September 19, 2008
Visual Writers vs Auditory Writers
In my research of how the brain works, I’ve been reading a lot about creativity and the chemistry that spurs and nurtures it. One particular area of interest is metaphor. People think in all different ways, and it turns out that a great many artists are synesthetes, where the brain blends two or more senses. For example, someone hears the word cat and simultaneously sees the color blue.
There are various grades of synesthesia, some profound and some subtle. Some people are simply visual thinkers, or perhaps that should be visual rememberers. When they see a cat, they don’t see blue, but their memories pluck out things that somehow, someway resonate with cat and bring them to the fore. As in: cat-soft quilt from childhood-scratch of sandpaper on fingertip-squish of Jello-distant thunder-etc. All in a split second of course, but the remembrance of somewhat similar, vaguely suggestive memories are available for use. Sometimes they’re just thoughts, but sometimes they become a book by Barbara Samual or an image that lingers from Stephen King.
Some people simply think metaphorically, and when you read their words, they are filled with color and light and images that surprise and delight, that give the reader the gift of their special sight.
And some people do not think metaphorically. Like me. Instead of images and sensations, what happens to me is that odd bits of other conversations come to me. Real or imagined, I don’t know, but my associations are predominantly heard, not seen.
This has a profound influence on my writing. I struggle mightily over metaphors, despite my knowledge that metaphors are incredibly powerful and give context and meaning to the reader that can’t be given any other way. My manuscripts tend to have a billion XXs where a metaphor should be. I’ve been taught not to accept the first, most obvious metaphor because it’s always going to be unoriginal, a cliche, but often, I only have that one. This struggle has been with me since I first started writing.
It’s only now, this past week, that I’ve seen my struggle in a new light. Okay, my strength is not in word-pictures. But that doesn’t mean my process is wrong. Where my strength lies is in dialogue. Because I hear really well. I’ve been told, and believe for myself, that my dialogue rings true and basically carries the story. The critical breakthrough, though, is that I’m not wrong or bad or stupid. My brain is another kind of brain. Which is just as valid, meaning I don’t have to turn in my writer’s license, at least not for this. I get to be my kind of writer, because there are lots of readers who find value in dialogue heavy work.
The word pictures will have to be left to those who have that gift. From this moment forward, I give myself permission not sweat it. This doesn’t mean I don’t have any metaphors in my books. I do, and some of them are quite good, but it’s not my primary gift. It’s okay. I can live with that. It’s a tremendous relief, in fact.
Shout Out! Jo Leigh @ 11:10 am | Uncategorized, Writing
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Stands to reason if people are visual, auditory or kinesthetic learners, they’d be the same kind of writer. Very interesting about the sense-blending. Huh.
September 19th, 2008 at 11:20 amIsn’t just amazing the way our brains work…and how differently they work…
I hear words and feel things…but I see color too…hm…I guess I must be pretty normal artist then :)
The more I study the more color I see…some people see green…I see lime green, sage green, leaf green…not all that special but it sure helps when I paint.
And just for the record…I think your dialog is incredible! Never fails to amaze me…I feel like I am eavesdropping on their conversation…I can really hear them talking!
September 19th, 2008 at 11:25 amCharlie, I’ve been loving the research too much. Seriously, I have to write more, read less. But the synesthesia thing makes me so jealous. I want to blend my senses, and not just in my normal see random thing/think it’s about me kind of way.
September 19th, 2008 at 11:51 amGlenice, being a painter is, from what I understand, all about seeing uniquely, blending image and thought and sensations on canvas. So it makes sense you would see colors vividly – in fact, see everything vividly. Lucky you.
And thanks, re the dialog. I’m smiling so big. :)
September 19th, 2008 at 11:53 amJo -
Fascinating blog entry! Reading about how we think reminds me of how we learn, and how it’s different for all of us. My husband is big on visual learning while I am more of a verbal learner…well, verbal combined with kinesthetic components. My best studying was simply re-writing my notes. As to how I think, I don’t know how it “fits”: I know I tend to get from point A to point C via point Z, and that certain images, smells, or phrases can evoke extremely strong memories, but that’s not metaphoric. It’s more basic and primal for me.
TTFN, LLB
September 19th, 2008 at 11:54 amLaurie, I don’t think it’s all or nothing, just some kinds of processing are more prominent. It took me all these years to figure out that I couldn’t force the metaphorical thinking. I’m simply not built that way. But the subject enthralls me, so I’m driving everyone I know crazy with tidbits and info. I’m sure they all wish my brain would stop working on this brain stuff already. :) Frankly, the more I learn, the more I’m in awe of just how amazing humans are.
September 19th, 2008 at 12:25 pmWell, that post certainly got my brain cells hopping! Really interesting – expounding on your post a while back. I think in this case that my brain is the same as yours – which might explain why I enjoy your books so much – obligatory mention of Boone here *grin* -
Have a great weekend Jo!
September 19th, 2008 at 12:51 pmOh I just got two more “older” books today :) now, I am only missing a couple books for my collection of Jo :) Yahoo!!!
September 25th, 2008 at 6:01 pmJo, Thanks so much for this post. I’m so glad to hear that a successful writer considers herself not so good at writing metaphors. I’m horrible at them, too! And I was always jealous of those writers who could write them well.
I think I fall into the same category as you…I do like to write some good dialogue. I also am a writer who uses simple construction. Spare writing, I guess. I don’t paint an elaborate picture. Although, if I take the time, I can write some great description. But it has to come from this very odd place that I don’t get to very often.
The ‘easier’ writing is the dialogue.
Good to know I’m not a ‘bad’ writer just because I can’t come up with some brilliant metaphor.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:00 pm