My first impression of Breton’s Nadja was that it was a novel with a lot of illustrations, to the point where the illustrations took up quite a bit of space. This reminds me of the children’s books I read as a child, which also had many animated images. The significance of the existence of illustrations is not only to a large extent can help to understand the reading content, and can be done to imagine things for the materialization, that is to say, will only exist in the virtual world of a kind of image formulated a specific image presented to the reader. On this basis, even a fictionalized story can seem more real with the presence of illustrations.
Although I am not sure why Breton adds a lot of images to his work, I can perceive that he visualizes the people and things he discusses directly through images. It is interesting to note that the appeal of literature in most cases is because it gives the reader enough room for imagination, and it is because of this unrestricted space for imagination that the reader can fill in the storyline with a colorful filter on top of it. For instance, if I were to say now close your eyes and picture in your mind a cup of water on the table, I’m sure every answer that could be given would be very distinctive, and that’s what I mean when I say that imagination adds color to the story itself. What Breton does, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. For instance, Breton refers to “the Lovers’ Flower” in the text. In fact, the name is very abstract and imaginative, but soon we see the image of ‘the Lover’s Flower’, and it is here that the reader’s imagination is suspended by the image, and is replaced by a figurative understanding of ‘the Lovers’ Flower’. Therefore, I began to think again, could it be that Breton is trying to tell the reader that the facts are the facts, and that there is no need for imagination, and that the reader’s subjectivity might jeopardize the objectivity of the work? Or perhaps, by using illustrations instead of descriptions, Breton introduces a new dimension to his work. The images are like open windows through which the reader sees the real world in which the writer lives. They build a bridge between literature and real life, thus constituting another way for the reader to understand the work? But at the same time, some of these drawings are somewhat abstract and even surrealistic. As a result, the drawings seem obscure to me.
Question for Discussion: What would be your interpretation on these images/illustrations in Nadja?