Faceless Baudelaire Children

[jackson]

Hello neighbors.

This is a bit of a survey, and something that's been bothering me for a while. When you read, to what extent can you visualize the story in your head? Does the clarity depend on how much sensory information the author provides?

More generally, to what extent can you visualize something on demand? I suspect this is an ability most authors, illustrators, and directors possess, especially those who excel at setting (Erin Morgenstern's The Night Circus) and photorealism(?) (violetbunfortunate).

Personally, if I try to imagine the shore of Briny Beach or the Baudelaire children, I get vague, shadowy impressions of shape and color. I think to compensate my brain uses words to flesh out the details. For example, a honey jar. I'm imagining a narrow, amber bottle that tapers to a cork with a label saturated with honey thumbprints, but I can't see anything more than the outline of the bottle. If I press my brain for more detail I just get more words.

So: Faceless Baudelaire children. Yay or nay?

This deficit is part of the reason I'm so grateful for the Netflix adaptation of ASoUE. It was surreal to see its world and people for the first time, executed with the same feelings I got from the words. I'm a bit desperate to visit Stain'd-by-the-Sea now.

*cat catack catastrophist ack huck*

Excuse me, I choked on my tea a bit.

[Violent BUN Fortuna]

Oh this is actually something I find really interesting!

So personally I can picture anything I want on demand, in high detail, and when I'm reading ASOUE or any other book, I visualise the settings, the characters, everything. If the author hasn't described something in specifics I tend to just fill it in myself but of course it morphs and changes if later on extra-description is given. When you described the honey jar, I saw all that detail you mentioned. It's a very clear image in my mind. 

So when I picture Briny Beach, I have a very clear vision of a misty beach with looming shapes of rocks and dull, wet looking sand and grey water lapping against the shore. And when I picture the Baudelaires, I have my own distinct pictures of their faces in my head. Not that it always translates perfectly to the page, by any means; sometimes things get lost along the way. But generaly things come out close to how I imagined them. 

For years I thought everyone must picture things like this, but my dad always insisted he can't visualise anything in his mind; if you asked him to picture a sheep, he would say he thinks of 'the concept' of a sheep, rather than actually visualising one. I never really understood it and he didn't understand how I could just picture something in my head with no reference, like a dragon or something. And then we discovered that not being able to visualise anything is called 'aphantasia', while being able to picture anything in hyper-realistic detail at a whim is 'hyperphantasia', and there's a whole range in between, which it sounds like you fall into. It's really fascinating. There's a little article about it here, but it doesn't provide that much information, just basically saying 'this is a thing that exists': www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34039054

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

My imagination is hard to understand... When the story is engaging, at some point the characters are already very much alive in my mind, and I don't know if they have a face or not. But stopping to think now.... I think I see the story in first person, like in a first person game. I imagine myself as the characters, not as if I'm watching a story about them. I think that's why I identify with TBL and LSTUA. Even Sally Sebald is someone important to me, not because I see her, but because I can feel how she feels.

[R.]

It really depends. I could describe any ASOUE or ATWQ character in enormous detail in words, but find having a visual picture very hard. I can also do what Optimism is my Phil-osophy does, seeing stories through a character’s eyes, but only with certain characters. When I read ATWQ, I can see, hear and feel everything through Moxie’s POV if I so desire, but cannot do the same with Ellington, for instance.

[jackson]

Thank you so much for the replies, everyone. I was not expecting such varied experiences.

[Source] Violent BUN Fortuna said:

So personally I can picture anything I want on demand, in high detail [...]. When you described the honey jar, I saw all that detail you mentioned. [...] So when I picture Briny Beach, I have a very clear vision of a misty beach with looming shapes of rocks and dull, wet looking sand and grey water lapping against the shore.

Wow I'm floored. Thank you for such a thorough reply. I don't have anything intelligent to say except that this is an unbelievably cool talent. I hope future technology allows me to attach myself to the brain of a consenting artist.

[Source] Optimism is my Phil-osophy said:

My imagination is hard to understand... When the story is engaging, at some point the characters are already very much alive in my mind, and I don't know if they have a face or not.

I've found it surprisingly difficult to articulate the experience of reading, or even to understand it, as you said. I was expecting people to fall on single dimension with the extremes being "seeing things" and "not seeing things", but you, Semblance, and Roxy report experiencing the story through the eyes characters you identify with. I hadn't even considered perspective.

[Source] R. said:

I could describe any ASOUE or ATWQ character in enormous detail in words, but find having a visual picture very hard. I can also do what Optimism is my Phil-osophy does, seeing stories through a character’s eyes, but only with certain characters.

This is like a hybrid of my experience and Jean's.

[Source] Semboolance said:

When reading ATWQ I pretty much pictured myself as Lemony Snicket [...].

You're amazing.