After we looked at several illustration of the novel Don Quixote and compared them in class, we raised the question of how to depict the depth of a character’s thoughts accurately. Illustrations are supposed to add a third dimension to a story without adding substance that was not there in the first place. There are always some aspects that cannot be fully grasped from reading, such as the internal mind of a protagonist. The readers must merely be able to understand the character by reading about him or her to then trigger their imagination. Where is that limit in creating an illustration for its maker? The role of illustrations should support the story without adding new information that is not explicitly concrete in the book. Is it fair to add details that the author perhaps didn’t want in their story that might distort the story or highlight subordinate ideas in the novel?
Is it possible that novels are designed to trigger the imagination and not to be accompanied by illustrations? Maybe the beauty of novels reside in that they create a different experience for each person and that this experience cannot be modified or mainstreamed by an illustration.
Marie,
This is an interesting topic. I think it depends on who the illustration is created by. For example, if the author of the novel was also the artist, I think that the visual would accurately enhance the story because the creator knows exactly what the text is supposed to mean and how to truly complement it. As you pointed out, however, if someone other than the author creates a piece to supplement or accompany a novel, he or she may add details that the author did not intend to be included.
In the case of Don Quixote, there have been many artists attempt to illustrate their interpretation of the novel, each artist adding his or her own flare. At some point, it is not possible that the depictions of the novel are completely true to the original novel.
All of this being said, is it necessarily a bad thing to have multiple interpretations of a novel? A little debate cannot hurt.