Do you picture what you're reading?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by theducks

I'm with Issybird...Read the original book, not the novelization or movie version.

Usually, if there is an original book, there won't also be a novelization* Typically they just adapt the movie poster into the cover.

*Yes, there are exceptions, but they are rare.

[Sirtel]

I notice a clear trend here. Those who visualize are also mostly those who felt an emotional connection to their reading material and the characters in it in the other thread. And those who don't visualize are the ones who seemed to take a more intellectual approach. Interesting.

[Freeshadow]

I do see images of people and places too. regardless of my poor eyesight my vis skills are pretty good. (sidenote:The absolute contrary of this is called aphantasia) no olfactory or haptic.
I too judge movies on how close/well they go by the book

[mike_bike_kite]

I have a general feel for the world the story is taking place within but I don't picture details. It's more like a remembered dream for me. Weirdly, facial expressions play a large part in how I imagine things as opposed to scenery or clothing. Obviously if there's a book cover or a movie then that will definitely influence things.

[icallaci]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I notice a clear trend here. Those who visualize are also mostly those who felt an emotional connection to their reading material and the characters in it in the other thread. And those who don't visualize are the ones who seemed to take a more intellectual approach. Interesting.

Interior vs exterior focus maybe? I have no idea, but I too notice a trend.

[Apache]

When I read, I am oblivious to everything around me, much to my wife's annoyance. I am in the book seeing what is happening just like sitting in a movie theater. When my wife asks me a question it takes a few minutes for my brain to process that something is happening in the real world. Or anyone else.
Apache

[ekbell]

As someone with aphantasia, I can't visualize no matter how emotionally invested I am.

I still end up blind and deaf to the outside world on a regular basis and sometimes I end up exploding up off my seat in laughter (when I was a teen it was literally rolling around on the floor laughing) or pacing in indignation muttering to myself.

[DiapDealer]

It's possible that I visualized things when I read as a kid. I honestly can't remember. But what (and the way) I read has constantly evolved as I have evolved.

I know I was more immersed in a good book when I was younger than I am now. But that's because all stories, plot-devices, and archetypal characters were new; handed to me by godlike beings known as authors. I'd not learned that there was such a thing as a "trope." Now there's little new under the sun and the gods have been revealed as schmoes just trying to earn a buck with stories that have been told thousands and thousands of times.

The hero's quest (and many other tropes) are clapped out for me. So I focus on the few things where authors can still differ: the way in which the words are strung together to keep me interested; their ability to write dialog for characters that makes me laugh; and their reluctance to try to "sixth-sense" me with one 180 degree twist after another, and so many red herrings as to be ridiculous.

In the words of Jason Mraz: it (reading) really IS often "All About the Wordplay" for me.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's possible that I visualized things when I read as a kid. I honestly can't remember. But what (and the way) I read has constantly evolved as I have evolved.

I know I was more immersed in a good book when I was younger than I am now. But that's because all stories, plot-devices, and archetypal characters were new; handed to me by godlike beings known as authors. I'd not learned that there was such a thing as a "trope." Now there's little new under the sun and the gods have been revealed as schmoes just trying to earn a buck with stories that have been told thousands and thousands of times.

The hero's quest (and many other tropes) are clapped out for me. So I focus on the few things where authors can still differ: the way in which the words are strung together to keep me interested; their ability to write dialog for characters that makes me laugh; and their reluctance to try to "sixth-sense" me with one 180 degree twist after another, and so many red herrings as to be ridiculous.

In the words of Jason Mraz: it (reading) really IS often "All About the Wordplay" for me.

Whereas I care about wordplay very little. I still care most about the plot and the characters, and I don't mind repetitive tropes if they're well done. Good dialogue is important, but it doesn't need to make me laugh. In short, my reading tastes are still much the same as they were 30 years ago and more. Possibly I haven't evolved at all then.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Possibly I haven't evolved at all then.

Believe me, I haven't really tried to at all. It just happened (happens)

[ownedbycats]

I sort of do, but not very well. For example, in a cozy mystery I was imagining someone was leaning against a wall until they suddenly got attacked from behind. There was no indication of the attacker crashing through the wall like the Kool-Aid guy.

When there's a map, I also have a bad habit of accidentally flipping them in my head so that I imagine characters moving south instead of north. This also occurs in a lot of video games.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Karellen

Sometimes for certain scenes I create a little side narrative that I feel should have happened in the book. (yea, yea, I know, seek professional help )

So do I, it's never crossed my mind that this is something to be embarrassed over

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's possible that I visualized things when I read as a kid. I honestly can't remember.

When I think back to memorable books I read as a child/young teenager and haven't reread since, I can see a few scenes from them, so that must mean I've done this at least since I read "Peter's baby" and "The master detective Blomquist"

I've also enjoyed well-written language as long as I can remember -- I learnt favourite paragraphs by heart and can still remember some of them.

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I still care most about the plot and the characters, and I don't mind repetitive tropes if they're well done.

I enjoy tropes when they are done well -- Courtney Milan, for instance, uses tropes in ways that make me grin in delight

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

I sort of do, but not very well. For example, in a cozy mystery I was imagining someone was leaning against a wall until they suddenly got attacked from behind.

Sometimes the place I'm seeing suddenly doesn't fit -- I've seen the fireplace to the right of the door, and something happens that places it on the other side of the room -- and that makes me stumble a bit.

[Karellen]

Originally Posted by hildea

So do I, it's never crossed my mind that this is something to be embarrassed over

I was once told by an old "friend" many, many years ago, 'That if you can do it better, write your own books.'
Never understood her response, nor was she the, or an, author to be so critical, but it made me feel as if there was something wrong, so I never mentioned it again until now.

[DuskyRose]

Yes. I do. I like it when I've seen a movie first, like the 'Lord of the Rings', so I can fall back on those visual representations of the characters and landscape.

Bad writing kicks me out, and I go from seeing/hearing the video in my head to reading the words again. Too little detail gives me nothing to work with, and can be a problem as well.

(I once read a book about two adult brothers that solves cases. No description at all, other than 30-something ages. Not a thing to go with visually. Never a look in a mirror, even. My brain kept trying out visuals of people as I was reading, and it got to be a problem. I finally just had to throw in mental images of my favorite actors to just move on with the story.)

Hubby is the opposite. He can't visualize stories he's read, and is an audio learner. He doesn't read for pleasure, and can handle technical books because he reads them slowly. But any speed other than 'dead slow' and his brain blanks out random words which means he has to re-read what he just read to get it. Made college reading fun.

(Which means I read a lot of his non-technical textbooks out loud to him.)

He loves audibooks. But he's pretty clear that he never gets a visual with them.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Karellen

I was once told by an old "friend" many, many years ago, 'That if you can do it better, write your own books.'
Never understood her response, nor was she the, or an, author to be so critical, but it made me feel as if there was something wrong, so I never mentioned it again until now.

Ouch, your "friend" sounds like a killjoy What's wrong with doing things for the fun of it?

I enjoy telling stories to myself, sometimes about people from my own imagination, other times about people from books or films. Usually I make dialogue -- what would have happened if character x had told the truth in that situation? Or if character z and y had spoken with each other before the big thing happened? (Often, that would result in a more boring story, but I'm not (re)writing a book, I'm having fun playing with stories )

And I've neither ambition nor ability to become a professional singer, but that's not stopping me from singing in the shower