Bolter’s article “Seeing and Writing” offers several different ways that writers in the digital era have both changed and brought back older forms of writing, such as varying their font styles, and incorporating notes into their work which further explain the points they are trying to make. However, the aspect that I found most interesting in this article was the ways in which pictures can be involved in and influence how we read printed text. Bolter explains that the inclusion of an image and where the picture is located on the page can have an effect on how we process the information. In past texts, the image (if there was one) was often put off to the side, so that the reader could move from a line of text to the picture and then back to the text in a fluid manner which would not disrupt the reader’s thought process. The overall lack of pictures in printed books made the reader focus primarily on the information or the story, and forced them to imagine the printed words without a visual representation.
In the digital age, this is many times no longer the case. Websites or online books and essays can and do incorporate pictures in their pages. In some ways, this can enhance the work of the author. Readers can take breaks from long stretches of printed letters and numbers and rest their eyes upon an image that directly connects to what they are reading. However, to me, it seems that this could also detract from the work, especially in the case of fictional stories. For example, instead of allowing a reader to visualize a character based only upon the author’s description, they now could easily incorporate an image of exactly how the author pictures the character in their own mind. This, while allowing the author to portray the story in exactly the manner that they wish, also diminishes the freedom of imagination given to the reader. The easy incorporation of pictures could not only change the way our eyes focus on the printed word, but could lessen the effect of the printed story when a visual story is also present.
I see where you’re coming from regarding images in printed works, but I think it’s useful to separate form from content here. What seems more crucial than whether there’s an image to distract a reader is the question, how appropriate is the image for the author’s goal? Images can be used poorly or wisely, and it has nothing to do with them being images in and of themselves. Bolter also makes the point that, in hindsight, the text of medieval manuscripts can seem distracting and illegible. So, text or image, both can hinder or foster a reader’s engagement with the material.