Then it might get a bit harder. I rarely get to read scrips before editors had their go with those. But still a yes, I read even books without covers. It's not rare that I get books before even the editor sees them. >:3 The good thing about living with writers.
You know, thinking about it, almost every book we have has at least one illustration somewhere inside of it, either a map or some little diddly thing between chapters or something...
That's interesting. I need to go look at all my books now.
I'll pay attention to the pictures if they were done by the author or somebody working with them, because I figure those show me exactly what they are talking about. Illustrations made by anybody else, though, I don't care about so much. And sometimes I dislike them because they aren't what I saw with the description.
I think they can add to the book, or they can just be useless information, or even take away from it.
It's possible, however it is not done often. Anyhow, I must admit that Kurt Vonnegut's sometimes doodles are a treat. The power of illustration adds spice to a book, but it distracts from the beauty of words. Even now, visualisation is important to reading choices, and should not develop into people turned off by reading but seems to. It's a theory.
of course! usually i hate illustrations because they somehow force you how you should imagine the looks of persons, objects, places etc.
when i read a book with pictures in it i often am like "wtf! that´s the way the hero looks?! he/she´s UGLY" or something like that. but once you have seen the picture you cannot make it unseen, so you are stuck with an absolutely ugly-looking protagonist throughout the rest of the story. just an example
I read most of my books with pictures! The pictured don't interest me much in a book, they kinna take the imagination out of the reader and he's left a little disappointed like: "I did not imagine him to be like that! Damn!"