Hard to Imagine?

Post Reply New Topic

I know one of the questions on the aspergers quotient test is: 'do you find it hard to picture the characters when reading?' I always answer yes. I never have a complete image in my head, or I will have an image of someone I saw on tv.

So I'm just wondering who else experiences this. And I am interested to know how others think in pictures. If you feel that you predominantly think in pictures what exactly do you see in your minds eye?

Last edited by i_wanna_blue on 26 Feb 2009, 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I never really understood why they included that question on the test, i don't think anyone is able to imagine the entire person just by a little bit of description. a writer gives us the outline and a few defining features and we're meant to fill in the gaps, which is why i don't like masses of character/scenery description in books.

And as far as seening in pictures go I've always assumed everyone sees in pictures. how on earth is it possible to see in words. what do you assume people just see letters when they're imagining something-sort of like reading a book

Sorry i've even forgotten what the question was

Yes, it's very hard for me to imagine the characters in a story in terms of appearance. This is because my visio-spatial abilities are very bad (I'm an NLDer, not an Aspie).

I always get an image in my head when reading a book... But that image is often of someone who i either a kid, in late teens/early 20s... I don't really think about people in books being defined otherwise. My thoughts of what a character looks like is rarely accurate though...

I really only see in I guess movies? Most of the time it's all going so fast that it feels like I'm not thinking at all, but when I do think it is like when you die in a first person shooter video game and you get to move around... or like being the camera in a movie, but with the ability to go where you please as quickly as you like. I figure the characters I imagine in my " movie " are just compilations of previously scanned faces and styles that fit the description the best. Same with the environment... after I visit a place once I can describe it fairly perfectly minus useless details like numbers and names of things. It's like (counter-strike would be a good example) everywhere I go saves in my brain as a " map " file.

Of course, with that lovely ability comes a loathing of numbers and letters... it's like I have a calculator about half as good as the first electronic one ever created in my head. I usually just describe how to do equations and have a math dude figure the rest out... the term " lost in translation " comes to mind.

Well greentea I'm trying to understand more about NLD, coz it might be my problem instead of AS. What exactly is meant by visio-spacial abilities?

Characters in my stories are really just names, plot devices. It's the main criticism of my first story, as given by pretty much everyone who's read it.

I was told that the only description of any character in the whole story was when I needed to project onto others the gravity of the situation. By going into descriptive detail, my point was emphasised.

Also, I was told there was zero personality involved. My characters were not only virtually faceless, but were also faceless automatons.

Reading other's stories, I always struggle with building an image of characters. Build, attire etc are easy enough, but I guess really my view on characters in other stories is similar to others' views on mine. Can't 'see' them.

My newer story partially overcomes this. Many of my new story's characters have personalities that are pre-defined and confined to an unnecessary description. Just by using a word or two for each, I can sum up literally an entire personality, and the character is much more accessible. Such is the way with fantasy. Simple, yet fascinating, characters can exist.

The human race may yet be a problem, though.

((((hugs))))

~Loving Light~

Kinda. Good example - if I never saw a picture of Harry Potter it would be hard to imagine what he looked like.

I liked what I thought Harry Potter looked like better than what he did in the movies.

I_wanna_blue,

When we started learning Spatial Geometry at school (where you have to imagine 3D objects) I was surprised that I was a total zero at it, when I had always had the best marks at school before. Finding my way is often an ordeal too. Building models is something I can't do. Anything that includes having to visualize something in space is very hard or impossible for me.

^
I find those particular things difficult aswell. One thing I notice is that I am useless at trying to undersatnd directions. If someone doesn't draw out directions for me, I'm better off not hearing them in the first palce. I wonder if that is somehow related?

That's a really interesting idea. I think they are related, as they both involve spatial visualization. For myself, I've always been very good at visualizing things, both in terms of real-world concepts like geographical directions, as well as purely abstract things like picturing what is going on in a book.

The odd thing about my visual imagination is this: when it's on... it's really on. I can highly visualize all kinds of things... sometimes a bit too much. But then there are other times when it's almost like my imagination mechanism is turned off... like I'm just "dead" inside. I tend to fluctuate between these two extremes with no real discernable pattern.

It all depends on the skill of the author in describing the character.

I never really "got" Radcliffe as Potter - though the two are now representationally synonymous, but Alan Rickman does Snape EXACTLY how I would have drawn him from Rowling's text.

That said, unless I DO draw a character from the author's description, thereby coelescing the deined characteristics into a gestalt, I just don't visualize the characters at all.

Their surroundings and actions, yes, but their faces? No.