I have a character that will find an ancesotor's diary, read it, and use clues therein to guide her emotional and physical journey. There is no other artwork in the novel... while there is an element of travel within a "world" I have built (of which, yes, I have a map), but this is by no means a Tolkein-esk fantasy trek. Think more historical fiction meets modern characters. Just wondering how appropriate it would be to work in some of the art my protag will be discovering in her ancestor's diary (sketches, as it were). Or, do I just stop whining and "use my words?" If the art would not enrich the experience of reading the book, I won't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Personally? I think you are fine. I think a map is fine. Under a condition! Which is that it isn't a crutch. If the material works without the picture and the picture adds to the expierence, what is the issue? But if the material doesn't work without the picture, then that means your writing isn't doing it''s job. I mean, sure some stories can need pictures(MOVIES) but your not writing a screenplay but a book. Anyone who is innately against pictures, like well anyone innately against anything. Way I see it, a writers job is to bring there material up to an being good. So don't relay on a picture being the final push. Does that make sense? Which in your case shouldn't be difficult. I mean, a map is meaningless beyond how it guides the character. Ya know? Hope it helps.
It does make sense... So, for the sake of argument, let's say I was going to add some visuals... I keep thinking about books published like in the 70s and 80s with a centerfold of photos... yikes. Of couse the map could go at the beginning (thank you Tolkien). Just having a hard time seeing how embed them into the text without creating a big shock for the reader... whole first half of the book goes by, and then hello! pictures!
Personally? Well first depends on how you want to go publishing. Tranditional publishers from what I hear usual want to control formatting. So if a tranditional publisher tells you. "No pictures. We are agreeing to publish your book but no pictures. Deal?" What would you say? This is one reason I suggest trying to write the book as if you don't need the picture. The last thing you want to have to say is. "But Mr. Publisher, the book doesn't make sense without that picture." Okay, now that is out of the way. Me personally? It depends on how many pictures you have. If you have tons? I would use them as they become relivant. She found map? Here;s the picture! So on and so forth. Maybe a guide at the beginning. Table of context or such to the pictures? If it is just one picture? I would put it at the back. For some reasons. 1. Doesn't distract by being in the front. 2. You can easily add a asterisk when the map is founding saying there is an image at the back of the book. 3. People that don't want pictures can easily ignore. People that like pictures can easily find it without issue. The worst thing for me, with pictures, is when they are hard to find/refind. Or when they pop up before relivance. If they pop up before they are notable, then they distract. If they are hard to find or refind, that is effort I don't want to employ. Like one book, it had 20 pictures. ALL in the middle, thing is, the pictures were from moments througout the story. So, I was expected to pause on page 10, look at the middle imagine, not look at all the pictures, and then resume page 11. And so on and so forth for the entire book! That annoyed me a lot.
