I don't know, I'm actually willing to grant the artist lack of fix-point, on the grounds that most of the feats the super archers do involves spatial awareness so precise that maybe they *can* work out in their head the target location based on any arbitrary draw point.
Doesn't excuse having the arrow on backwards, or on the wrong side of the bow, or with the finger wrapped around it, or with the arms at some weird bent angle, though. . .
This brings up an interesting larger point re: The extent to which a fiction writer/artist must be "correct." I've been thinking of writing an article, but haven't had the time.
There are various types of incorrectness that rub people differently, sometimes because inaccuracies derive from ignorance.
But sometimes the error comes out of need for dramatic convenience (Having a speedy murder trial in My Cousin Vinny) isn't correct, but it makes for a better story.
Similarly, there are changes made for the sake of impact, like biological licenses (for good or ill): Rob Liefeld's drawings are known for taking anatomical liberties. So is Michelangelo.
Our specializations tend to bias us as well. I'm an attorney, so legal errors stick out to me. But my friends often think i'm splitting hairs.
I have labcoat friends who pull their hair out when they watch sci-fi, while I tell them to "just have fun with the CONCEPT."
Without a much lengthier exposition, I tend to be much harder on logical/motivational inconsistency (If they want Neo to be the One, why are they SHOOTING at him) than I am at scientific/legal/methodological inconsistency.
I honestly haven't figured out the line for these things: unless they're a lawyer/scientist/etc (and even if they are), a writer is sure to get something wrong. It's easy to say it's "lazy writing," but there is such a thing as diminishing returns. If 98% of your readers/viewers won't notice it, but it would take you another 2 weeks of research, is it time well spent?
I'm particularly easy on methodological accuracy (how to fire a gun or wield a bow and arrow), because it seems the most linked to stylistic action. I know a guy holding a pistol sideways can't hit anything, but sometimes...it just looks cool.
Eudaimo, I'd agree with you for the most part on dramatic license (see my previous post on the first entry on this subject), but there's still a difference between odd (pictures 2 and 3) and completely nonfunctional. MacQuarrie's right on that first picture -- it will not work, the bowstring will rip at Ollie's arm and the hand, and there's no way to get a shot off like that, even a poor shot.
The reality is that Byrne didn't take the few seconds he should have to google archery and do minimal basic research on the subject. Your point on extensive research is well-taken, but this isn't particle physics -- it's archery. We know he has a computer and access to the Internet. If he was drawing a San Francisco scene, he'd get some reference on San Francisco. That is, after all, his job. He really ought to know better.
I think the big problem with Byrne's drawings is that they look pretty obviously wrong *even to a non-archer* - it's not a matter of complex knowledge, it's just that it looks wrong on an intuitive level.
OTOH, I might cut Byrne a little slack in that these are just sketches. I'd think/hope if he were assigned to a regular Green Arrow comic, he'd do more research to get the archery elements right.
Interesting, because my understanding is that these commissions pay a lot more than regular comics pages.
The problem with "artistic license" as an excuse for inaccuracy is that it's sacrificing accuracy for the sake of "looking cool". Which is fine -- if it works. But it's not going to look cool to somebody who is informed, so you'd better hope it does to the uninformed, and that most of your audience is uninformed. And most of the time, the accurate form looks cool as well. Handguns and archery are not exceptions to this; I can't help but laugh every time I see the sideways handgun, and unless it's being done for comedic effect, that's a bad thing for the artist. But held correctly, it can be dramatic and effective.
Computer work I can understand people getting fanciful on. Speaking as a programmer, our work really IS dull as drying paint to watch, so I understand, accept, and in some cases even enjoy artistic license in that.
But for activities that are physical, most of the time, reality got it right.
Commenting by HaloScan
