Have you ever read a book without pictures?
Well, have you?
Comments73
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
I've read novels. Do those count?
I was wondering more whether illustrations maketh the book.
Oh, I get what you're trying to explain.
Does the cover count as picture? d:
Yes.
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.
Acutally i've never read a book with pictures... I feel kinda quilt for some weird reason
Definitely. I hate books that include images. It's so distracting.
By saying pictures I assume you're referring to graphic novels.
The books I read are without pictures except for the cover page
The books I read are without pictures except for the cover page
every page is just a picture of words, so no
...for almost as long as I've been alive, yeah.
All books have pictures. It's called a cover. And I haven't read a book without a cover.
What kind of a question is that? Of course I have. I bet most of us have.
Omfg, what a question to ask. Are you still in nursery class?
Hee!
Everyday! It's the best way to exercise your imagination!
Just finished Reamde by Neal Stephenson. I'm starting on Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in a bit. Need to find more gun nut books though.
Including the cover illustration? If so, no.
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.
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.
What the mother fucking fuck? Seriously?
Books without pictures? How is that even possible?
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
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 know what you mean. Walt Disney almost ruined Peter Pan for me when I read it eventually.