(urth) Wolfe covers

[Jeff Wilson]

On 1/3/2011 2:00 PM, Son of Witz wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com
> <mailto:jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>> *From:* Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com <mailto:jwilson at io.com>>
>> **
>> On 1/2/2011 11:00 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> > *From:* Jeff Wilson <<mailto:jwilson at io.com>jwilson at io.com
>> <mailto:jwilson at io.com>>
>> > **On 1/2/2011 8:52 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> > >> *From:* Jeff Wilson <<mailto:jwilson at io.com>jwilson at io.com
>> <mailto:jwilson at io.com> <mailto:<mailto:jwilson at io.com>jwilson at io.com
>> <mailto:jwilson at io.com>>>
>> > > **
>> > > On 1/2/2011 5:25 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> >
>> > [cover painting]
>> >
>> >> >> >
>> <http://www.amazon.com/Book-New-Sun-Gene-Wolfe/dp/1568658079>http://www.amazon.com/Book-New-Sun-Gene-Wolfe/dp/1568658079
>> ...
>>
>> >> Maybe it's my partial color blindness. Just out of curiosity, what
>> color
>> >> is Lune in that picture? It looks mostly pale blue to me.
>> >>
>> >> Bigger version:
>> >>
>> >>
>> <http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/1568658079/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all>http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/1568658079/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all
>> >>
>> >> (I can see the red better there, though it's still not working for me.)
>> >
>> >There is a lot blue among the green splotches, but that's to be
>> expected in a new moon near sunset / waning >moon at sunrise, the
>> worst seeing conditions for color viewing. The moon is largely lit by
>> reflected Urthlight, >plus any local overhead lighting in the domes,
>> seen through the greatest thickness of atmosphere and the >greatest
>> amount of smog and haze, with the least amount of direct sunlight
>> short of an eclipse.
>> >
>> >The huge moon is an interesting take; it's almost five times larger
>> than the sun in subtended angle, implying a >cozy 17,000 leagues
>> distance. Of course, I'm of the opinion that absent-minded old
>> Rudesinde is mistaken >about it being closer, it's actually moving
>> further off as always.
>>
>> Thanks. I would never have concluded that that yellowish ball by
>> Severian's legs is the sun or that that pale, almost uniform moon is
>> new. If it were important, I'd try to figure out where we're looking
>> from and what angle to the vertical Severian is standing at.
>>
>> Jerry Friedman
>>
>>
>
> Man, you guys crack me up. You think that Don Maitz is thinking about
> subtended angles and how many miles away the moon is, at least in a way
> that can be calculated. Ha!


He ought to, the sun and moon have proportions just like the human body 
does. Which is not to say that artists must be true to human 
proportions, but they need to be aware of what it is they are choosing 
to distort and why.  Van Gogh's "Starry Night", for example includes 
accurate star positions, though they are about 90 degrees out of 
alignment with the landscape below, for composition reasons. In a book 
with specific details on sky features, I don't think it's more vain to 
hope for than any other detail.

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >