2-4% of people have Aphantasia (No visual imigery)

[stickygirl]

They'd have to be an AI datacenter!!!!!

Nah - you need Stephen Wiltshire

 

[TheNovelist2000]

Stephen Kind doesn't write erotica/porn.

But isn’t he one hell of a good writer?

 

[ElectricBlue]

But isn’t he one hell of a good writer?

I think someone had a typo on the last page. Who is Stephen Kind?

 

[YmaOHyd]

But isn’t he one hell of a good writer?

He is! And he has a style. Other people do things differently. Jacqueline Carey describes the way her characters dress and do their makeup for important meetings and assignations as if it's an arming scene in an epic, the hero strapping on their armor and picking up their weapons. Colleen McCullough's descriptions vary pretty significantly depending on who's doing the observing and why. Servilia is both observant and shallow and notices the way people look and dress. When she's in Pompey's head, though, well. Pompey pretty much only notices pretty women and himself. (I'll also say about Stephen King that while he might not spend a lot of time describing Carrie's appearance, he does give us a lot of words about Beverly Marsh's. Maybe he just likes redheads.)

I always kinda liked Lee Child's initial description of Roscoe in the first Reacher novel:

Her breasts rested on the edge of the table. This was a good-looking woman. Dark hair, great eyes.

And that's it.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

He is! And he has a style. Other people do things differently.

It depends on the type of story. If it's a cop drama, certainly we do not need to know the color of the detective's eyes or what kind of shirt he's wearing, but there are so many writers here who write porn fantasies, barely/never describe the main character, then use the lazy copout, "let the reader fill in the blank," and think, "well if Stephen King writes that way ...". Stephen King doesn't write porn. We're talking about stroke and borderline stroke here and no physical descriptions. All these stories with barely any or none at all emotions, just horny fantasies. If there is no emotion then it has to be about the bodies, yet, we have such lazy/poor physical descriptions, especially for the male characters.

 

[mirafrida]

There's a well validated self-test called the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire, and you can take a version of it online!

I've known I was aphantasic since this became a "thing." But a survey like this just leaves me sort of non-plussed.

Like - there are no images anywhere, ever, of anything. It's not a complicated concept requiring many questions.

If I close my eyes and think of something, I will see black. Within that black I can sort of physically place where stuff would be if there was an image. Like if I think of my dad, I can sort of think there would be an oval there for the face, and the glasses would go there, and the head would be balding, etc. I could think that he's wearing a particular shirt and know that its a vivid blue, perhaps "more blue" than some other shirt he owns. But nothing ever actually appears on the black canvas.

 

[stickygirl]

Her breasts rested on the edge of the table. This was a good-looking woman. Dark hair, great eyes.

This conjures a comical image in my mind: two wobbly boobs exchanging looks and wondering if they dare breath lest they fall to their doom into the unknown, untethered, undressed, underwired...

 

[TheNovelist2000]

He is! And he has a style. Other people do things differently. Jacqueline Carey describes the way her characters dress and do their makeup for important meetings and assignations as if it's an arming scene in an epic, the hero strapping on their armor and picking up their weapons. Colleen McCullough's descriptions vary pretty significantly depending on who's doing the observing and why. Servilia is both observant and shallow and notices the way people look and dress. When she's in Pompey's head, though, well. Pompey pretty much only notices pretty women and himself. (I'll also say about Stephen King that while he might not spend a lot of time describing Carrie's appearance, he does give us a lot of words about Beverly Marsh's. Maybe he just likes redheads.)

I always kinda liked Lee Child's initial description of Roscoe in the first Reacher novel:

And that's it.

Well, to be honest, I really love George R. R. Martin’s descriptions of castles and feasts, and of people too. But they are never gratuitous. They usually serve a purpose and help explain what the characters embody. I still think about the way Tywin Lannister was described in the chapter about the Battle on the Green Fork.

But then again, how many of us can actually relate to the swords and shields of Westeros, or instantly grasp military formations without them being described in detail?

And by the way, Stephen King’s initial description of Beverly Marsh as “an absolutely gorgeous redheaded girl” was more than enough for me. I already had a smoking-hot babe in my mind, only for that image to be ruined later by descriptions of clamdiggers and whatnot.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

It depends on the type of story. If it's a cop drama, certainly we do not need to know the color of the detective's eyes or what kind of shirt he's wearing, but there are so many writers here who write porn fantasies, barely/never describe the main character, then use the lazy copout, "let the reader fill in the blank," and think, "well if Stephen King writes that way ...". Stephen King doesn't write porn. We're talking about stroke and borderline stroke here and no physical descriptions. All these stories with barely any or none at all emotions, just horny fantasies. If there is no emotion then it has to be about the bodies, yet, we have such lazy/poor physical descriptions, especially for the male characters.

I always get bored when authors describe their characters in excessive detail, especially when they start listing body measurements. A woman with 38DD breasts, a 26-inch waist and long legs means nothing to me. Those numbers don’t create a person. But if you tell me she is the kind of girl you might find in a college class, someone who wears baggy clothes to hide her well-blessed chest from jealous friends, I instantly get her. I can see her. I understand her.

 

[OddLove]

I always get bored when authors describe their characters in excessive detail, especially when they start listing body measurements. A woman with 38DD breasts, a 26-inch waist and long legs means nothing to me. Those numbers don’t create a person. But if you tell me she is the kind of girl you might find in a college class, someone who wears baggy clothes to hide her well-blessed chest from jealous friends, I instantly get her. I can see her. I understand her.

Same.

Not sure if I agree for the same exact reason though. My reason is that, for me, good erotica is just good romance with the sex uncensored.

Even that short description summary of the college student you wrote gave me more depth and understanding into that character then a 10k word document full of their physical descriptors ever could provide me. If you removed your short description of that character, then instead descripted that characters breast, waist, height, hair color, hair style, finger nails, private areas, skin tone, lips, nose, eye shape, eye color, ears, eyebrows, chin, every piece of clothing, and the same details for every person that person had sex with, I'd still know your character Way Less compared to the information you provided in your one sentence description you wrote.

But I'll still admit, due to aphantasia, I might just be incapable of enjoying more porn-style erotica that leans on strong appearance-based details, cause those details all clumped into a big boring word document in my brain.

 

[AG31]

yet, we have such lazy/poor physical descriptions, especially for the male characters.

Worthy of it's own thread, I'd say.

 

[TheOtherTeacher]

Sorry to resurrect this, but I just need to rant.

I've started to get to know a new lady. Very early days yet, but I'm sure there's a mutual vibe there.

Anyway, I'm at that early stage where you keep thinking about the person.

I keep thinking about her, but I wish I could remember what she looks like!

I got her WhatsApp contact today. Her profile picture is not her face!! (It's her in the distance with a sunset kinda thing)

How can my mind be focused on a person without knowing what they look like!!!

 

[AG31]

Sorry to resurrect this, but I just need to rant.

How can my mind be focused on a person without knowing what they look like!!!

Don't be sorry. I find this endlessly fascinating.

I don't know what I look like. True, I recognize myself in pictures. I know my face isn't round or heavily freckled and I know my hair is short and wavy. But I do think about myself quite a lot...

 

[PennyThompson]

Sorry to resurrect this, but I just need to rant.

I've started to get to know a new lady. Very early days yet, but I'm sure there's a mutual vibe there.

Anyway, I'm at that early stage where you keep thinking about the person.

I keep thinking about her, but I wish I could remember what she looks like!

I got her WhatsApp contact today. Her profile picture is not her face!! (It's her in the distance with a sunset kinda thing)

How can my mind be focused on a person without knowing what they look like!!!

Someone's appearance is usually far from the most interesting thing about them, unless they're either unbelievably dull or exceptionally unique-looking

 

[NuclearFairy]

Someone's appearance is usually far from the most interesting thing about them, unless they're either unbelievably dull or exceptionally unique-looking

I get an instantly clear picture when thinking of myself. Mirror streaks and all.

Although, yeah I don't think about my own appearance often unless prompted.