Published on 12, July, 2020
Hey all, I'm interested around the fact that its apparently difficult for those on the spectrum to image how characters in novels look like.
Does anyone on here struggle with this? If so, why?
Personally speaking in my case, the characters in books I read usually take the form of people in real life. A lot of this comes from actors in TV shows and films, but even people in my life can take the form of a character in my mind at times. I'm not sure if that can be considered an imaginary deficit, but I have no idea how neurotypical people can imagine entirely new human faces if that apparently is the case.
Not being able to imagine is called aphantasia and it is something some but not all people on the spectrum have. Some of us have the opposite, a very strong and active imagination. Some book characters I can picture quite clearly and others are rather vague. I think some of it depends on how well the author describes. I don't think I'm bothered by the vague ones though, as i am more interested in the story.
I read that it is better if the main character is not described too thoroughly so more readers can relate to them and more easily see themselves in that role.
There is a distinction between being able to picture something real from visual memory and being able to use creative imagination to visualise a fictional character.
Aphantasia is actually not being able to think in pictures at all. There is a definition at https://aphantasia.com/what-is-aphantasia/
"Aphantasia is the inability to visualize. Otherwise known as image-free thinking.
People with aphantasia don’t create any pictures of familiar objects, people, or places in their mind’s eye. Not for thoughts, memories, or images of the future."
I don't have aphantasia, since I am able to see in my mind's eye images of actual people and places.
What I do struggle with however is creative imagination.
For the question in the op I am not able to imagine a fictional character solely on a written description. Anything I do visualise has to be based on something that I have actually seen, even if just in an illustration from the book.
Yes exactly! I do not understand why anyone would prefer to be wrong and either spread their error or appear stupid depending on whether the other people they told knew the truth or not. True information is valuable and should be shared and spread, false info needs to be weeded out. This does not work when people don't like being corrected!
Of course some things are subjective, like which music one prefers. I might feel very strongly that vinegar smells vile and needs to be nowhere near my nose, but it is not wrong for someone to like it as long as they aren't making me smell it! But they would be wrong if they called it citric acid.
People are weird!
AuTriker said:Oh that's interesting, thank you for correcting my error (not sarcasm, I genuinely prefer to be corrected if wrong) and increasing my knowledge.
This is why I am so much more comfortable on here. I genuinely prefer that too. In my mind it's much better to correct something than have misinformation perpetuated and shared.
I've no idea why correcting something might elicit a sarcastic response in some people. I suspect I've had a few sarcastic responses in the past, that have gone completely over my head!
Oh that's interesting, thank you for correcting my error (not sarcasm, I genuinely prefer to be corrected if wrong) and increasing my knowledge. As this is not something I have at all I was unaware of the nuance. I can't quite imagine not being able to imagine (I like the irony there). Our spectrum is fascinating in its variety!