Do you like your books being illustrated?

[kyektulu]

I too like a map in the front of a book but I dont like illustrations, a nice front cover is as far as I will go.

[jackokent]

I agree with Kyektulu, a map is all I can cope with. If I find an illustration I deliberatly won't look at it. They ruin the mental image I've formed about the characters. I don't even like looking at the front covers most of the time. LOTR is one exception.

[rune]

I only have one illustrated book and that's LOTR's. I personally dont like it, perfer without pictures.

[Marky Lazer]

No, I don't like pictures in books, with the exception of maps. I want my imagination to run wild, especially with fantasy books. For example, in The Lord of the Rings there is the big Balrog-wing discussion. Woudln't the charm be gone if right next to it a wingless Balrog was drawn? No matter whether you think Balrogs do or don't have wings, your imagination filled in the blanks. If you picture them for yourself with wings, you don't want to see a pathetic creature without them, surely.

Agreed, pictures can add an atmosphere, but personally, I want to make it all up myself.

[GrownUp]

I don't really like illustrations in books, they seem to interfere. Also I don't look too long at cover art. But, if a book is very gorgeously illustrated I do get the feeling a lot of love has gone into it. Makes it more especially valuable.

The one thing I hate *HATE* is paperback editions of fine books that are republished with photographs of actors in a film/TV adaptaion on the front.

A picture like that put me off reading 'The Shipping News' for a long time. And it irritated me when I was reading it. And it is a truly great book.

The same with my copy of 'Goodnight Mr. Tom.' It doesn't matter how great the actors are.

[Saeltari]

No.

[chrispenycate]

Originally Posted by Saeltari

No.

Just what I'd have said had I been capable of producing such a short post.

Illustrators never draw the people I've imagined. Even book covers which depict characters and/or scenes from the book are invariably inaccurate. The "owl" series by Misty Lackey are spoilt for me by her husband's conception of what various characters, human or otherwise, look like - the descriptions are clear enough. And it's no use telling me to just ignore them: that's like skimming text, my eyes don't function that way.

As I said, "no".

[SpaceShip]

Originally Posted by chrispenycate

Just what I'd have said had I been capable of producing such a short post.

Illustrators never draw the people I've imagined. Even book covers which depict characters and/or scenes from the book are invariably inaccurate. The "owl" series by Misty Lackey are spoilt for me by her husband's conception of what various characters, human or otherwise, look like - the descriptions are clear enough. And it's no use telling me to just ignore them: that's like skimming text, my eyes don't function that way.

As I said, "no".

I'm the same chrispenycate - we all have our ideas as to what our hero/villain looks like and because we all fancy/hate different types, our imaginations are affected that way; in fact I've sometimes been put off a book because I didn't like the look of the character on the front!

However, and this could probably be used as a new thread, I suppose - I never ever go to see a film before I've read the book! The characters have been pre-set and I like to imagine them myself first. But am happy to do it the other way round.

If I've seen the film, I am fidgety reading the book - waiting to see if it is different from the book or whether things have been left out or put in. But if I've read the book first, I'm happy to go see the movie.

Anyone else the same as me?

[HoopyFrood]

I agree with Weave (waaayy back) that the illustrations in Dark Tower are brilliant...but at the same time they're not always my ideas of the people (Susannah in The Song of Susunnah...NOTHING like what I imagine her! I prefer the pencil drawings of her in the Dark Tower...and I haven't really found a picture that I like of Oy, which is probably understandable because I love Oy and am picky about what he looks like!)
I do like illustrations in books because some (like dark tower, and a version of LOTR that I have) are so dramatic that they're nice to have just for aesthetic purposes...but as to giving me ideas of what the characters or places should look like, I don't like to use them for that.

[manephelien]

Not usually, but there are a few exceptions. I'd love to have the John Howe illustrated version of LotR. I also like maps and drawings of Holds and Weyrs in some Anne McCaffrey's Pern books.

I have a gorgeous edition of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, with original illustrations from the 1880s. I also have The Complete Chronicles of Narnia, with illustrations by Pauline Baynes, and the book is almost too pretty to read.

[carrie221]

Like other people I like the maps... I like pictures sometimes if they are of places but characters not so much

[pyan]

But don't you think "Alice through the Looking-Glass" and "Alice in Wonderland" are enhanced by the Tenniel illustrations? Personally, I think that they are integral to the enjoyment of the story: I can't imagine improving on his "Tea Party", for instance.




BTY, why is Lewis Carroll nearly always omitted from "earliest fantasy author" type threads?

[Lissa]

Personally I love seeing what an illustrator comes up with for a particular book, even if it doesn't resemble what my imagination saw. I often wish that there was more art to go along with the jacket art in the book.

[j. d. worthington]

With me, this depends on a lot of factors. If a book was originally issued without illustrations, meaning that the author generally had no input whatsoever, then I prefer illustrations to be published separately, as an art book. If, however, it's a case of the artist and author worked in close conjunction (Tenniel and Carroll, Sime and Dunsany, Pape and Cabell, etc.) or are one and the same, then it's a different thing, as the writer also envisioned this as a single entity with different aspects. Another exception is some of the fairy tale books, especially those edited by Andrew Lang, or different illustators for The Wind in the Willows, etc., where the illustrations may not be the originals, but the text is closely bound up with illustration in the first place (though I often prefer the original illustrations, as with Kenneth Grahame's book).

In fact, in some of the cases mentioned above, it was the illustrator who gave the writer ideas (Sime with Dunsany, for example), and in those cases I find the illustration enhances the experience considerably.

[Sibeling]

I usually don't mind illustrations, even if they do not coincide with what I think about the characters. Illustrations show a different point of view and it can be interesting.
I really like maps, I sometimes xerox them and then mark the places the characters visited in different colours... Yes, I clearly have too much time on my hands.
I also like when the author him/herself draws the pictures for the book, like Vonnegut or Tolkien. It somehow makes the author's idea clearer, even if the author is not a very good drawer. And the book is more likeable - the author invested his/her time to draw something, s/he really cares for the readers, it just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
The thing I really hate is the cheap mass production cover art - they take one picture, use it one one book, slightly change the colours or add something and then use it on another book, grrr !! I'd rather have a book in plain black cover than that.