AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Visual / Auditory / Etc.

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> Romance Potpourri Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Schola



Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1867

PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:26 pm    Post subject: Visual / Auditory / Etc. Reply with quote

+IHS+

Harlequin author Jo Leigh had a blog post up recently about how learning styles turn into writing styles (or something to that effect). For instance, visual people will pen books full of description; auditory people will write the most realistic dialogue; etc.

I got to thinking about that in another thread where we've digressed into a discussion of writing style--how much an author's unique flair can pull you deeper or yank you out of a story. My hypothesis is that we are most comfortable with authors whose writing styles match our own learning styles.

For instance, I'm not a very visual person and wonder if this is an insight into my love-hate relationship with Stephanie Laurens, who seems to me to be very visual. In A Rake's Vow, for example, whenever the hero and heroine kiss, we get strange imagery of gold and silver swirling about--either around them, or in the heroine's mind, or in the hero's heart, or wherever it would make sense for gold and silver to swirl. (When they're actually having sex, we move beyond mere colours to a sun that approaches from a distance and then crashes about them.)

That kind of stuff just takes me out of the story, though perhaps a more visual reader would think that Laurens has completely hit the nail on the head about what one should feel during kissing or sex.

Anyway, what do you think?
_________________
"To be in a romance is to be in uncongenial surroundings. To be born into this earth is to be born into uncongenial surroundings, hence to be born into a romance." (G.K. Chesterton)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tee



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4225
Location: Detroit Metro

PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual / Auditory / Etc. Reply with quote

Schola wrote:
In A Rake's Vow, for example, whenever the hero and heroine kiss, we get strange imagery of gold and silver swirling about--either around them, or in the heroine's mind, or in the hero's heart, or wherever it would make sense for gold and silver to swirl. (When they're actually having sex, we move beyond mere colours to a sun that approaches from a distance and then crashes about them.)

Sounds to me as though either the characters and/or the author are on psychedelic drugs. :lol:

Quote:
That kind of stuff just takes me out of the story, though perhaps a more visual reader would think that Laurens has completely hit the nail on the head about what one should feel during kissing or sex. Anyway, what do you think?

I think the drugs should probably be flushed down very quickly and never seen again. Very Happy Kidding aside, Schola, I happen to agree with you almost totally. Reading styles are best when matched with writing styles. Not that we can't enjoy other authors, but our favorite authors probably are a fit with our reading preferences most of the time.

When learning a new whatever, I prefer both visual and textual presentations, each supporting the other. I can learn quite quickly that way. Text on its own works well enough, but the visual helps. In reading, though, I'm totally turned off by excessive amounts of words, descriptions, etc. I don't need long descriptions of clothes, food, room decorations, etc. They're distractions unless they're handled efficiently. By literally cutting-to-the-chase, I can stay in the story easily, especially if it's interesting. But I also know that others like that other sort of stuff and minimal of anything would not work for them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Manda



Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 589

PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's an interesting concept, Schola. I'm trying to think about the types of books I like and what turns me off. I'm more of an auditory learner, I guess, because I tend to prefer dialogue driven books and if the language in a book sounds wrong or doesn't "ring true" then I get annoyed and give up.

Like Tee I get annoyed at long descriptive passages, but I think that's as much a product of the way I read now. I used to be all about the gorgeous description and detail, but I am much more into fast paced reads these days and get impatient with too much detail. (Though I will stop to savor particularly lyrical passages if they are very well done.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2510

PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not completely sure I understand what you mean by "visual." I think I respond best to the written word, which is surely visual, isn't it? I cannot abide being read to, for example, and, as with Tee, I skip long descriptions of clothing, dinners, buildings, etc--except those instances in which they're necessary to further the action--, preferring more spare to elaborate prose. (Regardless, I still like Laurens. "A foolish consistency..." and all that.) And, as with everything I guess, there are exceptions. E. Lowell, for example, especially in her historicals, had long passages of scenic description which, in my estimation, were an integral part of the story as well as being extraordinarily evocative.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MMcA



Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
My hypothesis is that we are most comfortable with authors whose writing styles match our own learning styles.


That is so weird. My eldest daughter had brought something home from school about learning styles, and I was reading it this morning, and wondering if it would explain why readers can have such diverse opinions about the same book.
(FWIW, the sheet she has has eight intelligences - logical/mathematical, linguistic/verbal, musical, spatial/visual, Kinasthetic/Body, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal and Naturalist.)

I have read books - the two that come to mind are by Anthony Horowitz and P.J. Tracy - that seemed so visual that reading them was almost like reading a screenplay. I did wonder if that was a generational thing: I know I've been told that children are now more visually attuned than they used to be - that while my generation was used to getting most information in an auditory manner, it's now a good idea to try and use visual cues as often as possible when you're working with children.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Schola



Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1867

PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
I'm not completely sure I understand what you mean by "visual." I think I respond best to the written word, which is surely visual, isn't it?


I don't remember the actual terms, but that distinction came up in the last seminar I attended. There is a difference between pictures and text: some people respond better to pictures than to text and some people respond better to text than to pictures. You can get a pretty good idea of what kind of visual learner a student is by examining his doodling: is it mostly pictures or mostly little notes?

dick wrote:
And, as with everything I guess, there are exceptions. E. Lowell, for example, especially in her historicals, had long passages of scenic description which, in my estimation, were an integral part of the story as well as being extraordinarily evocative.


I know what you mean! I'd never skip anything in a Lowell novel.
_________________
"To be in a romance is to be in uncongenial surroundings. To be born into this earth is to be born into uncongenial surroundings, hence to be born into a romance." (G.K. Chesterton)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Schola



Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1867

PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MMcA wrote:
I have read books - the two that come to mind are by Anthony Horowitz and P.J. Tracy - that seemed so visual that reading them was almost like reading a screenplay.


I don't know Tracy, but I love Horowitz's Alex Rider books! Very Happy I know what you mean about how one reading his books might as well be watching a movie with non-stop action.

Horowitz doesn't really deliver in the interpersonal field, though. Confused I read the first book, Stormbreaker, with a friend, and we loved the early twist of Alex's discovery that his cold, distant uncle had kept a picture of him in an otherwise Spartan office. We kept waiting for a letter from the uncle to crop up, or an old friend to reveal the uncle's depths of affection, but that never happened!

MMcA wrote:
I did wonder if that was a generational thing: I know I've been told that children are now more visually attuned than they used to be - that while my generation was used to getting most information in an auditory manner, it's now a good idea to try and use visual cues as often as possible when you're working with children.


I learned in Shakespeare class that hundreds of years ago people were so much more auditory that they could sit for hours in church listening to one sermon--and that they talked about "hearing a play" rather than "seeing a play." So maybe it is a generational thing?

I also think that sex differences come into play. A university professor who teaches G.K. Chesterton said that his male students are far more likely to love Chesterton than his female students. And my friend and I, so unsatisfied with the emotional content of Stormbreaker, are both women.
_________________
"To be in a romance is to be in uncongenial surroundings. To be born into this earth is to be born into uncongenial surroundings, hence to be born into a romance." (G.K. Chesterton)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2510

PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is it possible, in reading, to separate the pictorial from the non-pictorial? Competent readers, it seems to me, have both pictorial and non-pictorial responses. A reader must have the non-pictorial ability to understand the words of the text, but he must also employ the pictorial sense of "seeing" what the text imparts, like a play or like a picture in his head. One of the difficulties many otherwise capable student readers have in reading poetry is that figures of speech such as metaphor require that a reader must superimpose two or more things on top of one another, watching several "sights" in the mind at the same time and making the connection between them. Isn't it the inability to pictorialize what we write that leads to errors such as misplaced or dangling modifiers, for example? And leads to recognition of them in what we read?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NoirFemme



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1481
Location: America

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you could be on to something. One of the reasons I like Judith Ivory's writing is because it's very evocative. I'm not a fan of simple, basic prose at all because I must also be able to use all of my senses to learn something. When an author really digs in and describes emotions, sensations, actions, etc, it feels "real."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Charlotte McClain



Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 400
Location: Ohio

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know, this explains something that's always bothered me. A friend of mine keeps giving me books that she raves about. I read them and go "eh." She's very visual and I tend to learn by doing (there's a term, I forget it.) This would explain it. I'm meeting her for lunch tomorrow so this will give us a very meaty thing to discuss.
_________________
Angsty romance with scattered humor.
My Faux Website
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Schola



Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1867

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Charlotte McClane wrote:
She's very visual and I tend to learn by doing (there's a term, I forget it.)


That would be either tactile or kinesthetic.

You are one of the few tactile/kinesthetic people I've met who really, really likes to read, Charlotte. So now I'm curious which writers you find truly appealing. Care to share your faves? Very Happy
_________________
"To be in a romance is to be in uncongenial surroundings. To be born into this earth is to be born into uncongenial surroundings, hence to be born into a romance." (G.K. Chesterton)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tee



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4225
Location: Detroit Metro

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Charlotte McClain wrote:
She's very visual and I tend to learn by doing (there's a term, I forget it.)

There is a somewhat familiar quotation that's reputed to be said by Confucius-- "I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand."

Actually, what I recall from a teacher who was in love with that statement is that if all the above techniques are applied in teaching material to students, eventually the entire class would get it, because of the different ways people are oriented to taking in information. The majority of us are probably helped by applying all of them, so then the lesson is absorbed totally and remembered.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2510

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like Confucius' statement too, but I also think that if we had to experience something in order to understand it we'd all still be living in caves. In my thinking, the word, written and spoken, cannot be replaced as the most efficient form of learning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tee



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4225
Location: Detroit Metro

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
In my thinking, the word, written and spoken, cannot be replaced as the most efficient form of learning.

Well, I can't really deny that, dick. But then don't you think "doing" almost becomes automatic following either or both of those particular learning processes to cement it in our minds? Consequently, the "understanding" of that process leads to a better memory of it for the future.

I'm thinking of when someone is learning the computer nuances, for instance. We can read about it; we can view a procedure; but until we actually work with it, do we truly comprehend how it all ties together. Then the next time we attempt something else new related to the computer, we have some hands-on experience to draw from.

Some things that we read or view are stored in our memories as data and may go no further than that. So in that case, we do probably have many facts rolling around our minds and no practical way to try them out. If we ever had the opportunity to do so, though, then our understanding of them would surely increase, I would think.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2510

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

to tee: I think only some things, most of which are physical actions, become better understood (or perhaps more doable) by doing, and even those can consume a great deal of time in trial and error which prior knowledge gained through words can usually minimize. In some ways, I'm not sure we can really "hear" nor "see" nor "understand" until we attach a word to the thing under consideration.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> Romance Potpourri Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group