Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[helmacon]

I figure since we have writing and parchments in game now lithography would serve as a more dwarfy and more efficient process. Probably using one item made from animal fat in a process similar to soap, a rock slab, and some sort of acid and ink. The actual process is a little more complex but it would make a reasonable approximation.

Thoughts?

[therahedwig]

While lithography would be super dwarfy based on the fact it's writing on big ass stone plates... it's also way beyond the cut-off date: 18th century, and the cut-off date is the mid-
15th century.

But maybe stone steles? We already have engraving memorial slabs...

[PopTart]

What if a dwarf could decorate a tome with illustrations (using dimple or other dye) to produce an Illuminated Manuscript?

[PopTart]

Also, this would require some deep changes to the game, but what if a highly skilled craftsdwarf could produce equally good results with improvised resources? What if a highly skilled papermaker could make do with tree bark, palm leaves, and so on? A highly skilled weaver could weave animal hair into cloth? And so on

[SixOfSpades]

I would vote against lithography not for historical-tech reasons, but for copyright-violation issues. Lithography is not about production, it is about mass reproduction, almost always of an artwork. My impression of dwarven culture is that they care far too much about the craftsdwarfship of the artist, and the uniqueness & integrity of the original artwork, to make exact copies. If dwarves want to copy something, they will use their own skills, and the original as an example, to create an homage . . . they wouldn't use mechanical means to create exact copy after exact copy after exact copy, diluting the power of the art through repetition, by a means that takes no talent whatsoever to operate.

Dwarves mass-producing simple, unadorned books would probably be ok, but for that they wouldn't need anything more than a printing press (easily adapted from a screw press) & maybe some movable type.

[cochramd]

I would vote against lithography not for historical-tech reasons, but for copyright-violation issues. Lithography is not about production, it is about mass reproduction, almost always of an artwork. My impression of dwarven culture is that they care far too much about the craftsdwarfship of the artist, and the uniqueness & integrity of the original artwork, to make exact copies. If dwarves want to copy something, they will use their own skills, and the original as an example, to create an homage . . . they wouldn't use mechanical means to create exact copy after exact copy after exact copy, diluting the power of the art through repetition, by a means that takes no talent whatsoever to operate.

Probably not relevant to lithography, but in your opinion would they use mechanical means to create exact copy after exact copy after exact copy by a means that does take talent? Or at the very least, exceptionally well made machine parts that are skillfully put together?

[SixOfSpades]

. . . in your opinion would they use mechanical means to create exact copy after exact copy after exact copy by a means that does take talent? Or at the very least, exceptionally well made machine parts that are skillfully put together?

Let us say that a Legendary Mechanic creates an artifact Clock, with a perfectly even mainspring, a finely tuned pendulum, and gears of the highest quality. Copies of this artifact could theoretically be made, possibly using mass-production techniques as mechanical and artless as casting the duplicate parts from molds based on the original components. But building these clocks from such a "kit" would still be a laborious & exacting process, testing both the physical and mental abilities of even a well-trained Mechanic. In my opinion, dwarves would probably find such a process acceptable, and even commendable--depending on the level of respect that these duplicate Clocks & their makers showed for the original, artifact work & its creator.

While lithography would be super dwarfy based on the fact it's writing on big ass stone plates... it's also way beyond the cut-off date: 18th century, and the cut-off date is the mid-15th century.

More important than when a technology actually was developed (in Earth chronology) is when it could have been realistically developed. Velcro is the classic example: It wasn't formally invented until 1941, but it has literally zero tech requirements. It was inspired by plant burrs stuck to animal hair, and could have been (and indeed, most probably was) invented in prehistoric times--we could literally have had buttons before we had clothes.
Lithography requires gum arabic (naturally-occurring tree resin), weak acid (lemons have juice), and smoothly-polished stone (we're dwarves, yo). This creates a "tech feel" of around the 13th or 14th century, and then subtract 100 years or so because it's a stone-based technology, so it would be well within the cutoff period. But, as I said earlier, dwarves would be very unlikely to invent the process because they wouldn't see it as having any value: Even IF they wanted to mass-produce printed material, why the heck would they bother using acid to slowly etch the stone, when there's a Professional Engraver living right next door?