Illustrations

[Ecurb]

I recently read "Vanity Fair", which was illustrated by Thackeray himself. What do Litnetters think of illustrations? Can they influence our imaginations in a negative way (like seeing a movie of the novel might)? Are they more "legitimate" when created by the author instead of a professional illustrator?

Of course children's books generally include illustrations -- slowly diminishing in frequency as the child ages and moves from "picture books" to "chapter books". I can't remember which authors provide their own illustrations (Tolkien's, in the Hobbit, were good but perhaps amateurish), except for Thackeray. I enjoyed Vanity Fair's illustrations, although I'm not sure if they added to the text (except for the picture of Becky as napoleon, and the other one representing her as Clytemnestra).

What do other Litnetters think of illustrations, especially in adult novels?

[milagros]

hello:

I like when a book contains illustrations, but I think of they aren't necessary. Besides, not all illustrations are appropriate. The books sometimes have illustrations unexciting.

[Red Terror]

Yeah, I like illustrations--- if they are done with care and not in a sloppy and facile manner.

[Danik 2016]

I love ilustrations when they are good and add to the text. An example are the famous ilustrations of the Dickens books: https://www.google.com.br/search?q=D...iw=800&bih=450.
Another instance, which shocked the Victorians, were Aubrey Beardsley's drawings for Oscar Wilde's French play Salomé.
http://www.bl.uk/collection-items/au...by-oscar-wilde
However the ilustrations can be very bad or not complementary to the text.
In such a case it is better to do without them.

[mortalterror]

Tolkein's Lord of the Rings trilogy is vastly improved by the drawings people have contributed to it over the years. They formed the backbone of a visual language used in the films which was far superior to Tolkein's own prose style. Also, I straight up love the illustrations John Tenniel did for Alice in Wonderland and Aubrey Beardsley did for Salome. Arthur Rackham, Edmund Dulac, Maxfield Parrish, are also pretty dope. As much as I love Gustave Dore's work on Paradise Lost, Orlando Furioso, or The Rime of the Ancient Mariner the illustrations don't particularly influence what's in my head. Some illustrations work better than others. I've seen movies based on books where the actors took the place of the ones I had pictured previously. But more often I've rejected an adaptation for what was already conjured in my imagination. Illustrations are just interpretations, suggestions, or guidelines. Even with comicbooks where the representation is there on the page with the text, my idea of what Superman looks like differs slightly from what Alex Ross or Jim Lee have to offer.

It occurs to me that I'm sitting next to a copy of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling and a reproduction of Gauguin's Jacob Wrestling With the Angel. Things like the Lindisfarne Gospels, The Tres Riches Heures, or the Shanameh of Shah Tahmasp are cultural treasures. So illustrations based on books or the book arts themselves are not to be despised. Even today there are some fantastic illustrated manuscripts being created like the St John Bible, or the illuminated Silmarillion by Benjamin Harff. The Kelmscott Chaucer by William Morris is another lovely example.

[North Star]

No mention of William Blake yet‽

[Jacek Pudlo]

Despite enjoying scarcely more common ground than fish and fowl, prose and illustration manage to snap and peck at each other with fatal results. The argument can be a hilarious one (see Victorian illustrations of Lady Macbeth), but is unlikely to be an aesthetic success.

[Danik 2016]

Some books like The Little Prince wouldn´t exist without ilustrations.

[YesNo]

What I remember and like the most about The Little Prince and Alice in Wonderland were the illustrations.

Illustrations and words are different. They don't compete. I can see why they add expense in making a book and that is why they are usually limited to the cover. Hopefully they add value to the reader's enjoyment which should translate into value for the publisher if that value is managed properly. Rather than putting in illustrations a publisher might be better off creating an audio book to increase sales.

Regarding some technical writing, illustrations in the form of graphs and tables are often important to help the reader understand what the words are trying to say as well as provide evidence for the truth of the words.

[Jacek Pudlo]

Some books like The Little Prince wouldn´t exist without ilustrations.

Where the text is weak, illustrations will not make it stronger. Where the text is strong, illustrations will have an insinuating and vulgarising effect.

[JCamilo]

Mortal gave enough examples of Rich texts with great illustrations and someone also mentioned William Blake. I would also add that the visual of some movies have huge positive impact on some works, Disney come to my mind, the visual of Sleeping Beauty for example, add a lot to the stories. And this is not only about the illustrations of the works, but the image we have of the writers too... Look the usual Dante's portraits. He is often serious, not smiling (Dore has a rigid serious Dante with matches the vision people have him as very judgmental and in a way "condeming" people to Hell), look the romantic portraits of Keats of Wordsworth.

I am sure if Stukles is around and see this he will pin up enough examples of illustrations that are as good as the original work. Heck, books like 1001 Nights of The Bible would fill pages and pages of great illustrations considering the text is not always very descriptive (or with great variety).

[Pompey Bum]

I recently read "Vanity Fair", which was illustrated by Thackeray himself. What do Litnetters think of illustrations? Can they influence our imaginations in a negative way (like seeing a movie of the novel might)? Are they more "legitimate" when created by the author instead of a professional illustrator?

I oppose them if they interfere with with the intimate relationship between reader and writer (which is where the art actually happens). Obviously that means I make an exception for illustrations by the author since they are part of that communication. I also acknowledge that illustrated classics are a fact of life. John Tenniel's Alice, many illustrations of Dickens works, and even Sydney Paget's stiff and stilted Sherlock Holmes are with us whether I like it or not. (Beardsley posters adorned the steamy dorm rooms of too many freshman first-timers back in the 70s for me to take very seriously, but I sympathize with Mort's point). I look at such illustrations as I look at good old Victorian translations of Livy or Tacitus. If I were really trying to hear the author I would not go near them, but experiencing the style of a tried and true intermediary can (sometimes) be a pleasure in itself. Illustrations can (sometimes) be like that, too. That's all you're going to get from me, ecurb.

[mortalterror]

Technically the words on the page, the size and grade of the paper, the ink, format, and script used are all visual aspects of a book. The layout of a page can have an immense effect on how much one enjoys a book. Even without illustrations, a book still has a visual dimension. I'm reminded of how Mortimer J. Adler's Great Books of the Western World series was all but ruined by the Encyclopedia Britannica's decision to print them like encyclopedias to save space and money. Or how cramped my King James Bible is with it's tiny type and columns to get the whole thing into one medium sized volume. Compared to those the Doves Press Bible in five volumes is a work of art.

I'm trying to think. Didn't Daumier, Dore, Goya, and Picasso do sketches of Don Quixote? Wouldn't you want them in your copy?

[JCamilo]

Dore works for Quixote, Divine Comedy, Grimms and Iddyls of a King are fantastic. Yet, what about Shakespeare? Ophelia death scene has a collection of works that are as good as Shakespeare words. Millais painting is among my favorite. And who wouldnt want Waterhouse paintings or not think of Dante Gabriel Rossetti and the pre-rafaelites and their close ties to books.

[Ecurb]

I'm trying to think. Didn't Daumier, Dore, Goya, and Picasso do sketches of Don Quixote? Wouldn't you want them in your copy?

I have a framed print of Picasso's Don Quixote on my wall. I inherited it from my parents' house when my father died. I remember when my mom and dad first brought it home. My brothers and I asked, "Why is that supposed to be great art? Anyone can draw like that!" (I was probably 6 or 7 years old). My dad gave us all pencils and papers and said, "Go to, my children."

We learned something about art -- or, at least, it made an impression on me -- because I still remember it.

I understand your point about the voice of the author, Pompey, but I have no objection to collaborative art. I mean, we needn't read Shakespeare's plays to appreciate them. We can see them performed. Illustrations in a novel are a minor influence on our appreciation of the "literature" compared to performances in the theater. Of course one might object to some PARTICULAR illustrations, just as one might object to some theatrical performances.