The concept of bitextuality—specifically the relationship between text and illustration being similar to masculinity, femininity and the reception by the audience—is intriguing to think about. In the explanation of the text being the male, domineering role; capable of standing on its own compared to the illustrations being feminine (incapable of independence and needing the text) is what stuck out to me. Going further on that notion, it could go two ways. That might be why people often neglect / disregard illustrations within books, it echoes how women are disregarded in the patriarchal system and therefore seen as not providing much to the “intellectual’s table”.

However, what it also implies is illustration’s older translation of being able to illuminate and shed light on various things discussed. Wherein the text provides the reader the means to take in what’s being written, the “femininity” of illustrations provide a space that allows interpretation and leeway being expected. Its subversive and demands a space which the reader can speak their piece and connect it to the difficult and otherwise rigid structures of the “masculine” text. It’s also similar to hearing a podcast and  creating your own imagination to the characters or scene, but to bring in an official drawing done by an artist it almost disrupts your own interpretation and then there is a need to reconcile and connect both images to create a sort of coherency. Think it's pretty neat.