Are illustrations in novels frowned upon?

It's an entirely Western thing to not have illustrations in novels. The general consensus I found in other boards is that, "Illustrations lack maturity, thus they are only in children's to YA books." The other drawback is the cost of hiring an artist and having them draw stuff.

The artistic reason is that a "good" author should be able to paint the picture in your head, while a "bad" author needs to rely on visuals to get their point across. Graphic novels, where the art is used to convey the story (as opposed to illustrations showing a few scenes) falls into a middle ground, however there is still the cost of hiring an artist (unless, as OP is, you are so inclined).

If you want examples of novels with illustrations, you need to look East a little ways. Japanese light novels, the cheaper alternative to their manga, are exactly what you describe. Even there, however, the images are added later (since many modern light novels are adapted from web novels, which are even cheaper to produce) and are used as a marketing tool rather than artistic choice.

posted over 4 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

awsirkis‭

20 reputation 0 3 4 0

There are exceptions to the "no illustrations" trend. For example, Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrel is filled with black-and-white illustrations reminiscent of the wood engravings that would have accompanied 19th-century books. This is in line with the novel's general style, a tribute to 19th century literature.

However, in general, you are right - illustrations are rare, particularly in paperbacks. The issue, as you've guessed, is the price. There's paying the artist; there's printing the illustrations - ink costs money, particularly if you want coloured illustrations; there's arranging the pages so the illustrations fit in. In order for a coloured illustration to go in a paperback, it needs to be on a separate page of different paper quality; if the illustration is black and white, it still means more paper. All of those elements add up to make the illustrated book more expensive to produce. If you provide the illustrations, you eliminate one element here, but not all.

If a publisher is going to invest more money in an illustrated print, they need to know the investment will pay off. They need to know enough buyers would be willing to pay the extra cost to cover the publisher's expenses. With a new writer, that's unlikely to happen - a new writer is a risk as is, their books might not sell. Which is why you see illustrated editions of established writers, particularly of their best-known works. Examples are J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea. In both cases, the books in question have become a classic, so there's no risk for the publisher in printing hardbacks with coloured illustrations.

posted over 4 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Galastel‭

1885 reputation 81 551 319 3

In general, @Galastel is correct; the problem is the costs. That said, the first Harry Potter Book by J.K. Rowling contains "illustrations", my copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" contains graphical signatures, symbols or handwriting on 9 pages. These are all black and white only; and typically no more than a quarter page tall. In at least one case the text says the ink is green, but the image is rendered as black text. I notice also they appear without anything to the left or right; so no text has to be flowed around the image.

That makes them "low resolution" graphics that do not require special paper, ink, or typesetting. Some care must be taken in formatting the book to ensure there is vertical space to present the image where Rowling intended; that can tend to leave blank space at the end of one page (the widows and orphans typesetting issue). This is probably why the images are kept short (vertically).

I believe I have also seen low resolution full page black and white maps at the front of books, or at the front of chapters. Again, these would be not special paper, and not hard to fit into these positions (no typesetting issues).

When illustrations require special paper this creates a collating problem; the special pages must be inserted into the book in the correct positions before the book is bound. The paper is also less porous, and the cheap glue used to hold regular pages can release the illustration pages.

Automating the collation without endless paper jams demands printing the book in sections that are then stacked together for binding. This is prone to error. That is why in many illustrated non-fiction books for medicine or science, we find all the illustrations together in a block, instead of dispersed throughout the book near the text that references them.

And finally, publishers tend to be very discerning consumers of artwork, their business depends on extremely high quality artwork that sells the book. They will pay $thousands for illustrations. Compare that to the typical advance given to a first time author, in the $3000 range.

Author illustrations tend to be amateurish and poorly executed, publishers don't want to put their name to them, and paying for illustrations would make the book far more expensive than usual.

Things like standalone B&W maps, or signatures, handwriting or handwritten filigree like Rowling produced, publishers can work around that in layout. But for actual illustrations they want an experienced artist they trust.

I will also note that if your book relies on illustrations for any kind of clarity, your audiobook and visually impaired audience just left the building. That is also something for professional marketers to consider, the reduced sales potential of a book.

posted over 4 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Amadeus‭

3156 reputation 2 1399 613 37