Mfcttrf

Lately I've been thinking that I don't know of a single novel that has illustrations in it. I've tried finding out the reason why, and came across an article published in The Guardian in 2011, but it didn't arrive to any conclusions or provided an explanation for this.

I come from a visual medium, so complementing the writing with visual aids seems pretty logical to me. I thought of two reasons why this isn't more common, first being that most writers aren't visual artists, which is reasonable, and the second that printing expensive, and pictures would increase the cost significantly. But in a situation where the writer also likes to draw / illustrate and is not bound by cost (an e-book for example), would there be any drawbacks from providing pictures with the novel?

Maps seem to be an exception for this, since they are somewhat common in fantasy works.

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.

Books for young children --including novels --are almost always illustrated, and the younger the audience age, the more elaborate and central the illustrations. Middle grade novels frequently have at-least spot illustrations --and novel/graphic-novel hybrids like the Wimpy Kid series are not uncommon. Even young adult novels often have at least some illustrations, but it is rare in adult fiction. (The City of Dreaming Books series is a notable exception --it was illustrated by the author. However, it's a unique work, that would probably have been characterized as a children's book if it had been initially published in America.)

The probable reason is that children demand illustrations in their books, but adults are perfectly content to read pure text. In other words, it's market-driven.

Interestingly enough, adult non-fiction is more likely to be illustrated than fiction --perhaps the drier subject matter needs more help to be appealing!

Illustrations do not add much to a novel. If anything, it often detracts from it. Part of the joy of reading (for many) is to imagine what the people and the places look like.

Having illustrations takes that from the readers.

On top of that, the illustrator and the author are rarely the same person. And since no 2 people share the same vision (on anything), it is just an added layer of work and conflict.

So illustrations aren't so much as frowned upon, as they are unnecessary.