/lit/ - Literature

>>17734640
Why the fuck wouldn't you put pictures in literature?

>>17734641
Reached adulthood

>t. Poorfag

>>17734640
Get with the times old man.

>>17734640
Fancy books are cool.

>>17734640
Word and image are correlatives which are always in quest of one another, as metaphors and comparisons show us clearly enough. Thus, from of old, what is inwardly said or sung for the ear is at the same time intended for the eye. And so in ages which seem to us childlike, we see in codes of law and salvational doctrine, in bible and in primer, a continual balance of word and image. If they put into words what did not go into images, or formed an image of what could not be put into words, that was quite proper; but people often went wrong about this and used the spoken word instead of the pictorial image, which was the origin of those doubly wicked symbolically mystical monsters.

— Goethe, 'Own and Adopted Ideas in Proverbial Formulation'

>he hasn't read hypnerotomachia poliphili

>>17734640
Any rejection of illustration in literature is pseudo-intellectualism and posturing of the highest caliber. Like Literature is an art form, the capacity through sheer narration and description to capture the reader into entire kinetic and sensory experiences of immersion, transmit vivid imagery, and serve as a cinema of its own, being the singular best form of story-telling (cinema being the best form of transmitting emotion).

So you may ask what does the illustration add if literature is capable of all that? It adds the general skeleton of the visual aspects of the scene (made evident anyway once you read), cementing the prose as being not only necessary in its utilitarian approach of showing the visual, but forcing the prose to make itself capable of true literature, of allegory, metaphor, emotional transmission, philosophical speculation, and sheer beauty through language alone, once the illustration has already fulfilled the simple goal of situating the reader into the setting.

Through illustration you can see what the author wishes you to see, and through prose you can understand what thoughts, emotions and musings this visual caused on the author, and feel a connection, a disconnection, agree, disagree or just be in awe of it.

You wouldn't understand however. You are merely a pseud.

Let me show you.

Look at pic related and read this excerpt from Moby Dick

"And when we consider that other theory of the natural philosophers, that all other earthly hues — every stately or lovely emblazoning — the sweet tinges of sunset skies and woods; yea, and the gilded velvets of butterflies, and the butterfly cheeks of young girls; all these are but subtile deceits, not actually inherent in substances, but only laid on from without; so that all deified Nature absolutely paints like the harlot, whose allurements cover nothing but the charnel-house within; and when we proceed further, and consider that the mystical cosmetic which produces every one of her hues, the great principle of light, for ever remains white or colorless in itself, and if operating without medium upon matter, would touch all objects, even tulips and roses, with its own blank tinge — pondering all this, the palsied universe lies before us a leper; and like wilful travellers in Lapland, who refuse to wear colored and coloring glasses upon their eyes, so the wretched infidel gazes himself blind at the monumental white shroud that wraps all the prospect around him. And of all these things the Albino whale was the symbol. Wonder ye then at the fiery hunt?"

>>17734640
The Last Man is their only book with nice illustrations.