I think it is, since there are various descriptions of facial expressions in novels that I only perceive abstractly. I suppose this is how those that do lack a mind’s eye read books. I understand the description, what it means, and would be able to pinpoint it if I saw someone with the same expression but do not consciously experience it visually until I see one face to face. If I was good at drawing I could probably draw faces too but wouldn’t model them visually in front of my mind’s eye while doing so but rather just move a pen over paper and work with the live feedback I get from drawing.
I figured the best way to get a better handle on this was to pull out a book and start reading. So, here’s a passage from Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose:
His reaction was most strange. He widened his eyes, if it were possible to open them wider than they were, and he blessed himself repeatedly, murmured some broken phrases in a language that this time I really did not understand.
I can visualize this, but until the author forced me to do so I didn’t really put much thought into the facial expressions of that character (Salvatore), and after the scene ended I lost the vivid mental picture I had of his face. So I can experience it briefly, but it isn’t a strong mental image because it fades very quickly. On the other hand, I can remember and visualize a picture of a facial expression very easily...weird.
Me too, I’m able to visualize it, if only very roughly/sketchy. But not until I deliberately concentrate on doing so. Otherwise it’s just words that have a known meaning. I’m not sure how to describe it, it’s rather abstract. There is no conscious visualisation of those words when reading them, merely a feeling of comprehension and my own voice reading those words.
This reminds me of the question if other people hear their own voice in their mind while reading. If I try to supress my mind’s voice I can hardly comprehend the meaning of the words. Although if I concentrate on single words without reading them out in my mind the meaning is surfacing. Interestingly another involuntary voice is half starting to read them with the addition of some almost synasthetic experience of shape.
If landscapes are described, or actions as you mentioned before, I don’t need to try hard, a movie of the described is playing along in my head. But now that I think about it, sound is rarely part of the experience, except some babble resembling speech.
AFAIK some people subvocalize while reading, some don’t. Is this preventing you from reading quickly?
(I’ve heard claims that eliminating subvocalization it is the first step to faster reading, although Wikipedia doesn’t agree. I, as far as I can tell, don’t subvocalize while reading (especially when reading English text, in which I don’t link strongly words to pronunciation), and although I have some problems with concentration, I still read at about 300 WPM. One of my friends claims ve’s unable to read faster than speech due to subvocalization).
I know that I subvocalize when reading at least sometimes, and usually when I am beginning to read a text. I believe that what I think of as the point where I “get really into” a book means the point where I stop subvocalizing. (I can read 2-3000 WPM—huge variance depending on what kind of text it is, and it’s usually more pleasant not to push so hard and read slower.) I don’t know how to consciously stop subvocalizing, though; it just happens.
In general I don’t hear my own voice since I’m focusing on imagining the scene. I also don’t visualize certain things unless I focus on them, and it seems like faces belongs in that category. I see what you mean about seeing the words and knowing the meaning without visualizing—here’s the example that comes to my mind:
I spent all night writing that essay, it was awful.
Upon hearing this, I generally just acknowledge the meaning of the sentence and move on. I have to stop myself and make a conscious effort if I want to visualize it actually happening to the speaker. What I find odd now that I’ve thought about this more is that this doesn’t apply to landscapes, actions, etc. in a novel even though it applies to most things in daily conversation.
I think it is, since there are various descriptions of facial expressions in novels that I only perceive abstractly. I suppose this is how those that do lack a mind’s eye read books. I understand the description, what it means, and would be able to pinpoint it if I saw someone with the same expression but do not consciously experience it visually until I see one face to face. If I was good at drawing I could probably draw faces too but wouldn’t model them visually in front of my mind’s eye while doing so but rather just move a pen over paper and work with the live feedback I get from drawing.
I figured the best way to get a better handle on this was to pull out a book and start reading. So, here’s a passage from Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose:
I can visualize this, but until the author forced me to do so I didn’t really put much thought into the facial expressions of that character (Salvatore), and after the scene ended I lost the vivid mental picture I had of his face. So I can experience it briefly, but it isn’t a strong mental image because it fades very quickly. On the other hand, I can remember and visualize a picture of a facial expression very easily...weird.
Me too, I’m able to visualize it, if only very roughly/sketchy. But not until I deliberately concentrate on doing so. Otherwise it’s just words that have a known meaning. I’m not sure how to describe it, it’s rather abstract. There is no conscious visualisation of those words when reading them, merely a feeling of comprehension and my own voice reading those words.
This reminds me of the question if other people hear their own voice in their mind while reading. If I try to supress my mind’s voice I can hardly comprehend the meaning of the words. Although if I concentrate on single words without reading them out in my mind the meaning is surfacing. Interestingly another involuntary voice is half starting to read them with the addition of some almost synasthetic experience of shape.
If landscapes are described, or actions as you mentioned before, I don’t need to try hard, a movie of the described is playing along in my head. But now that I think about it, sound is rarely part of the experience, except some babble resembling speech.
AFAIK some people subvocalize while reading, some don’t. Is this preventing you from reading quickly?
(I’ve heard claims that eliminating subvocalization it is the first step to faster reading, although Wikipedia doesn’t agree. I, as far as I can tell, don’t subvocalize while reading (especially when reading English text, in which I don’t link strongly words to pronunciation), and although I have some problems with concentration, I still read at about 300 WPM. One of my friends claims ve’s unable to read faster than speech due to subvocalization).
I know that I subvocalize when reading at least sometimes, and usually when I am beginning to read a text. I believe that what I think of as the point where I “get really into” a book means the point where I stop subvocalizing. (I can read 2-3000 WPM—huge variance depending on what kind of text it is, and it’s usually more pleasant not to push so hard and read slower.) I don’t know how to consciously stop subvocalizing, though; it just happens.
In general I don’t hear my own voice since I’m focusing on imagining the scene. I also don’t visualize certain things unless I focus on them, and it seems like faces belongs in that category. I see what you mean about seeing the words and knowing the meaning without visualizing—here’s the example that comes to my mind:
Upon hearing this, I generally just acknowledge the meaning of the sentence and move on. I have to stop myself and make a conscious effort if I want to visualize it actually happening to the speaker. What I find odd now that I’ve thought about this more is that this doesn’t apply to landscapes, actions, etc. in a novel even though it applies to most things in daily conversation.