Something I found interesting while studying Sidney Paget's illustrations for Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories is how relatively un-interperative these illustrations are in comparison with the other illustrations we have looked at so far. Paget seems to pretty faithfully and uncontroversially reproduce the scenes Doyle lays out, with few real novel contributions regarding each scene's narrative. One obvious explanation for this is that Paget, unlike most of the other illustrators whose work we've studied so far, did not collaborate with or have to seek the approval of Doyle before publication. Perhaps this made Paget less willing to step too far out of the box in terms of how he represented the latter's stories, for fear of displeasing him. Obviously Paget did leave his own distinct mark on how Holmes' character is interpreted - the deerstalker hat, for instance - but these contributions are relatively mundane, likely within the creative sphere that Paget felt comfortable delving into. This caused me to wonder how the methods of prouduction employed by a certain writer/illustrator/publishers (specifically concerning the relation the author has with the illustrator) informed the rleative creativity of the illustratted books they produced. That, if the reverse is true, perhaps illustrators who kept in close contact with the writers from whom the were drawing for in a collaborative process were more likely to produce creative and distinct illustrations.