Hi, how are you doing? Me? Well, I haven’t posted anything here since completing the text and illustrations for ‘Alice’s Adventures at the Poles’, no. That’s partly because I haven’t hardly produced anything since. You know how it is – I have to give my new day job the effort and dedication it deserves, and so a lot of the time I just haven’t had the oomph to sketch in the evenings or weekends. I do make a little money out of my art, enough to provide spendsies for my overseas sketching trips, but it’s not my living so I do have the luxury of being able to leave it for a bit when I’m not feeling it.
So up until the last week, the only sketching I’ve done at
all recently was during a weekend in Oslo in January. I’ll write about that in
a future post – probably. But by Friday just gone I could feel my sketching
mojo coming back. But what to sketch? Ideally it would have been nice to copy
one of John Tenniel’s Alice sketches – stick with what you know and what you
enjoy, innit? But I’ve copied every sketch he made for Alice in the past and I
don’t want to do it again. So what was the next best thing? Well, yes, I could
have gone for one of the other great Alice illustrators and done another of
theirs. I haven’t coped all of Mervyn Peake’s, or Ralph Steadman’s, of Charles
Robinson’s etc. etc. But I wasn’t feeling it. I wanted to do a Tenniel style
illustration. Which is what led me back to Edgar Thurstan.
In case you haven’t read my earlier posts on this subject I
will try to summarise as best as I can. I fell under the spell of the Alice
books through an edition, published by Odhams in the 1930s that my grandfather
had bought. In my ignorance I had always felt that it contained some of the
original Tenniel illustrations. Towards the end of last year I bought a copy of
this exact same edition for pennies on ebay, and found out that the 21
illustrations within it were made by one Edgar Thurstan. But they are so
clearly inspired by Tenniel’s work that I think my confusion is forgivable. For
what it’s worth I think that Odhams wanted the Tenniel illustrations but didn’t
want to pay the commission for them to the Tenniel estate. The rights remained
with the estate until the 1960s. So I guess they set our Edgar to his work with
the instruction to make them as much like the Tenniel originals without
breaking copyright as he could.
I copied the Thurstan illustration of Alice in the train
carriage and compared it with my copy of Tenniel's original to prove my point a couple of months ago.
You’ll notice the more creamy coloured paper of the
Thurstan copy. This is because I used my trusty Royal Talens book for it. Not
sure why I feel this way but I always enjoy sketching in it. Now, this is
similar to the Tenniel in the style – the extensive hatching and cross
hatching. The use of trees in the background gives the composition a little
similarity. Thurstan, though, has done what he does elsewhere by transposing
the positions of the figures. In this one though his Alice is in a different
pose to Tenniel’s, curtseying (it saves time). The figures of the queens are
quite different too – Thurstan ignores the angularity of Tenniel’s queen, and
the fulness of her face seems to owe more to Tenniel’s Duchess or Queen of
Hearts. Both wear crowns which look to be inspired by the top of the Queen piece
in a standard Staunton chess set. Compare the next picture I copied, also of
the Red Queen, with my copy of Tenniel’s:-
Compositionally there’s more similarity between these two.
The position of the hands, and the Queen’s staring eyes come to mind. Ironically Tenniel’s
is now fuller faced while Thurstan’s is more angular. Yet I have to say that I
really like what Thurstan did with the Queen’s arms and hands. Again, he’s made
a figure that is more animated than Tenniel’s original.
Okay, so we come to one of the illustrations that I did
think inferior to Tenniel’s by some degree. Here’s my copy of Tenniel’s illustration
of Alice meeting the caterpillar in Wonderland above Thurstan’s.
This is an interesting one. Again, Thurstan has done his mirror image trick of reversing the positions of the figures and even some of the background details like the smaller mushrooms. The Thurstan hookah is pretty much the same as Tenniel’s. But the big difference, the huge difference, is the caterpillar. Tenniel, to be fair, doesn’t give us a lot to work with in the original. The caterpillar has its back to us and he doesn’t give us much more than the clever use of what might be the forelegs of the caterpillar to suggest the profile of Mr. Punch. So here Edgar really bites the bullet and ignores Tenniel’s caterpillar completely. His caterpillar is a hairy one. And it’s actually pretty well modelled too . . . apart from that face.
You know, I must have been quite inspired by this
illustration when I was tiny because the caterpillar has always been one of my
favourite characters. But the face of it . . . well, it’s just wrong I’m sorry.
It’s too simple, too sketchy and cartoony. It’s out of place here, and it’s a
shame because I have come to really appreciate everything else in this
illustration through trying to copy it. But it’s surely a case of inspiration
failing Edgar when left to his own devices.
Between making the second and third sketches yesterday I
tried again to find out anything I could about Edgar ‘E.B.’ Thurstan, and once
again I pretty much drew a blank. The only references I could find were for a
few works he illustrated for Odhams in the 1930s and the majority of those
references were to Alice. And for that matter most of the references to Alice
were specifically to the Humpty Dumpty illustration in Looking Glass. So I don’t
know. It’s possible, I suppose, that Edgar was not under instruction from
Odhams to make his illustrations like Tenniel’s. Perhaps he was under pressure,
inspiration failed him and so he decided to use Tenniel’s work as a starting
point. Who knows?
Whatever the case, although I know next to nothing about
Edgar, I salute him. For the most part, loving your work, sir.