← Home ← Back to /lit/

Thread 24842322

82 posts 14 images /lit/
Anonymous No.24842322 [Report] >>24842389 >>24842415 >>24842943 >>24842951 >>24842999 >>24843061 >>24843083 >>24843396 >>24843604 >>24843610 >>24845390 >>24847078 >>24847080 >>24847250 >>24847693 >>24849202 >>24850305 >>24850398 >>24850484 >>24850834 >>24850847 >>24851989 >>24852090 >>24852108 >>24852504 >>24852790 >>24853411 >>24853495 >>24853517 >>24856282
When you read a book, do you visualize the landscape and the people, like a movie scene flowing through your mind?
Anonymous No.24842328 [Report]
When I can't pay attention yes. So I don't have to re-read the same sentence again. Otherwise I don't bother
Anonymous No.24842389 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
Of course. If you aren’t imagining all the details, you’re “reading,” but only by definition.
Anonymous No.24842415 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
If I'm enjoying it yes, my imagination doesn't get erect otherwise.
Anonymous No.24842941 [Report] >>24847291
1-5 has more to do with keeping accurate mental images in you’re head. Like Temple Grandin. You read a page of the book and the image created is something you can keep in your head accurately without changing like older AI video when you move around in your head. This is how high IQ individuals can build things in their head one day accurately and then make it later with no faults. Most people have the ability to imagine vivid images in their head, but can they keep those images in their head long enough to move around with no change and see little details without your brain changing them?
Anonymous No.24842943 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
All of it. I construct a universe
Anonymous No.24842951 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
No, I'm an NPC reddit user. I don't read the book until I've seen the movie.
Anonymous No.24842999 [Report] >>24843607
>>24842322 (OP)
Yes, but not really like a movie. If the characters or their surroundings aren't really described, in my imagination they're just some kind of abstractions, while stuff that is described in full detail can be really vivid. I'd say that I mostly focus on some general sense of mood that I get from the various scenes.
Anonymous No.24843045 [Report] >>24843596 >>24845390 >>24847044 >>24847073 >>24847177 >>24847708 >>24852504 >>24856141
no. imagery is for low iq retards who need to be "shown" like children instead of just knowing abstractly
Anonymous No.24843052 [Report] >>24843067 >>24853495
I'm convinced all the people saying 1 - 4 are lying. Ask them to draw the apple from 1 and they wont be able to do it despite claiming to be able to see 1
Anonymous No.24843061 [Report] >>24854490
>>24842322 (OP)
Yes. I feel bad for aphantasiacs. I wonder how much better my imagination would be if I read more as a child.
Anonymous No.24843067 [Report] >>24847291 >>24847734
>>24843052
You can't be serious. If people could look at something and draw it well, everyone would be making art.

I'm imagining 4 right now. I'm spinning it around. I just sliced it in half. Your reply is cope.
Anonymous No.24843083 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
Sometimes I get really vivid imagery and sometimes I get pretty much nothing. It depends on attention, personal appeal, familiarity, probably other things. I don't believe people that claim they're constantly envisioning some 3d movie tho
Anonymous No.24843390 [Report]
I can rotate the characters in my mind
Anonymous No.24843396 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
Yes
Anonymous No.24843596 [Report]
>>24843045
>t. STEMtard
Anonymous No.24843604 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
I used to be able to visualise things before taking psychiatric medication.
Anonymous No.24843607 [Report]
>>24842999
This. It's more like a dream to me.
Anonymous No.24843610 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
Anonymous No.24843673 [Report] >>24847755 >>24850362
When I read, I definitely visualise everything as if it's really happening. I have clear silhouettes of what the characters look like and I imagine vividly what the environments are.

Something I've recognised however is that my imagination when reading tends to follow a blueprint of my own memory so to speak. As in most of what I'm imagining in my mind is all in the same style visually as to what I am familiar with in my daily life. It's hard to imagine a completely foreign concept on the spot.

Like if I asked you to imagine a book in your mind right now, the image you get will likely be similar to books you have recently read or books you are familar with visually. If I asked you to imagine a completely new book that you've never seen before, it'l be very difficult. It's like trying to imagine a musical melody you've never heard before.
Anonymous No.24844650 [Report]
I do but the visualisations alter with every word
Anonymous No.24844711 [Report]
reducing what i do whilst reading to crass visual representations is less palatable than the apple in no. 3 must taste.
Anonymous No.24845390 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
When I read, I don’t really have as much visualization as other anons. I think it’d be cool to view a novel as a film within your mind but it doesn’t work that way for me. For me it’s more similar to this anon >>24843045 more abstract and almost dream like. I’m able to hear sounds described in books, sometimes I can feel the environment described in the setting. I still really do enjoy reading, but I’m curious to see how vivid other anons are able to experience text. If I wanted to I could visualize an apple, different variations of the fruit but when I’m reading I don’t have that instant ability
Anonymous No.24847044 [Report] >>24847082
>>24843045
Wouldn't that logic apply to movies? When I read books, the images just pop up
Anonymous No.24847071 [Report]
Anonymous No.24847073 [Report]
>>24843045
?
Anonymous No.24847078 [Report] >>24847085 >>24850668
>>24842322 (OP)
I usually imagine the characters as actors I’ve seen in movies or people I’ve known. Like the girl in the bar in Steppenwolf appears to me looking like Shelley Duvall.
Anonymous No.24847080 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
I read, and if it's worthwhile to visualize something my brain does it automatically. Stopping to visualize every little thing slows down my reading pace and takes too much energy. It's a book so it's in the domain of abstraction anyway
Anonymous No.24847082 [Report]
>>24847044
movies are passive consumption. books require you to get the imaginative gears going to build the scene yourself
Anonymous No.24847085 [Report]
>>24847078
I really cant. Breaks the immersion especially if its people i know.
Anonymous No.24847177 [Report]
>>24843045
Who hurt you
Anonymous No.24847196 [Report]
Yes, I can't comprehend what I'm reading otherwise.
Anonymous No.24847250 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
4 on picrel scale when reading prose (sometimes animated)
1 on picrel scale when reading poetry, sometimes multiple word meanings one after another
Anonymous No.24847291 [Report] >>24847932 >>24851953
>>24843067
nta but why shouldn't we be able to at least produce a drawing comparable to what we could make of a real reference if we believe we can visualize it "like the real object" in our mind's eye? I say try the experiment.

Train your mental image of the apple you will later draw to eliminate confounding discrepancies between the imagined and real apple (or, if this presumes an additional faculty (say memory) outside of just visualizing then just imagining a SIMILAR apple). Then draw the simulacrum of the apple from your mind's eye; then compare with a drawing copying a real apple. If they're of similar quality you don't necessarily prove anything but you at least don't seem to contravene the initial claim, and if you're so terrible that either is a mess maybe the exercise is fruitless. But there should be some people who can produce good enough results to not conflict with the claim (a drastic, reduced quality of the mental image compared to the mind's-eye image). If this were a real experiment you would also need to control for artistic training and imagine why the converse may be possible (that the drawing from the real object is "worse" than the drawing from mental image). But on an individual basis the exercise might handily disprove the claim for oneself. What do you think?

Another interesting test would be getting a certified high-IQ individual to do the exercise, per >>24842941 and seeing if there are any significant differences from the average (maybe if their drawings "attempt" more detail, for instance?).

This test or a battery of similar (and better-designed) tests has probably been proposed before. If anyone knows about it please forward the sources. I'm a mildly interested.
Anonymous No.24847693 [Report] >>24848995 >>24850391
>>24842322 (OP)
I read a lot even obsessively when younger. I always described it as a little movie in my head. if I was a great sketch artist (not though) I could easily sketch the scenes. Writing for me in the exact reverse process. I ruminate/daydream on the next idea. I "work" on the little movie running in my head, while doing mindless work. So when I sit down that night to write? I just describe the movie scene I worked on, basically. I grew up thinking everyone did this.
Anonymous No.24847708 [Report]
>>24843045
whelp, there we go. Stupidest post I read on /lit/ so far today. I'm rooting for you, anon. I want you to come in first place.
Anonymous No.24847734 [Report]
>>24843067
Just like thinking everyone else got a movie in their head when reading, I thought everyone could "wireframe" an object and rotate it in their head. Like a computerized blueprint. This skill is wat gets measured on intelligence tests, when you get to the part where you have to tell which "rubiks cube" matches the question cube. People that can read/make blueprints, cad cam, good with maps and schematics... all are good at this. I never had problem one with maps my whole life, I thought GPS was superfluous.
Anonymous No.24847755 [Report]
>>24843673
>Something I've recognised however is that my imagination when reading tends to follow a blueprint of my own memory so to speak. As in most of what I'm imagining in my mind is all in the same style visually as to what I am familiar with in my daily life. It's hard to imagine a completely foreign concept on the spot.
I get you. The rocky hillside in the book, in my mind translates to the rocks along h river we clamber down to fish at the river. I sometimes assign faces and bodies and sounds of voice to people I know/knew in real life. And when I say "movie", I can't explain it fully. I cant SEE it, see it. But i can.
>
I always heard how artists and directors, oh, they have the... *vision*. This great gift, and you can't learn it. All the director is so good at, baring practical details of making the film? He reads the screenplay, and can "see" the scene. Anyone that gets the "movie" in their head when they read, has this seemingly mythic ability.
Anonymous No.24847932 [Report]
>>24847291
I made some dumb mistakes in that post:
*(which would be drastically reduced quality of the drawing from the mental image compared to the drawing from the real object).
If the drawing from the real object is better than the drawing from visualization then the belief that "I visualize things like real objects when I'm reading" seems false.

*I'm mildly interested.

and just for clarity's sake, the "claim" is that belief that "I can visualize what I read 'like real objects.'"
Anonymous No.24848995 [Report]
>>24847693
I do this.
Anonymous No.24849202 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
I don't know.
Anonymous No.24850305 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
More like snapshots.
Anonymous No.24850325 [Report] >>24852849
>You guys can watch a movie in your head
What the fuck, dude?
>Can't see anything with any particular detail
>Most I can do is hear it like an audiobook in my head
I thought it was sweet to be able to read in the voice of Morgan Freeman or that British nature doc guy. You guys get to fucking watch stuff.
Anonymous No.24850349 [Report]
I have always visualized events in my head. Even with minimal description I can usually do this as long as the prose doesn't get in the way of my understanding. To this end my definition of "good prose" differs markedly from what the average /lit/ poster seems to believe: I call prose good if it doesn't distract from the contents of the story. This means prose can neither be so bad and full of errors I cannot focus on the story, and neither can it be too ornate and complicated that I have to focus on the actual sentence structure to derive its meaning.

TL;DR I want to imagine a story, I don't want to actually think about the words you put on the page. If I'm stuck muddling through the textual layer you've failed as a storyteller.
Anonymous No.24850362 [Report]
>>24843673
I agree, that it is hard to really visualize truly foreign things you've never seen before. And this has tripped me up, reading some speculative fiction that deals with alien concepts, because my visualization defaults to more familiar memories and I have to remind myself of the differences. This is why I like to look at art of strange, alien places and beings. It broadens my familiarity with things outside my experience and makes my imagination richer. The same logic behind training generative AI models, I guess.
Anonymous No.24850363 [Report]
This thread actually makes me wonder if some people don't enjoy reading plays or even fiction in general just because they can't imagine what's happening.
Anonymous No.24850391 [Report]
>>24847693
This is exactly how I operate. I've had running stories or 'scenes' that I day dream or think about before bed. I add little bits or change bits, I don't write it down though. I just remember it all.
Anonymous No.24850398 [Report] >>24852849
>>24842322 (OP)
I can't see or hear anything at all. For me, the main part of the enjoyment I get from reading is how the author is using language, as well as the concepts he's coming up with. I don't like film adaptations of books I've liked, because they're so slow compared to my reading speed and they (by necessity) miss out the myriad of small details and prose quirks of the author. It's just a film and I know the actors are just actors and everything is fake. With text, it feels as real as any of my memories are, because I have no ability to visualise those either. When I think back to things that have happened to me in the past, I'm essentially describing those events to myself in prose. My pet theory of aphantasia is that it's a fundamentally different "operating system" that a certain percentage of people are running.
Anonymous No.24850484 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
I don't tend to visualise as I'm reading, I just read and remember the words. When I'm thinking about certain scenes afterwards they'll manifest visually without needing to think of the words.
Anonymous No.24850668 [Report]
>>24847078
>I usually imagine the characters as actors I’ve seen in movies or people I’ve known.
exactly the same for me, sometimes when a new character is introduced i need to stop for a few minutes in order to find the right match so the movie in my head can go on
Anonymous No.24850834 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
Yes, and that's why I won't watch "Ender's Game". I have my own idea of what the characters and scenes look like, and I don't want them ruined.
Anonymous No.24850847 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
Yeah, though more like I stand in the scene. But then I imagine the scene/characters as seems best to me, and the author later describes it differently, so I think the author is retarded.
Anonymous No.24851953 [Report] >>24851958 >>24852784 >>24856091
>>24847291
heres a photo of the 3rd time i worked with actual paint ever. entirely from imagination. dollar store materials. three pigments.
i have an inconsistent history of dabbling in visual art (sketching) if thats important. and the amount of times ive shown my work to normies for them to be speechless or in awe or tell me i should become a professional is more than id preferred to have encountered. shit is just a reminder that i ultimately dont have it in me to become a master one way or another.
Anonymous No.24851958 [Report] >>24854437
>>24851953
fucking filename doxxed me might as well link to other shit ive done in case anyones interested
https://www.deviantart.com/danemacdonald/gallery/all?order=newest
Anonymous No.24851960 [Report] >>24851994
fictional diseases everyone has:
- aphantasia
- dysthymia
- high-functioning autism
- tinnitus
Anonymous No.24851989 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
Of course I do, vividly. That's half the fun of reading a book. I feel bad for anyone who isn't at least a 2 on that scale.
Anonymous No.24851994 [Report]
>>24851960
I'm willing to believe everyone has tinnitus but certainly not no one, because I do have it.
Anonymous No.24852072 [Report]
I am rotating this thread in my head.
Anonymous No.24852075 [Report]
I've always been a visualizer, specially with books, but that's also why when I was a teenager I masturbated so much without porn, I just visualized sexual interactions with girls from high school or teachers.
Anonymous No.24852090 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
If it's an enjoyable book then yeah It helps with Imagining
Anonymous No.24852103 [Report] >>24852849 >>24853799
for me it's hyperphantasia and stage 5/6 prophantasia
Anonymous No.24852108 [Report] >>24852849
>>24842322 (OP)
This whole concept is ragebait btw
Anonymous No.24852504 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
Yeah, pretty much. Sometimes it will be tainted if I watched a show before or something, but even then I will imagine my own shit. For example, agot upon reading the characters appeared differently then in the show in my head. Even though I read it after watching the show.

Although common ideas of what a character looks like or scenes are things people can pog over upon an adaptation or discussion.

>>24843045
kek
Anonymous No.24852784 [Report] >>24852805
>>24851953
This is nice anon. What prevents you from training?

Without even doing the experiment I know I can't make something like picrel from imagination despite believing myself capable of simulative imagination between 1 and 2 (though even that's conditional, and I read with 5-3 at times). I copied from an image with this drawing but I also don't believe I can master an art skill. I couldn't commit to it.

One notable element to factor in the experiment would be the natural iteration artists do when something doesn't look right. You can experiment your way into something more accurate without having really rendered it 1:1 from imagination. Even in pen drawings like mine minor mistakes are easily rendered over.

I also entitled this "phiddipus audax drawing" but the chelicerae look too hairy, there is no "bold face" to characterize the spider here. I think I'm mistaken.
Anonymous No.24852790 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
yeah I visualize everything except how the characters look. I have problems with faces and people
Anonymous No.24852805 [Report] >>24852849
>>24852784
>What prevents you from training?
I'm a sex addict. Unironically.
Anonymous No.24852849 [Report] >>24853380
>>24852805
That's too bad. I looked through the deviantart and saw your room sketches. I focus too much on subjects and details to even try sketching a room. Do you have conscious insight into your process of rendering a room or is it instinct?

>>24852103
The images seem closer to what I've got in my head. 5 common phantasia, and between 1 and 2 prophantasia if I'm really focusing on a blank field (empty page, eyes closed, etc.). I have used it for practicing drawing straight lines and curves. But somehow I can have very vivid hypnagogic images (between 5 and 6 on that prophantasia scale).

For aphantasia people like >>24850398 and >>24850325 do you ever experience images in dreams?

>>24852108
wdym
Anonymous No.24853380 [Report] >>24853651 >>24854241
>>24852849
that was not me who said they were a sex addict lol.
those sketches were from over a year ago now i think. they are from trial and error of different methods. the living room took 15 minutes, kitchen took 30. just had to establish perspective. ive spent time using viewfinders, proportion measuring, pure eye measurement (this makes things take way longer and tends to a ton of erasing), dabbling in textbooks and free courses, looking at art, and even doodling. you could argue ive practiced more than the average person i suppose.
but id be kidding if how i draw them so well compared to others isnt yet a mystery to me. and this extends to proficiency in many other things like language, music, mathematics, philosophy. i dont know why i have higher capability, almost off the get go. so instinct is certainly a huge factor.
i do have bipolar disorder. i suspect its because i suffered around 5 concussions in my early childhood, on top of familial mental illness. i am extremely different compared to everyone in my family, on top of the majority of people i meet. i dropped out of highschool and can not manage to hold down a job. wish i could have confidence in doing something like going to university for something, but i know by now that that is not wise.
ive reached points where i couldnt justify the existence of talent. my argument would be people who are percieved as talented simply had more time, interest, and social investment than others up to that point. but more and more experiences adding up of peoples view on me about things i dont have this explanation justifying them lends itself to: there does exist a predisposition.
and it's entirely possible that i never understand why myself or anyone else is like this
Anonymous No.24853411 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
It’s not as vivid as a movie scene for me, it’s like a still image that I update based on new information.
Anonymous No.24853495 [Report] >>24853781
>>24842322 (OP)
I was 1 when I was younger, but now I'm like a 3.5.

>>24843052
I can't draw an accurate depiction of an actual apple sitting right in front of me so I don't know what this has to do with anything.
Anonymous No.24853517 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
Depends on the book. They’re not all equally evocative.
Anonymous No.24853651 [Report] >>24853710
>>24853380
huh?
Anonymous No.24853710 [Report] >>24854241
>>24853651
please understand bro
Anonymous No.24853781 [Report]
>>24853495
>I can't draw an accurate depiction of an actual apple sitting right in front of me
Thats bullshit. At most you will mess up the color
Anonymous No.24853799 [Report]
>>24852103
Prophantasia a literal hallucination?
Anonymous No.24854241 [Report] >>24854414
>>24853380
>>24853710
I can understand something about it rationally but not in its most essential, lived-in sense. Even though I've sometimes heard I have talent for things, when I examine myself and compare to what I believe are average people I conclude just about the opposite. Everything is an additional struggle and timesink for me to show similar capability. I used to expect more "talent" from myself and it has maybe destroyed any prospect for a normal life from repeated disappointment and increasing avoidance of everything.

I believe in "talent" from the other side of ability, in short. It's good that this conversation got you painting today.
Anonymous No.24854414 [Report]
>>24854241
yeah, we cant escape the attraction of the unknown. potential and talent are addicting ideas. people make livings off of speculations. just look at gambling, lol. i get where youre coming from, i just no longer feel entirely that way, that there is necessarily always an explicable reason for higher level stuff.
its a balance of acceptance and control. you give and you receive.
btw that painting was from may 2024 i havent done art in over a year.
thanks for entertaining my involvement in the thread.
Anonymous No.24854437 [Report]
>>24851958
You really oughta trim your toenails, Dane.
Anonymous No.24854490 [Report]
>>24843061
After a childhood of reading I can close my eyes and have a totally multi sensory experience, no need for VR headset

Also hypermnestic drugs can get you in this state (PRL-8-53, cholinergics)
Anonymous No.24856091 [Report]
>>24851953
you're more artist than I am, and that's by far. To me, you're pretty good. I wish I could get you to do cover art or illustrations. When I look at old paperback covers, there used to be a sort of watercolor style, I bet you could make a convincing late 60's style watercolor paperback cover.
Anonymous No.24856141 [Report]
>>24843045
I love this place
Anonymous No.24856282 [Report]
>>24842322 (OP)
Even for non-fiction I need at least some mental image to use as a sort of anchor. As in, I’m reading and reading and all of a sudden my mind comes back to an image it came up with that I associate with the book, and it keeps me going. I have this with music too. Listening to some songs years down the road now produces the same image of the same street it did when I first discovered that music. I might be on the spectrum or some shit but who gives a fuck, it’s helped me navigate so many forms of art and books.

Like for instance even if I read stuff like The Emerald Tablet, I needed to imagine Hermes and a type of setting in order to immerse myself and absorb what the fuck I was reading. I pictured him talking in this corridor that I knew was part of a pyramid or temple.

I think it was Jung that said we humans need mythology or personifications to assimilate information better. I see some of that in me adding this kinda layer to what I read, ultimately making sure it stays with me.