Today's lecture was very inriguing as we delved deeper into the relationship between images and texts within Victorian literature. It was interesting to learn about the history and evolution of illustrations in relation to text, for example the transitions between steel-plate etching, wood engraving and photomechanical images. I found both the narratological theory and bitextual theory are quite interesting as they offers us more insight on complex the relationships between text and illustrations and the many different ways the images can portray the text. 

It is refreshing to analyze illustrations in lieu of exclusively the written component of a text. I find that often the choices of publishers are overlooked in literary analysis and appreciation. The text is a composite whole of written word, illustration, embellishment, and material. Although through a modern lens, such choices seem of little consequence, they are all interrelated. In illustrated books, the illustration and the written text are involved in an interplay of creation, embellishment, and illumination.

What struck me as most interesting in this week's readings was the fact that illustrations in Victorian books would frequently precede the textual portion of the book being depcited (this practice referred to in Leighton and Surridge's narratological framework as proleptic illustration).

Today’s class was a more in-depth analysis of Victorian illustration books which I enjoyed greatly. What was most captivating to me was the theoretical concepts we discussed in lecture. I often enjoy learning about such content because they allow me to bring my interpretation of the relationship between image/text to scholarly appropriate writing. In fact, this is something I often struggle with when analyzing text. As Professor Kooistra mentioned, although we have a visual vocabulary in which we use to understand illustrations, that vocabulary, at least for me, is very limited.