1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
I hate descriptions, and I have a really hard time when there's more than a paragraph focusing on descriptions of what things look like.
Other than that it's fine, though I sometimes have to trace back because I often skip parts that look description-y and some authors like to slip in some piece of crucial information.
I don't actively hate descriptions, but I used to just skim them. Now I sometimes slow down for descriptions if I think they might bring additional meaning or context. But then sometimes when it gets to be too much work, I'll go back to just skipping over them again lol
I don't have aphantasia but I still skip over descriptions. It just doesn't really add anything for me. Much more interested in dialogue and actions
Does it not bother you that you don't catch what things look like as you read? If you're skipping description, of say, a lake, do you just... Assume it looks like a lake you've seen in the past? What if the description plays heavy into the plot, like the water is, idk, yellow and boiling. That doesn't matter to you?
I scan over the descriptions to check for irregularities or significant identifiers. So your yellow lake would be noteworthy to me or if a person is described with long hair. I don't mentally imagine a long hair person, but I try to remember it, so if later somebody sees a long haired person in the distance I know which character is referenced.
And yes if I don't recognise anything noteworthy, I don't make a mental note, it's just a normal lake, nothing important to remember.
But that isn't always working out for me. In Neverwhere the Marquis de Carabas is described as being pitch black. Which I fully didn't get and so was wondering why all the fan art made him so black that you can't recognise features. Because that was how he was described and I missed that important fact.
I've always been a huge reader, and a fast one. Í wonder if visualizing what you read slows people down.
I also have trouble recognizing faces (mild/moderate prosopagnosia), and it's easier to recognize a name in a book than a face in a movie.
Í wonder if visualizing what you read slows people down.
Not really, I can read very fast too and also visualize it at the same time, like full blown movie. I think it's more indicative of information processing abilities in general: I can generally keep up watching lectures at 3x speed and notice things on screen almost instantly too.
I'm super efficient at filtering information too: I'll look at a paragraph in some documentation and immediately see "If you're in X special case, then..." at the 5th sentence in the middle of the paragraph when skimming through documentation. Or of course skipping details I don't care about.
I have exactly this problem. It's also very difficult when watching a movie adaptation of a book I've read, to associate the character from the book with the actor in the movie. When I read, they're just a name.
I wonder if visualizing what you read slows people down.
Yes, especially when the author probably got their inspiration during an LSD trip.
For those of us who don’t know what it means: “is the inability to voluntarily visualize mental images”
Basically if someone said “think of a nice round juicy red apple” people with the condition wouldn’t be able to imagine it in their mind.
I'm in my 40s and learned about this just a few years ago. Never affected my reading of different genres. I guess I didn't know any different! It did help me understand why I don't have the great memories of childhood things like my close-in-age sister does. I have always relied on her for details.
I know what the condition is but the condition is still fascinating to me.
I hadn't followed this when apparently it became a topic of interest on Reddit.
Apparently people sit on a spectrum, where they can envision less color and detail, where people with aphantasia cannot envision anything.
Also, interestingly-enough, this is apparently not tied to the ability to envision things in dreams.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Aphantasia/comments/g69hc0/dreams_in_color/
I dream very vividly, in full colour, but am a total aphant.
That's fascinating. I can envision things voluntarily, if perhaps not as vividly as in real life---it's not on par with looking at a fully-detailed scene, but I can certainly do color. On the other hand, my dreams have always been on the border with being unable to visualize at all. Maybe there's a hint of color, but everything is normally desaturated, and things are transient and vague.
Huh.
May be the wrong thread for this, but isn't it really common for people to not even know that have aphantasia?
I'm imagining the whole community from The Giver, where people didn't know that they
This book's so old I don't know if it's worth spoiler-warning for
Couldn't see colors
and they didn't even realize.
It wasn't officially discovered until 2005. A doctor(Adam Zeman) had a patient who lost their visual imagination and wrote a paper about it. It turns out that aphants are overrepresented in the medical and engineering communities, so a bunch of doctors wrote back, having just realized that a lack of visualization is not normal. Then, he finally published a paper on it in 2015.
That's a great reference.
Yep, I always thought "imagining" something was really just an euphemism for thinking about it.
I do "see" inner images but they're blurry, flashing and I can't directly control them. So when I read I mostly focus on the text and faintly in the background there's a "school fight recorded by hyperactive kid" version of the plot going on.
This is probably the most relatable one I've seen so far
Another great analogy are those comically quick cuts in Bollywood dramas where they mix slo-mo, sped up shots, random super closeups, the same shot over and over and whatever else until you can barely make out what's even going on
Both of your descriptions match closely with how I internally visualize. Never bothers me until I try hard to follow a visual description
Does your sense of direction also suck? Because it really does for me and I've always suspected a connection. I still get lost in my hometown from time to time despite living there for 9 years now.
My sense of direction is usually pretty good. If I'm distracted I'll get turned around fairly easily but it's not hard for me to figure out where I accidentally went.
I didn't realize I had it until well into adulthood and I've always enjoyed reading. Even the extensive description still has meaning I just don't see it.
"I can't read books that are realistic fiction. I can't do anything that's got like crazy world building because I can't perceive it and I have a hard time." -my sister
I don't have it personally, but we both have tism and so here's a talk we had while driving.
me: *takes wrong turn*
sister: "when I need to know my left and rights and cant do the hand thing, I remember 'never eat soggy waffles' because I can remember East is Right and Left is West."
me: "wh.. what?? why? why can't you just do the right and left in your head?"
sister: "girl how"
me: "I just imagine it?"
sister: "MUST BE NICE,, HUH?!"
if someone wants I can ask her in more detail later, she's busy with something rn
Dated a girl for a while that had corresponding R & L tattooed on the topside base of her thumbs.
That way when she was driving and people said go left, go right, she wouldn’t have to ask which way that was.
When I was with her I’d have to say things like the turn is on your side, take a my side.
It was different.
I taught children's martial arts for a long time, and the best way to teach the younger ones is to face them and do the thing on the opposite side. I had to, for many years say stuff like: "step out with your RIGHT foot" while simultaneously stepping with my left,
Let me tell you, the number of wrong turns I take when someone is giving directions is so embarrassing. I have to really concentrate and like... feel which hand is my right hand.
my grandma once said if I get one of those tattoos I would never get a job and live in a cardboard box because nobody would hire someone who can't know their rights and lefts 🥀
She also said I'm infected by the devil because I love my gay dad
she also hasn't even gone to church in 4 years because the pastor told her to not be racist.
Your grandma had a lot to say.
Those three points are a lot to unpack.
Well she was the first time I’d encountered that personally. While it was different and directions-wise I had to train myself how to convey meaning, you’ll be pleased to know I never gave her shit for it.
Funny thing I recently discovered, aphantasia has many traits in common with autism, which is kinda fascinating.
For the longest time I thought I have some weird form of autism because way too many things fit the description, but some of the crucial details didn't fit me.
Then I discovered that research and suddenly I knew why.
I have aphantasia but love reading, even really descriptive passages. I don’t ‘see’ but I “feel” words, I think, if that makes any sense. Like, if I read a description of a steaming mug of coffee, I’ll feel the rising steam on my face, feel how it smells, feel the heaviness of the mug in my hand, etc. It’s a lot more vivid in a way than when I watch tv since that’s all visual and auditory.
I remember this poster in a library with a well, and the surface is an empty field of grass, and that part of the poster said "movies". The bottom of the well was like a hideout, with all sorts of whimsical detail, which said "books".
Needless to say, I did not get it.
Not total aphantasia, but mostly. I'd describe it as almost cartoonish, but more in the sense of the non-visual concept I associate with the image being described as being heavily exaggerated, more than any visual intensity. I get maybe brief glimpses of visualization before it dissolves into concept.
I know what the scene described looks like, and I know the associated elements well enough to be familiar with their properties and possible relevance to the story. As far as descriptions serve the telling of the story, I don't really think I'm missing out on much.
For visual media I tend to prefer animation and comic books, though I think that's unrelated to aphantasia, I'm probably a tad autistic. I appreciate every frame being intentional, and always get caught in a loop of uncertainty with live action; was that expression intentional or is the actor just hammy?
Yknow somehow I had a great time reading. Written word is the most reliable way to stabilize visuals in my mind, which is why I've taken to writing as a creative outlet as well.
Its been so long since I've genuinely read anything but I think thats the closest I ever got to actually visualizing something. Described well enough and my mind can really conjure up an image for once.
Its why I tend to like slow and detailed scenes. I can spend a lot of time writing a scene that only lasts eight minutes
Quoting my partner that has it: "Comic books are cool for that. I love books. I tend to gloss over heavy descriptions of place settings, I don't spend a lot of time trying to picture it so I prefer books with dialogue. Watching a show before reading the books does help though. (Like we did with The Expanse.)"
They also mentioned that Red Rising action scenes are ridiculously descriptive and they typically skim those sections to find out who hits whom.
Not sure that I can really compare it to how I would be without aphantasia since, of course, it is all I have ever known, but I do stll enjoy reading. Like other people are saying, I don't tend to concern myself with visual descriptions
This carries over to my TTRPG gameplay. I rarely ever actually describe what anyone looks like beyond the absolutely vaguest of descriptions (i.e. a heavily-built man, getting on years), which I didn't notice until a player pointed it out to me. I mostly go by mannerisms, which I suppose is an aspect of appearance
I am still quite good at building mental maps of locations and can do all the classic "rotate a shape" kind of stuff. I can't visualise it, but I can figure it out. I guess I'm mentally storing it in another format. Possibly related to that, one of the few types of illustration I do particularly enjoy getting in a book is a map
My dad has aphantasia and he describes something similar, but it doesn't make sense to me when he says it either. When i ask how he knows how to get somewhere he says he "thinks in vectors". But i don't understand how that's different than visualizing
To me it seems like the difference between having a written description of something vs an image of it. I can describe to you a square, 10 centimetres on each side, drawn with black ink in the centre of a sheet of white A4 printer paper. I could also show you a photo of that square. In both cases the information is conveyed, but only one of them involved an image
When I'm navigating I basically always do it by landmarks and turns, which is probably not unusual. I can use relationships of "this street goes west until it meets that street" without having to picture a map. The shape and length of that street don't really matter for the sake of getting somewhere, only what it connects to
I prefer books that don't waste too many sentences describing things that have no relevance, but I can still enjoy a good story.
A great deal, I'd ~~imagine.~~ I can conceptualize.
I have Total Aphantasia, and zero sense memory at all. I do have an "inner monologue" of sorts. I can't "hear" it in my head, but I understand all the same. I don't know how to explain with words and I don't know how I work either, really. My outer and inner voice are the same thing to me and I have full control over it., often transitioning back and forth when I'm alone. As in, no racing thoughts. One of the ideas behind meditation where you try to silence your mind? I don't have to try. It's not something that takes effort for me. I bring this up because this is how I'm reading books, with that silent inner voice. One of my friends is like me with Total Aphantasia, but he has no inner monologue either. Which is bonkers to me. I don't get it, neither does he! Haha. Many different kinds of human minds out there, it's not so simple.
Hard to miss what I've never experienced, I still enjoy thinking about these fictional worlds even if I can't conjure up a representation of what is written in my mind.
I read every genre. It's actually specific writing styles I lean towards. If the author is really detailed with describing environment constantly, I appreciate that. I can't really "fill in the blanks" so to speak. I also really like it heavy on the internal monologue side of things with main characters. I think that's why I liked Ender's Game so much when I was a kid.
I do prefer any visual media. I save all my book and research reading for when I'm at work these days, which is a lot of time actually. One of them hurry up and wait jobs. Books are far better when it comes to potentially constant interruptions.
Details in books and written media as a list, not a series of images. Loved reading as a kid, dropped off when I spent more time doing other things, like cpmouter gaming.
The upside is that witthout a mental picture of characters any close enough visual take on the character will work for me. I also have ADHD so small details are likely forgotten and only the prominent ones that the character is defined by are going to be weird if mkssed.
For example when I heard Idris Elba was going to be cast as Roland in The Dark Tower it was a big positive because he seemed like someone that would be able to oull off the personality of the character and I was only concerned about whether they would do a good job with the missing fingers or drop it entirely as missing fingers was a big part of Roland's character for me. Yeah I know there was something involving race in the books, but that plotline was something that didn't seem to be necessary to carry over into a movie.
Of course the movie ended up being a pile of trash, but is a good example of how I focus more on how the character acts than how they look.
Same with a lot of science, swords, and other objects where I really don't have a mental image so a lot of sets work as long as they have the things or the general feel.
It was different for me, King mentioned his blue eyes so many times that I couldn't imagine Idris as playing him.
I really enjoy reading, but I can't picture a scene, or what characters look like. It can be a bit confusing at times, but doesn't usually take away from the enjoyment.
As an example, my favourite sci fi author Randolph Lalonde (great independent author, buy his books 👍) had a scene in a recent book where some characters had a shootout in a warehouse that held several spaceships. The ships were all at least a few metres long, so the warehouse was huge. In my head, everything was centred on a small area around the characters, and I could sort of picture them being within a few feet of each other.
I couldn't picture any details, it was as if he had written that 'the man stood near the woman, and pointed the gun towards the crates', even though the scene was well written with good descriptions. My brain couldn't translate the description into a layout in my head.
I still really enjoyed the scene, but every now and then it was as if my brain realised that things should be further apart, or one character should be taller than another, for example.
Didn’t have it for most of my life, but briefly had it, along with some memory issues. It made understanding what I was reading nigh on impossible. Any lengthy descriptions fell through my memory near instantly, as I had no practice in maintaining a purely conceptual memory of a piece of writing. On reflection, I’m terribly impressed with those who manage to deal with the absence of an audiovisual imagination to compress information.
I don't have aphantasia and I don't particularly fancy any medium over the other, but what I often miss is sound. Music is a whole different language to either visual or conceptual as conveyed by words, whereas imagery to me feels the most direct and laziest, music can convey feelings there are neither words nor imagery for, and so often I like adaptations of written works for injecting some fitting music, and will listen to fitting music as I read books.
Time spend on video medium is like 1000x more than reading.
I rarely read books, by rarely I mean I just skim all school reading materials, and only pick up random books lying around at home (that were given out for free by the public library) to read when my electronics were broken/consfiscated by parents.
I read a lot of news and wikipedia aricles tho, those are somehow just more fun than a book.
There are some adapted works that I've seen the adaptation of, but still haven't read the source materials yet. I kinda just read the wikis to check any differences between the 2 mediums... 🤷♂️
Recently, I came across some interesting works of fiction that didn't have an adaptation in a video medium, so I reluctantly started reading. Recursion was a fun read with the audiobook playing in background at 1.2x speed.
When I read, I usually use the sterotypical portrayal of that character's archetype from other visual mediums to like fill in the character model and use similar scenes from visual media to paint the room and atmosphere.
I have like a "level 3" on the aphantasia scale, so like I could just barely paint the scenary.
If I do my own worldbuilding and my own story, I can sort of see the world slightly mroe clearly, like a "level 2" on the apantasia scale.
Kinda echoing other comments in here, to say that lengthy segments where the author is describing the appearance of something can be rather annoying to me. I can't see it. No matter how many flowery words you use, I can't see it. I know what it is that you're describing, I already got a good-enough understanding with the first few sentences. But I can't see it. Please, please just move on to the actual story.
I really wanted to get into Stephen King's Dark Tower series. I made it to the point in the first book where two characters spend an extended amount of time in a pitch black tunnel. Oh. My. Fucking. God. I can only take so many pages of "Boy it sure is dark in here" before I lose my patience. I've started that book at least 5 times, and could never manage to make it past that section because it's just so infuriating to read. It's almost like the book is mocking me, as if to say "Hah hah, get a load of this goober, can't even see the darkness!"
I don't blame authors for this, though. It's not their responsibility to cater their art to my neurodivergence. It's just a minor frustration I've learned to live with. But it's also part of the reason why I don't read much for leisure. I think this is why I'm generally more tolerant of films that aren't as good as the books they're adapted from, because the alternative is that I'll likely otherwise never experience the story at all, so I'll take what I can get.