holtz. Dr. Holtz's text tries to strike a balance between being sufficiently technical while still being accessible to "readers of all ages" and I don't know that it always works—its probably too dense for kids or casually interested laymen, and for more serious laymen (like myself) the tone sometimes inadvertently feels condescending. The appendix which lists every dinosaur genus known up to the date of publication (2007) plus time, location and a few other details, however, is priceless.

It's also heavily (and exclusively) illustrated by Luis Rey, who is an extremely talented paleoartist, albeit one who occasionally frustrates me. He's well-known for some fairly bold moves—even an illustration of little Eoraptor has protofeathers, for example, a decision I applaud and an idea I enjoy. However, his use of colors and textures is often staggering; he loads his dinos up with so many bizarre colors, feathers, wattles and frills that many of his illustrations look like killer turkeys or peacocks that just went through a crash course clown school. I'm also not a fan of his frequent use of facial closeups with extreme perspective on the rest of the body. Kinda like looking at a dinosaur through the peephole in your front door.

One thing that I hadn't quite put together on my own, though, was the correllation between carnosaur and the really large sauropods; I guess it hadn't occured to me that somewhere between the Cenomanian some 95 million odd years ago (when Acrocanthosaurus, Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus lived) and the Santonian some 85 million years ago, the size of the sauropds drastically reduced. If the relationship between carnosaurs and gigantic sauropods is indeed that strong, its no wonder that as the larger sauropods faded away that the carnosaurs ceded their top predator niches to tyrannosaurs and abelisaurs. And maybe that's why I like carnosaurs so much; Tyrannosaurus chasing down a Triceratops or a hadrosaur is cool enough, but to me carnosaurs vs. big sauropods is the most iconic dinosaur imagery. So, from the early Gasosaurus vs. Shunosaurus to later encounters like Giganotosaurus vs. Argentinosaurus or Acrocanthosaurus vs. Sauroposeidon or Carcharodontosaurus vs. Paralititan, those are my favorite "dinosaur moments."

And really; nobody does them better than the Late Jurassic Morrison Formation. The Morrison is our own homegrown formation after all (my mom grew up in Cleveland, UT—literally within walking distance of the Cleveland-Lloyd quarry.) It was one of the first described dinosaurian faunal assemblages, and remains one of the best known. Its also one of the most diverse, and it has some of the worlds most famous dinosaurs. Depending on how picky you are about accepting new names for similar animals, you've still got a very diverse assemblage. Tons of both bony and lobe-finned fishes lived in the rivers and lakes, as did frogs, salamanders and turtles. A number of crocodilians lived there, including terrestrial, cursorial crocs like Fruitachampsa. Although preservational bias works against them, half a dozen or so pterosaurs are known as well. Lizards, sphenodonts and champsosaurs round out the reptilian non-dinosaurian fanua while various types of primitive mammals (docodonts, multituberculates, triconodonts, symmetrodonts and dryolestoids) polish off the list.

The dinosaurs are—of course—the most famous and dramatic critters from the Morrision though. Carnosaurs like Allosaurus, Epanterias, Saurophaganax and possibly Marshosaurus were joined by megalosaurs Torvosaurus and Edmarka to make up most of the large and medium-sized meat-eaters, while Ceratosaurus and Elaphrosaurus hint at the future diversity of the abelisaurs and noasaurs yet to come. There's even some interesting small predators like Coelurus, Ornitholestes, Tanycolagreus, early troodontids like Koparion and the poorly known Stokesosaurus. Only recently with highly developed cladistic tools and good comparative specimens like Dilong and Guanlong have we come to realize that "Old Stokes" is actually a very early (and primitive) tyrannosaur.

Tyrannosaurs aren't the only group to make early appearances in the Morrision. Although Europe's Callovosaurus is marginally older, the Morrison's Dryosaurus and Camptosaurus are among the earliest well-known iguanodonts. Gargoyleosaurus and Mymoorapelta are among the first ankylosaurs. Stegosaurs and hypsilophodontids were fairly old hat by the time the Morrison rolled around, but are particularly well-represented with two species of Stegosaurus itself plus Hesperosaurus shoutin' out for the former and Drinker, Laosaurus, Nanosaurus, Othneilia and Othnielosaurus for the latter.

The most dramatic dinosaurs from the Morrison are definately its dizzying variety of sauropods however. Haplocanthosaurus, Atlantosaurus, Dyslocosaurus, Dystophaeus, Eobrontosaurus and Suuwassea join such famous names as Brachiosaurus, Camarasaurus, Apatosaurus, Barosaurus, Diplodocus, Seismosaurus, Supersaurus and the mysterious Amphicoelias which may have rivalled Argentinosaurus for largest land animal. Ever.

No comments: