Aphantasia – versus, visualising your story with your ‘minds eye’.

[Bramblethorn]

So far, so interesting.

I've also wondered why the POV a story is written in, matters to readers. Readers talk about being ‘drawn in’. In the thread on second-person POV, posters said that they didn’t like being told what they thought, etc. When I read, whether a story’s written in first, second, or third-person, the I, You, or He/She is always a third person to me. I only get 'drawn in' to the extent I’d be drawn in by interesting reportage in a newspaper of record.

As a reader, I'm generally not looking to identify myself with the protagonist, just to get close enough to them that I'm interested in their experiences. (It's rare for me to see a fictional character who I'd identify with, and not necessarily enjoyable when I do.)

For that, I don't find much difference between first person and third person close POV. But when writing, I find some things easier to express in first person vs. others in third person close.

 

[stickygirl]

We may or may not have a seamless construction in our imagination, the question then becomes how much of that we lend to our readers so they can create their own imaginary room or person. That's an aspect I find intriguing and where feedback can be so fascinating because a reader can have a very different experience to the one you'd planned.

I think I create as much detail as I need in surroundings, but my characters spring fully formed into my mind, eager to have their say and guide the story.

How we perceive the world, how we learn, how we imagine and dream: all so different. The older I get the more fascinating I find people and their minds.

 

[mirafrida]

As far as I can tell I have this aphantasia, but I still think of myself as "visualizing" scenes. Like the author of the article linked said, you find workarounds- you can remember or guess how a scene would affect you, even if you don't "see" it. You can think how a situation might be treated in a movie and in a novel, even if you can't "see" it. And yes, if I'm struggling with something, I will sometimes go looking for a picture that will help on Google Images...

 

[ElectricBlue]

Think of it in reverse. Suppose you were Aphantasic and you heard people give these vivid descriptions of their mind's eye - and you know people are given to grand exaggeration - might that not be the simplest explanation - apply Occam's Razor.

That doesn't follow. In it's most simplistic, Occam's Razor sense, that means you are calling us all liars. Think about that for a moment.

I cannot imagine the thought process of someone who cannot visualise, but I don't doubt it.

 

[Defluer]

I knew from like 14 or 15 that people didn't drink up books like I did. I'm the only one in my family to read for fun, like all the way from one end of the extended family tree on one side to the other, so already there was that huge difference. Then came that my friends said "X actor looks exactly like I imagined!" And that was another eye opener, because I don't see faces. I see the general shape and descriptions of the characters but otherwise they're just... Emotionally there I guess. When people do/did "Dream Casting" of books and comics, I enjoyed that because then I could backwards associate that actor with the character. Roland Deschain is a combo of Clint Eastwood and Javier Bardem because I read a couple of Dream Casting articles about the former being King's basis and the latter the article authors choice.

I see places super vividly. But also it's... the feeling, smell, and everything that is more there. Almost never based on anything real. Like my story "Magical Night in the Sky Bus" I can see the outside of that old bus, the inside before and after the magical happens. As the author I'm slightly creeped out by the old of it, the dirt and mildew and all of that that the characters didn't sense or care about. I just wrote some about about the Main Character talking to strangers at a party in a bedroom. I can feel the room vividly. The bed is simple, the walls and carpet have seen better days, and I know where the people are, how they were lounging or standing. There is art on the walls, probably just posters, but I don't know what. If it became relevant I'd fill that in, to give clues on the character whose bedroom it was. But I don't even know who that person is, the owner of the room isn't in the room talking to the MC, so the posters and that character don't matter.

Characters are mostly emotions to me, the MC's feelings on the person, my own, and what I know or what evolves of that character. I've said it before but I get my "Physical" description of women (Because they're the most important to describe in a sex story as far as I'm concerned.) from pictures I've found around the internet. It is basically me "Dream Casting" my own stories. I get naked ones so I can describe the naked bits too but I stray from that as the character and that picture are not always and forever perfectly aligned. I guess it's like the lady in the picture is an actor in my story, the character might have a scar, might have no tattoos, and that gets taken away or placed by my mental make-up department.

I dream every night. I dream even as I'm falling asleep. It's rare but I lucid dream as well. I also have had night terrors, that were only really terrible the first couple times it happened. So if there is a scientist out there tracking all our answers, they can have that added bit of information.

 

[Defluer]

That doesn't follow. In it's most simplistic, Occam's Razor sense, that means you are calling us all liars. Think about that for a moment.

I cannot imagine the thought process of someone who cannot visualize, but I don't doubt it.

I totally agree. The evidence is all around us that people's brains work differently.

People can not only figure out math, love to do it, but find a beauty in it. My dumb o' brain doesn't! But I have zero doubt that they aren't lying when the say they love math.

People paint or sculpt. They see something and are able to put it there, over the course of hours, days, or months! The focus and clarity of that is astounding and... Undoubtable.

Musicians! I can barely fathom playing music, following sheet music of something created. Or maybe I see that but to be able to do it together with a band or orchestra? Wow! Then you get to somebody who not only writes music but does it for different instruments? WTF?

The OP's interpretation of Occam's Razor, or if I was the aforementioned doubting Aphantisic, I would say that everyone hates math and struggles at figuring it out, because I do and most everyone else I know struggles/hates math. That people don't paint anything but walls and once upon a time D&D minis, because that's all I've done and the only thing my friends have ever painted. Nobody makes music, we only listen to it. But... then again I am not an aphantisic. So it's easy for me to imagine... Everything.

 

[PennameWombat]

I recall reading Vladimir Nabokov, who had an intensely developed sense for words and images, say that music meant almost nothing to him. He could not appreciate a concert because the music was just sounds to him and he would focus instead on what the musicians were doing visually on stage. We're all wired differently. I would think it would be a huge challenge to write without the ability to visualize.

I have a character in a WIP that cannot grok music or singing. She can sense the regularity of the sounds, but not understand or appreciate it. The words are words, she hears and understands them if they’re in a language she speaks but that’s it.

I don’t lack the ability to visualize, but I have an utter inability to remember eyes. IRL, everyone’s eyes in my memory are like cartoon eyes, just empty. Which might be why many of my stories go out of their way to highlight eye shapes and colors. I have a very limited sense of smell, so it’s something else I have to make conscious effort to use in my stories.

I don’t visualize characters or even scenes in great detail when I read. I just need them to ‘make sense.’ A work I beta read some years back had a computer programmer type doing rather extreme feats of physical strength and fighting ability. Given I knew me and most of my coworkers, I told the author he made no sense to me. The author agreed and added bits of backstory of the man’s past as a college football linebacker, wrestler and amateur boxer, who’d blown a knee but had a sideline as a personal trainer. A work I’m reading now had, early on, mentioned the FMC was ‘small’ and sometimes annoyed about ’always looking up at people.’ Then, the author dropped a line “with her height of five feet and six inches…” WAIT. The average for American women is five-four. So… she’s not ‘small.’

My own stories range from rather detailed descriptions of characters through not much more than outlines because I know readers aren’t all like me. But I can build a visual picture of a scene and use that. But it’s for mechanics, like a movie director moving the characters around… but like my reading, they need to ’make sense’ to me.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

I knew from like 14 or 15 that people didn't drink up books like I did. I'm the only one in my family to read for fun, like all the way from one end of the extended family tree on one side to the other, so already there was that huge difference. Then came that my friends said "X actor looks exactly like I imagined!" And that was another eye opener, because I don't see faces. I see the general shape and descriptions of the characters but otherwise they're just... Emotionally there I guess. When people do/did "Dream Casting" of books and comics, I enjoyed that because then I could backwards associate that actor with the character. Roland Deschain is a combo of Clint Eastwood and Javier Bardem because I read a couple of Dream Casting articles about the former being King's basis and the latter the article authors choice.

I see places super vividly. But also it's... the feeling, smell, and everything that is more there. Almost never based on anything real. Like my story "Magical Night in the Sky Bus" I can see the outside of that old bus, the inside before and after the magical happens. As the author I'm slightly creeped out by the old of it, the dirt and mildew and all of that that the characters didn't sense or care about. I just wrote some about about the Main Character talking to strangers at a party in a bedroom. I can feel the room vividly. The bed is simple, the walls and carpet have seen better days, and I know where the people are, how they were lounging or standing. There is art on the walls, probably just posters, but I don't know what. If it became relevant I'd fill that in, to give clues on the character whose bedroom it was. But I don't even know who that person is, the owner of the room isn't in the room talking to the MC, so the posters and that character don't matter.

Characters are mostly emotions to me, the MC's feelings on the person, my own, and what I know or what evolves of that character. I've said it before but I get my "Physical" description of women (Because they're the most important to describe in a sex story as far as I'm concerned.) from pictures I've found around the internet. It is basically me "Dream Casting" my own stories. I get naked ones so I can describe the naked bits too but I stray from that as the character and that picture are not always and forever perfectly aligned. I guess it's like the lady in the picture is an actor in my story, the character might have a scar, might have no tattoos, and that gets taken away or placed by my mental make-up department.

I dream every night. I dream even as I'm falling asleep. It's rare but I lucid dream as well. I also have had night terrors, that were only really terrible the first couple times it happened. So if there is a scientist out there tracking all our answers, they can have that added bit of information.

^^This.
Thanks for putting it so well in words.

 

[XerXesXu]

That doesn't follow. In it's most simplistic, Occam's Razor sense, that means you are calling us all liars. Think about that for a moment.

I cannot imagine the thought process of someone who cannot visualise, but I don't doubt it.

That’s out of left field. I’m not calling anyone a liar. If you read carefully, you were invited to stand in someone else’s shoes. The article I read alerted me to the fact that people may visualise differently, I had no opinion. I had noticed the different ways people describe their experience, I raised the issue to see if people have different experiences, or whether they describe the same experience differently. Seems to be the former.

 

[Voboy]

We may or may not have a seamless construction in our imagination, the question then becomes how much of that we lend to our readers so they can create their own imaginary room or person.

This was something I learned here from experience.

Though I've never been a writer who listed my female characters' body measurements or gave out cock length, I used to include much more description about my characters' looks. I don't bother anymore. Their personalities are much more important to me, and (I hope) to the reader. Who is free to conclude whatever they want about my characters, within the very basic descriptions I give.

I've said above that I visualize places quite clearly, and I do... but I don't feel a need to include all that detail in the pieces I write. It informs those choices, however. If I see a foreshore as gravelly instead of sandy, I might not bother mentioning that. My character, however, will at some point have a thought about how they fear slipping on the rocks, or how much easier it would be to walk on firmly-packed sand after the tide goes out. Or I'll avoid using the word "beach" and use "shore" instead.

 

[XerXesXu]

Do you substitute other senses, like the author in the blog?

No. I only put in what the story requires. I 'know' what's necessary to know for the story, but I have no visual imagery to accompany it.

 

[ElectricBlue]

That’s out of left field. I’m not calling anyone a liar. If you read carefully, you were invited to stand in someone else’s shoes. The article I read alerted me to the fact that people may visualise differently, I had no opinion. I had noticed the different ways people describe their experience, I raised the issue to see if people have different experiences, or whether they describe the same experience differently. Seems to be the former.

You opened with an argument that doubted all visualisers: "hyperbole", you wrote, in your very first post. You then added, in a later post, "given to grand exaggeration" - your words, not mine. You then went reductio ad absurdum with Occam's Razor, when the thread had very clearly established there was a very wide range of visualisation, an entire spectrum in fact, which you still chose to doubt. Hence my (admittedly brutal) reductio ad absurdum in return.

So yes, you did have an opinion that suggested all us visualisers were making it up or exaggerating - when the article stated that aphantasism is a neurological rarity (1% is not the norm).

I would have thought it pretty obvious that the AH contains a high number of neuro-diverse people amongst its members - why any single person here would think most other people think like they do is a tad surprising. That's why there is always such a wide range of reactions in any discussion.

 

[stickygirl]

This was something I learned here from experience.

Though I've never been a writer who listed my female characters' body measurements or gave out cock length, I used to include much more description about my characters' looks. I don't bother anymore. Their personalities are much more important to me, and (I hope) to the reader. Who is free to conclude whatever they want about my characters, within the very basic descriptions I give.

I've said above that I visualize places quite clearly, and I do... but I don't feel a need to include all that detail in the pieces I write. It informs those choices, however. If I see a foreshore as gravelly instead of sandy, I might not bother mentioning that. My character, however, will at some point have a thought about how they fear slipping on the rocks, or how much easier it would be to walk on firmly-packed sand after the tide goes out. Or I'll avoid using the word "beach" and use "shore" instead.

Agreed. We need to plant 'thought bombs' for description, nothing more: something to seed a mood or character but leaving enough blank space for the reader.

I particularly dislike prescriptive sex scenes "he put his left hand on her right leg below the knee as she shifted her weight onto her right foot" leaves me totally confused and I've read stories that provides lists like they were teaching dance moves *yawns.

I try to avoid providing additional physical descriptions after the first few paragraphs or else it may jar with a reader's constructed image. If they've pictured someone with dark hair but you later mention blond or if you mention they've got a wooden leg and a parrot on page two - that can throw people a little!

 

[Bramblethorn]

You opened with an argument that doubted all visualisers: "hyperbole", you wrote, in your very first post. You then added, in a later post, "given to grand exaggeration" - your words, not mine. You then went reductio ad absurdum with Occam's Razor, when the thread had very clearly established there was a very wide range of visualisation, an entire spectrum in fact, which you still chose to doubt. Hence my (admittedly brutal) reductio ad absurdum in return.

So yes, you did have an opinion that suggested all us visualisers were making it up or exaggerating - when the article stated that aphantasism is a neurological rarity (1% is not the norm).

I would have thought it pretty obvious that the AH contains a high number of neuro-diverse people amongst its members - why any single person here would think most other people think like they do is a tad surprising. That's why there is always such a wide range of reactions in any discussion.

Speaking as one of those neurodivergent AH members... no, we don't all think the same, it would be great if people stopped making that assumption, and I've had sharp words more than once with people here about it.

But it remains a very common assumption, no matter how nice it would be if it wasn't. I suspect a large part of that is that letting go of the assumption would force a lot of people to confront the knowledge that they're not the empaths they believe themselves to be. (cf. "double empathy problem" for more on this.)

 

[XerXesXu]

You opened with an argument that doubted all visualisers: "hyperbole", you wrote, in your very first post. You then added, in a later post, "given to grand exaggeration" - your words, not mine. You then went reductio ad absurdum with Occam's Razor, when the thread had very clearly established there was a very wide range of visualisation, an entire spectrum in fact, which you still chose to doubt. Hence my (admittedly brutal) reductio ad absurdum in return.

So yes, you did have an opinion that suggested all us visualisers were making it up or exaggerating - when the article stated that aphantasism is a neurological rarity (1% is not the norm).

I would have thought it pretty obvious that the AH contains a high number of neuro-diverse people amongst its members - why any single person here would think most other people think like they do is a tad surprising. That's why there is always such a wide range of reactions in any discussion.

Nonsense. You also need to work on your bruality.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Think of it in reverse. Suppose you were Aphantasic and you heard people give these vivid descriptions of their mind's eye - and you know people are given to grand exaggeration - might that not be the simplest explanation - apply Occam's Razor.

On reflection, I have no idea what the main characters in my works look like, hair colour, eyes, height, weight, etc beyond a generic description. I know where they come from and what they do, how they speak and how they act, and that's it. That's all that's necessary for a story.

When I look at a topographic map, I "see" in my mind's eye how the terrain around me is shaped. It sort of jumps up from the paper in my mind so I can manipulate and turn it around to pick my way across the ground. I can walk for miles through a jungle and come out EXACTLY where I need to be, by visualizing the terrain and reading the map.

I found through trying to teach others how to do that, MOST people can't see it. Those brown lines on the paper are merely a mess of brown lines.

While some might think people describing what they see in their mind is grand exaggeration, when I meet them on a road after walking through ten miles of jungle, they might realize I got there via something other than one-in-a-million luck of merely wandering in their direction. And when I try to explain how I did it, what is the more likely reason?

My extreme visualization process is both an asset and probably one of my drawbacks. I see everything visually, and thus am limited in my ability as a wordsmith to write anything other than what I see.

 

[XerXesXu]

When I look at a topographic map, I "see" in my mind's eye how the terrain around me is shaped. It sort of jumps up from the paper in my mind so I can manipulate and turn it around to pick my way across the ground. I can walk for miles through a jungle and come out EXACTLY where I need to be, by visualizing the terrain and reading the map.

I found through trying to teach others how to do that, MOST people can't see it. Those brown lines on the paper are merely a mess of brown lines.

While some might think people describing what they see in their mind is grand exaggeration, when I meet them on a road after walking through ten miles of jungle, they might realize I got there via something other than one-in-a-million luck of merely wandering in their direction. And when I try to explain how I did it, what is the more likely reason?

My extreme visualization process is both an asset and probably one of my drawbacks. I see everything visually, and thus am limited in my ability as a wordsmith to write anything other than what I see.

I excelled at reading open terrain from a topographical map, and having read the map I could read the terrain and establish my position without it. However, I never visualised the map, I could recognise where I was from what I could see. I knew what the map represented.

In the jungle, we didn't have GPS and couldn't see more than 20yds most of the time. We navigated by compass from one recognisable feature to another.

 

[Voboy]

When I look at a topographic map, I "see" in my mind's eye how the terrain around me is shaped. It sort of jumps up from the paper in my mind so I can manipulate and turn it around to pick my way across the ground. I can walk for miles through a jungle and come out EXACTLY where I need to be, by visualizing the terrain and reading the map.

I found through trying to teach others how to do that, MOST people can't see it. Those brown lines on the paper are merely a mess of brown lines.

While some might think people describing what they see in their mind is grand exaggeration, when I meet them on a road after walking through ten miles of jungle, they might realize I got there via something other than one-in-a-million luck of merely wandering in their direction. And when I try to explain how I did it, what is the more likely reason?

My extreme visualization process is both an asset and probably one of my drawbacks. I see everything visually, and thus am limited in my ability as a wordsmith to write anything other than what I see.

I understand what you're saying about topo maps: I can do it too, but in my experience it's an ability that can be developed by anyone who looks at enough maps, uses them to plan enough routes, and then walks those routes. It's a learned skill I think, though you're right that for many people, "in the classroom" is probably not the most effective way to learn it.

I don't think being able to visualize terrain from a paper map is what we're talking about here, honestly. I think what we're talking about here is more akin to drawing your own topo map in your mind (say, of a fictional location), and then treating it like a real object you can see. Or, better, inventing your own landscape you can then picture as real land that you're overflying, rather than as contour lines.

I can do that thing, too. There's a map of Leinyere, for example, but when I was writing a story set there, I was backing out and visualizing the actual landscape I was describing my characters journeying through. I find that easy, even enjoyable.

 

[Lifestyle66]

I excelled at reading open terrain from a topographical map, and having read the map I could read the terrain and establish my position without it. However, I never visualised the map, I could recognise where I was from what I could see. I knew what the map represented.

In the jungle, we didn't have GPS and couldn't see more than 20yds most of the time. We navigated by compass from one recognisable feature to another.

Starting from a known point, that 20 yards visibility was all I needed to following the brown lines and anticipate what was ahead to avoid the worst terrain.

I understand what you're saying about topo maps: I can do it too, but in my experience it's an ability that can be developed by anyone who looks at enough maps, uses them to plan enough routes, and then walks those routes. It's a learned skill I think, though you're right that for many people, "in the classroom" is probably not the most effective way to learn it.

I don't think being able to visualize terrain from a paper map is what we're talking about here, honestly. I think what we're talking about here is more akin to drawing your own topo map in your mind (say, of a fictional location), and then treating it like a real object you can see. Or, better, inventing your own landscape you can then picture as real land that you're overflying, rather than as contour lines.

I can do that thing, too. There's a map of Leinyere, for example, but when I was writing a story set there, I was backing out and visualizing the actual landscape I was describing my characters journeying through. I find that easy, even enjoyable.

In my case, I think I'm more of an "idiot-savant" when it comes to visualization.

Others can navigate with maps and compasses, or they can learn to do so. But in my case, it came intuitively. A very subtle squiggle of a brown line was a dip in the terrain in front of me. Whether it's words or brown lines, they are all symbols which communicate.

So, in being a 3-D visualization "idiot", I find words describing things other than the visual to be somewhat alien and hard to find. Perhaps this is the extreme opposite of aphantasia. Instead on an inability to visualize, it's an inability to "see" things other than the mental visual.

 

[SimonDoom]

I understand what you're saying about topo maps: I can do it too, but in my experience it's an ability that can be developed by anyone who looks at enough maps, uses them to plan enough routes, and then walks those routes. It's a learned skill I think, though you're right that for many people, "in the classroom" is probably not the most effective way to learn it.

I don't think being able to visualize terrain from a paper map is what we're talking about here, honestly. I think what we're talking about here is more akin to drawing your own topo map in your mind (say, of a fictional location), and then treating it like a real object you can see. Or, better, inventing your own landscape you can then picture as real land that you're overflying, rather than as contour lines.

I can do that thing, too. There's a map of Leinyere, for example, but when I was writing a story set there, I was backing out and visualizing the actual landscape I was describing my characters journeying through. I find that easy, even enjoyable.

I agree with this. I believe reading a topo map is a learned skill--it's something I've learned through extensive experience hiking in the wilderness. But I've also observed a big difference between people (like me) who like to use visual references like maps to get from one place to another and people who prefer to have their smartphones tell them where to go. People's inclinations about absorbing and processing information are different.

 

[MillieDynamite]

That’s out of left field. I’m not calling anyone a liar. If you read carefully, you were invited to stand in someone else’s shoes. The article I read alerted me to the fact that people may visualise differently, I had no opinion. I had noticed the different ways people describe their experience, I raised the issue to see if people have different experiences, or whether they describe the same experience differently. Seems to be the former.

People all see things differently. Not only with their minds eye but with there actual eyes. For an example, if three individuals witness a crime in day light, they will describe events somewhat differently. All three will notice something the others don't. They describe the events leading up to, those things that happen at and during the crime, and the aftermath a little skewed from one another. Hair, eye color, and shading of skin color will not match. There will be some difference in the description of the clothing as well. And if a get away car is used, one will say blue Cadillac, another say big, black Buick, and the other will call something else and a different color.

This is one way to know they are telling the truth.

If the accounts are identical, they either discussed what happened before the police arrived, or they are lying.

In reading we are given a word picture, but how we fill in the details, the shade of the color, the shape of the rock, the way cracks in the sidewalk appear, we create ourselves. Well, some of us do, I certainly do.

 

[MrPixel]

At the opposite end of the spectrum is eidetic memory. I suffer from this to some extent. There are many life-event images seared into my mind I would rather not be there in their excruciating detail.

 

[MillieDynamite]

At the opposite end of the spectrum is eidetic memory. I suffer from this to some extent. There are many life-event images seared into my mind I would rather not be there in their excruciating detail.

While I don't have eidetic memory, I have several unpleasant memories that will flood back and totally fuck up my mood for days. On the other hand, there are an equal number of wonderful memories which, when I chose to remember them, make so very happy. However, I do relate to your pain, some past places and events are best not revisited, and when you can't control when they pop into your mind, it just fucks with you.

 

[XerXesXu]

I don't think being able to visualize terrain from a paper map is what we're talking about here, honestly. I think what we're talking about here is more akin to drawing your own topo map in your mind (say, of a fictional location), and then treating it like a real object you can see. Or, better, inventing your own landscape you can then picture as real land that you're overflying, rather than as contour lines.

Quite. My query isn't about the experience of recall or recognition - the processing of given information. It's about creative visualisation. I don't recall dreams, but I know I dream, I know dreams are visual and I know that the settings of the dreams, the characters in the dreams, and the behaviour of those characters are out of the control of the dreamer. Sometimes people appear to me to describe their experience of story creation being like that. That's not my experience. Do some writers have a dream-like experience, with accompanying visual imagery, when creating fictitious stories.

 

[Voboy]

Quite. My query isn't about the experience of recall or recognition - the processing of given information. It's about creative visualisation. I don't recall dreams, but I know I dream, I know dreams are visual and I know that the settings of the dreams, the characters in the dreams, and the behaviour of those characters are out of the control of the dreamer. Sometimes people appear to me to describe their experience of story creation being like that. That's not my experience. Do some writers have a dream-like experience, with accompanying visual imagery, when creating fictitious stories.

You're simplifying, I think, or at least generalizing based on your own experiences. Lucid dreamers regularly control their own dreams, and sleep researchers claim anyone can learn to do lucid dreaming. They'd know more about it than I do, and it's all very well-documented.

My experience when writing is not dreamlike, but when it's going well? It's most definitely subconscious. Meaning, I start with a vague feeling about what I want to describe, then my brain generates the words without too much conscious thought. Every now and then I realize I wanted to use a different word or phrase, so I go back a few lines, change it, and then move on. And all the while, I'm seeing the setting in what poets would call "my mind's eye," and I'm seeing it very very clearly.

In fact, I think part of what enables me to write this way is the clarity of that visualization. It's not as if I'm writing my own story. It's as if I'm chronicling something I see happening.