I don’t get why people are so obsessed with this rn. I feel like writing , and even descriptive language, can be evocative and “paint a picture” through word association and rhythm, regardless of how well someone can visualize in their heads.
For example, let’s describe a tree. If you describe the tree branches as looking like withered bone-like fingers, you dont have to be able to visualize that in your head to understand that the author wants this to convey a creepy, decrepit setting. The word choice of “withered” and “bone” reveal something about the setting tonally. Its inherently evocative via vocabulary. Word association can stir emotion. A tree that “droops” implies heaviness, weariness, struggle. Something “standing tall” implies confidence, strength, defiance. You don’t have to see the tree crisp and clear in your head to be affected, word nuance is enough.
For what it is worth, i don’t think i have aphantasia. I don’t see movies in my head (more like fuzzy impressions) but i also am able to visualize well enough to rotate shapes in my head in 3d (which served me well when doing a physics degree). I read mostly “literary” fiction or sci fi. i am pretty good at art and enjoy animated tv and movies because i adore the artistry. I used to read lots of comics. I don’t like to approach books the way i approach movies or tv. Draw whatever conclusions you want.
I also feel like people are being generous with the definition of aphantasia; I feel like not being able to play a movie in your brain is not the clinical definition of the term.
Sorry if this is testy, i feel like im replying to this post and a dozen previous posts referencing aphantasia. But trying to guess at the cause of reading preferences is always fun. I hope you get some good discussion
That is fair! And really i think today i am grumpy and you’re a target of it, i apologize.
I guess I’m not sure how much mind-visualization has to do with genre preference. I mean, graphic novels and comics are popular among artists, so you might think mental-visualization is well represented there. But then you have your husband, who you say doesnt visualize well. And there are even many artists who admit to not seeing well in their own mind.
I am fairly visual and see OK in my own head but i think i still really enjoy works that feel very “intetnal” because i think thats where the strength of books/prose is: getting into someone elses head, or shoes, and connecting intimately with the character and author. or at least thats what my favourite strength of books is! But i am sure there are people with equivalent mental imaging abilities to me to have very different ideas of what they like in books.
I also do really care about environment in books, but it is more because i am interested in how people interact with and are affected by their environment than… the general aesthetic of it, i guess? I love a harsh cold environment especially lol (… why yes I did grow up in a northern climate )