Seriously, why do I bother putting illustration galleries in the back of my paper books? The less I draw, the more I get to write, I think! Grump! ;-)
Finally, the last illo I want to put in the Sundark gallery is in progress. I have drawn this *6* times. Flipped it, put a new sheet of paper, drawn it 'backwards' on the light table, flipped it again, got a new sheet of paper, drawn it 'forwards'. Repeat. It's finally working, but it just goes to show, when I draw only twice a year, I struggle.
I threw out the parlour layout! After all that research, too, but I still have it in the library of my brain. The centre focus of the parlour was meant to be that scene in Sundark where Elle sits in Faedra's lap and reads a letter to her. If I'd kept the entire parlour layout, they would have been very tiny. A really cozy scene and cute, but then . . .
I am particularly character-driven, so I decided to go with full figures--again. I completely err on the side of not giving backgrounds and I'm trying to be okay with that, especially as the print size is only 5x7'ish. I had gone to 'full' illustrations in Dark Victorian: Bones, depicting scenes like the paper ball throwing incident at the Blue Vanda Cafe. Nice as it was (it wasn't really, I hate perspective), drawing an Indian cafe with Indo-Saracenic architecture, I'd really wanted to zoom in on the characters more.
Again, why draw anymore, I ask myself? I think lots more value and appreciation is placed on photo-manipulated covers and art. People might not even like how I draw my own books (really!). But as long as I still like doing it (sort of---I'm probably just having a grumpy day), they are my books after all. And who draws Victorian ladies sitting in the lap of the other? I want to see that. :D
NEXT: wrapping it all up in Indesign and submitting it for approval with the printer.