/lit/ - Literature

>>12968753
As an /ic/ fag , I feel, more often than not, that shit art does not befit an excellent book.

For example, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell has illustrations of my favourite character. This would be good, if not for the unfortunate fact that my favourite character is drawn like a complete /beg/ tier garbage scribble, the fact that the artist draws my favourite character about five times worse than I do and the fact that this artist needs LOOMIS. This artist needs private lessons to make drawings that actually look passable and how such a ngmi bottom feeder even managed to land a job as an illustrator when their grasp on perspective is worse than an ostrich with its head buried in sand is amazing to me.

It's doubly shit when you realise that book characters get only about 1% of the fanart than an average seasonal anime, if it even exists, and if it does exist it is drawn by /beg/ tier nincompoops who draw worse than the average deviantart furfag.

And then in the short story collection, for example, they change out the artist for someone who can draw lineart of people standing still looking straight forwards, in a pose completely unrelated to the content of the story, and the instant their head is turned upwards their neckline disappears into the void and their mouth turns into the shape of a pikachu meme and it looks like they tried to trace something and it just didn't work out.

I also downloaded a copy of Jane Austen's illustrated books of the internet and apparently """illustrated""" in this context means that someone has copied and pasted a few photos and drawings off google.

My opinion is that you have nice drawings in them (nice as in 'not drawn by a wikihow contributor').