07-01-2017, 09:33 PM
I'm with Diane on this one. The iconography of the beast is completely wrong. I also like the comparison she made.
The trouble is that there is no reason for a 'dragon' to appear there. The image had a specific tradition and those meanings just aren't conveyed bya dragon nibbling a leaf.
It's got to be some other animal, and we're projecting a dragon into it.
I have asked myself - and I'd like your opinion on it- is the beast original or added in later?
It's unique in the book for its size, its definition and the way it is interacting with the reader, by looking at you head on.
The trouble is that there is no reason for a 'dragon' to appear there. The image had a specific tradition and those meanings just aren't conveyed bya dragon nibbling a leaf.
It's got to be some other animal, and we're projecting a dragon into it.
I have asked myself - and I'd like your opinion on it- is the beast original or added in later?
It's unique in the book for its size, its definition and the way it is interacting with the reader, by looking at you head on.