Newspapers are folding, and not just into the size of canary cage bottoms the day after they are printed.
Magazines are thinning to wafer dimensions.
And book readership is shrinking. Now that's a real Yikes.
And I'm supposed to be scared of Friday the Thirteenth?
Well, I guess I am. These are treacherous, ominous days. I scoff at nothing. But what I do to run away from too harsh truths, Gentle Readers, is to read. And write. I think that's the greatest escape. Oh, going to the movies is fine too. I'm waiting for the Shirley Temple of our generation to appear to sing and dance her way into our empty hearts and minds. But there is nothing like a book. Take one down from the shelf, pull the covers up over your head, and sink down into it. Bliss.
But how do we readers and writers convince this text-twitter-blogging-vlogging-myfacing-myspacing generation to actually read anything that's over a paragraph in length?
I have a plan.
Pictures. We get great book covers, don't we? They're there to snatch the eyes of passing probable readers, and Marketing says they work. So why not march into the future with even more pictures inside our books?
Why don't the publishers take our brilliant words and illustrate them every couple of pages? Like Anime' and comic books, I suppose, but not instead of text - rather, accompanying text. Different styles of art for different genres. Nice big colorful pictures - the kind they use in comic books. But klassy, you know.
Romances can have heroes and heroines pictured in fairy tale style, shown consumed by lust, to head up every chapter. You can guess what Erotica categories can have. Mysteries can have lovely bloody scenes of mayhem illustrating their pages. Science Fiction and Fantasy can go Disney or Wall-E. Spies and hidden treasure and lawyerly mainstream novels are made into movies three weeks after they hit the stands in paper. Why not hurry the process and use actors and actresses to pose for their pages? You get the point.
Why, even Classics can have classic masterpieces of art... speaking of which, I just realized that one of my most beloved reads is illustrated: Moby Dick and Rockwell Kent. What a pair!
Why don't we do that again?
Too much like children's literature? What's wrong with that? Children love books.
The point is to get readers reading again. Not the "RU TXing me?" kind of reading, but whole words and long sentences in stories.
We have to save the printed word. Why not use the printed picture to help? Up with the Arts!
What do you think of the idea? What artists would you recommend for which books?
The best answer will receive a whole book of the winner's choice from my backlist, sans interior illustration, alas, but with every word spelled right.
Oh. And be careful out there today.
I think I would like it if the historical romances that I enjoy had some illustrations in them. Since this is all imaginary than I guess I can pick any artist so I pick Monet to illustrate your books and Jo Beverly's. I think his style would suit those stories.
Posted by: Maureen | Friday, March 13, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I would like to see pictures in books. Gives the reader a visual idea of the book. I have several books published in the 1920s and '30s that have one or more pictures in them. It's about time to return to that format.
Posted by: Louis | Friday, March 13, 2009 at 01:12 PM
People say novels are internal, while film is external. It seems to me that having illustrations of a novel would kinda whipsaw me between interior and exterior, and yank me out of the story.
I'd rather not have closeup illustrations of the characters, I think, because my vision of them would very likely not match the artist's, even if it adhered closely to the author's descriptions (and bearing in mind that at least half the covers in my romance collection bear no resemblance to the characters inside, or to reality, for that matter).
On the other hand, some pictures from a distance that give the feeling of the setting of the book and don't detail the characters too much, might be helpful. Color plates, like in the old days :)
Posted by: Janice | Friday, March 13, 2009 at 03:24 PM
I suspect that any illustrators our publishers could afford would be painting people who are as inappropriate in the text as they are on the cover. I can definitely see Monet as illustrating your books, though!
Much as I love the print book, I'm not too worried about the format as long as people read. And the e-readers that work well are just about here. Fairly soon, I'm going to have to break down and buy one...
Mary Jo
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Friday, March 13, 2009 at 06:31 PM
The scattering of pictures that I have seen in some editions of books from the 19th century makes me think that this is NOT a bad idea!
The evolution of comic books into what my son calls "the graphic novel" shows that there is some audience for more serious writing with picture accompaniment.
As a teacher I am completely in favor of ANYTHING that might get the younger generation reading, as long as what they are reading is not total garbage. So, come on literary world- as you save yourselves you will be saving ALL of us!
Posted by: LadyDoc | Friday, March 13, 2009 at 06:33 PM
One word: Wyeth. I utterly adore the illustrations of N.C. Wyeth. The very best book illustrations I've ever seen have always been done by Wyeth.
Posted by: Sherrie Holmes | Friday, March 13, 2009 at 07:51 PM
Different styles of illustrations definiately suit different authours, time periods and themes. My mother has a nice set of Dickens, and each book has a few prints of pencil illustrations. I like woodcut prints for medievals, and Regency stuff would really suit a fine, light pencil drawing. For the classics I think I really would prefer symplicity such as pencil drawings rather than colour.
Posted by: Amanda | Friday, March 13, 2009 at 10:58 PM
An artist who would have actually read the book would be nice. I just read this pirate time travel book and in the cover there is this pretty boy, but it doesn't excatly match -not even close!- with the picture you get in your head when you actually read the book.
Posted by: Minna | Saturday, March 14, 2009 at 01:21 AM
Does anyone else remember the Children's Illustrated Classics that were the joy of my childhood? And many older books for adults did have illustrations — my copy of Ivanhoe had a great one of Rebecca on the battlements.
Assuming I don't have to be bound by the laws of time and reality, how about a collection of Jane Austen with illustrations by Ingres (the delicate pencil drawings rather than the paintings)?
Chardin might do nice illustrations for Jo Beverley's Malloren books.
And why not actually use Peter Lely's portraits for Susan Holloway Scott's Restoration books?
Posted by: Jane O | Saturday, March 14, 2009 at 07:32 AM
Amanda and Minna, Janice, Jane and Lady Doc, Louis and Maureen and Sherrie - you guys gave me another idea!
Why not use new artists who just 'might' be having a hard time in these hard times? Why, the book industry could save a whole generation of starving artists!
And Mary Jo - what if the writer could have some input on the pictures, eh?
Oh, I know - I dream of a perfect world.
Posted by: Edith | Saturday, March 14, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Edith, I suggested this to editor and agent years ago when I saw how quickly sales of Manga were growing. It's foolish to ignore the visual world our kids are living in.
That said, even hiring current artists--which would be my preference--would add horrendously to the price of a print book. This is a format that needs to be done in e-books, provided e-readers can handle artwork. (don't have one, don't know, but it seems to me they must)
It's an idea that's time has come. Readers can say they saw it here first!
Posted by: Patricia Rice | Saturday, March 14, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Great idea Edith I too wish that younger people would read more it truly is a fantastic pastime taking us on adventures and visiting other places in the past and future, and if pictures in books will help I say go for it and using new artists would be a great idea.
Have Fun
Helen
Posted by: Helen | Saturday, March 14, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I still remember my illustrated Jane Eyre with the spooky woodcuts - I'd love to see those kinds of illustrated editions again.
Posted by: Donna Brown | Sunday, March 15, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Well, here in the UK we can finally get new issues of Classics Illustrated! They are producing lovely glossy properly bound copies with all of the original artwork etc, but 'refreshed'. I've got all 6 issued so far. Brilliant! They are from www.classicsillustrated.co.uk for readers who want to look. For my small one I've bought a subscription to Classics Illustrated Junior. Hey, even our childrens laureate Michael Rosen loves these.
For me I've bought the graphic versions of Dean Koontz Frankenstein, Stephen Kings graphic versions and Coraline. Just to start with. I agree, give us more with pictures!!
Posted by: Abigail Rigg | Monday, March 16, 2009 at 01:42 AM
I love the great illustrators- not just N.C. Wyeth, but Howard Pyle, Charles Dana Gibson, and of course, Arthur Rackham- his Wind in the Willows illustrations are among my favorites. I have an illustrated version of Pride and Prejudice ( but I don't remember who drew the pictures, and I don't have it nearby-) I really like having the pictures. I think the medieval books would be best illustrated by Gerome, Bourgereau, or the Pre-Raphaelites- someone who really paid attention to historical detail.( Not the folks who do most of the present day cover art!!! )
Posted by: Gretchen F | Monday, March 16, 2009 at 10:55 AM
I would love to see pictures in more books. I think they would be especially good for stories set in a particular period of time that a lot of people may not be entirely familiar with. I picked up a book the other day called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. It has pencil drawings in it every so often that help depict some of the scenes and, in my opinion, really give you a feel for the story. In fact, the pictures were about 25% the reason I actually kept reading.
Posted by: Kierra | Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 06:20 PM