All or part of the III questions were answered by 113 writers. _Question
1._ Each of the five senses and pain are tabulated separately.
_Questions 2 and 3_, dealing with visual imagination, are included under
"sight."
1. _Sight._ Of 111 answering, 73 can see without using their physical
eyes, 19 have this ability to some degree and 4 generally have it--95 in
all. Only 6 lack this power entirely; 5 generally--11 in all. Two can
not tell and 2 are not easily tabulated on this point.
Out of the 96 with at least some visual imagination 68 answer
specifically as to whether their mental pictures are in colors--45
fully; 8 somewhat; 4 a little; 10 no; 1 untabulated.
As to distinct detail 57 answer--38 yes; 11 some; 5 a little; 3 no.
Analysis of the actual answers on the above will show that "yes" often
means "some," though it is tabulated at its face value. It is to be
regretted that specific data were not asked for on visualization of
motion and on comparative ability to visualize characters and setting.
_Geometry._ 61 answered as having had solid geometry. Found it more
difficult than other mathematics, 12; the same, 16; easier, 32; one, who
found it more difficult but attributed the fact to a bad start, is not
tabulated. In support of the theory that it would be more difficult for
those lacking visual imagination and easier for those possessing this
ability, 34, to which should probably be added at least some of the 16
who found it the same; in contradiction of the theory, 9--2 who can not
visualize found it easier and 7 who could visualize found it more
difficult. In all cases other factors must have had bearing; on the
whole, the theory seems sufficiently established.
Two people I know, both high-school valedictorians and both unable to
visualize at all, were entirely helpless over solid geometry until they
solved the difficulty by cutting up raw potatoes to represent the
problem.
_Hearing._ 57 answers. The remaining 56 can probably be counted as
lacking auditory imagination. Of the 57 there are 31 answering yes; 14
somewhat or a little; 10 no; 2 untabulated. We may say that 45 out of
113 possess the ability to at least some degree, while 68 lack it
entirely. In two cases the imagination in this sense is more vivid than
in any of the others; in three cases less vivid than in any of the
others. Curiously enough, one has the ability for music but for no other
sounds--perhaps as a result of systematic training and development in
music.
_Taste._ 57 answers. Yes, 23; somewhat, 10; no, 19; untabulated, 5. Out
of 113, 33 claim this ability, while 80 lack it. With one this
imagination sense is more acute than any of the others except sight; in
another case, very acute.
_Smell._ 58 answers. Yes, 29; somewhat, 11; no, 16; untabulated, 2. Out
of 112, 40 possess it to at least some degree, while 72 are without it.
In two cases it is the most vivid of the senses; in two cases it ranks
next to sight and taste.
_Touch._ 43 answers. Yes, 13; somewhat, 12; no, 14; untabulated, 4. Out
of 113, 25 possess and 88 lack it. In one case it is the only sense
reproducing through the imagination.
_Pain._ 35 answers. Yes, 8; somewhat, 6; no, 20; untabulated, 1. Out of
113, 14 claim it and 99 do not.
_All the Senses._ As to their relative commonness, the five senses and
pain rank as follows:
Sight--73 yes; 23 somewhat; 96 total.
Hearing--31 yes; 14 somewhat; 45 total.
Smell--29 yes; 11 somewhat; 40 total.
Taste--23 yes; 10 somewhat; 33 total.
Touch--13 yes; 12 somewhat; 25 total.
Pain--8 yes; 6 somewhat; 14 total.
I believe that if the answerers were to subject themselves to a more
rigid analysis, the number of those answering "yes" and "some" would in
each of the six cases be very materially reduced, but the relative
frequency of the six cases as shown above would seem fairly dependable,
except that the temptation to "yes" or "some" in the case of sight is
probably stronger than in the other cases.
4. _Response limited by author._ 95 answers. Tabulation is complicated
and difficult. Of these 95, 81 can visualize, 14 not, and since the two
preceding questions, and most of the one before that, centered on
visualization, the sense of sight is probably to be considered the chief
criterion in the present test. Naturally the possession or lack of
visualization determines the real value of an answer here. In the
following, those possessing only slight power of visualization are
included under "can't visualize."
If you attempt tabulation you will find that an answer sometimes has to
be recorded under several heads two of which, when considered in some
aspects, give contradictory evidence, so that your total of answers does
not always divide, on some points, into parts whose sum equals the
whole.
Imagination response limited by an author's description, 28; somewhat
limited, 10; by certain authors only, 2. Total, 40.
Along with these consider 15 who are limited by the general skill of an
author, description not specified and sometimes indicated as a minor
consideration.
Not limited by author's description, 42. Of these, 39 can visualize, 3
not. Of the 39, 34 state their ability to go beyond the author's
description, filling in and coloring for themselves. Of the 3 who can't
visualize, 2 definitely state inability to go beyond the printed
description.
Of the 81 (out of the total 95) who can visualize, 61 go or can go in
their imagination beyond the author's printed words; 19 can not; 1
doesn't know. These 61, roughly speaking, prefer an approximation of
mere suggestion or concept rather than full description.
Getting at this last point from another angle, 8 who visualize state
definite objection to full description; 17 visualizers and 4
non-visualizers resent "too much"; 12 visualizers and 3 non-visualizers
state preference for suggestion only. Total against description, 44, 21
of them merely objecting to "too much"--an amount difficult to define.
There are 9 visualizers and 1 non-visualizer who do not resent
description. These, with 1 visualizer and 1 non-visualizer satisfied
with either method, make 12 neutrals.
On the other hand, 4 visualizers want full description and 2 resent mere
suggestion. Total, 6.
Definitely against description, 23.
Against "too much," 21.
Neutral, 12.
For full description, 6.
Only a questionnaire carried into minute detail and answered by large
numbers could warrant, in a subject of so many factors, any nicety of
conclusion and, also, it is not to be forgotten that the answerers are
not mere readers but readers who are also writers. On the other hand,
they are in these matters trained and sensitive observers. In any case
we are fairly safe in concluding that there exists in readers a tendency
to dislike too full description as found in the fiction of to-day.
Probably a prime cause of the dislike, in the case of visualizers, the
majority, is the violence done to the reader's own instantaneous imagery
by the almost necessarily different imagery the author's full
description forces upon him, while to non-visualizers the author's
imagery is not a picture at all. This violence to the visualizer is akin
to that often furnished by an artist's illustrations of fiction.
An extraneous element demands consideration here. Fiction, largely
because of its imitative tradition, does not develop so fast as the
world it lives in. There is warrant for holding the classics as models,
but only those elements of them that are universal in their appeal, that
are good for all time. The mistake lies in swallowing them whole, or in
admitting to their ranks fiction keyed too markedly to its own time
alone. In particular, fullness of description is characteristic of
certain past times whose fiction is often cited as a model. But
meanwhile the world itself has ceased to travel in stage-coaches or on
horseback and has taken to railroads and motors. Certainly ours is not
so leisurely an age. Telephone, telegraph, steam, electricity, gasoline
have geared our generation to a far faster speed. We lack our
forefathers' happy patience over long descriptions. Try your boy on the
stories you liked at his age. And do not forget the tremendous influence
of the motion pictures for speed of narrative and quick description.
But, whatever the element of time, human beings remain human beings and
when you paint a word-picture satisfying only your own desire of imagery
you will not only surely fail to please all, but your imagery may be
such that only a small minority find in it any satisfaction. You can not
chart the world of readers as to the exact proportions of its
imaginative responses to sense appeals, but your technique is either
shaky or happily haphazard if you have no general idea of relative
imagination responses and of your own responses in relation to those of
the majority.
5. _Stock pictures._ None of the 86 answering confess to them as
habitual, though 23 have them to some degree or in certain
circumstances. If the author fails to stimulate to special images, 8
resort to them.
6. _Imagination when reading vs. when writing._ Of 85 answering, 19 note
no difference, 2 don't know, 1 is untabulated, while 63 note a
difference. In most cases, however, the difference is only that the
imagination is more active, vivid, concentrated, etc., though there are
some notable exceptions. From the answers to this experimental question
I am unable to draw any conclusions that seem worth consideration.
7. _The above as "tools of your trade."_ Out of 73, 31 answer yes, 4
somewhat, 33 no, 2 doubtful, 2 find the question too complicated, 1 uses
no tools at all. Of the 34 answering yes in any degree, some have stated
in answer to another question that they do not consider the reader at
all when writing and only a few of these make an exception of the work
preliminary to the actual writing or of revision. These must therefore
obviously be counted out under one question or the other, probably here,
leaving a considerably reduced number with a claim to conscious
attention in their work to the imagination differences of readers.
The questions on imagination were answered in whole or part by 113, this
particular question by 73. General knowledge of human nature would seem
to give fairly good ground for concluding that most of the 40 not
answering as to tools would have answered "no" if at all. In any case
there are only a small number of the 113 whom we are warranted in
listing under "yes." Of these few there were still fewer whose answers
on the imagination questions as a whole left me unconvinced that their
"yes" was to the real question at issue, though in their work they may
well consider the necessity of appealing to all five senses. Even the
remaining few give no single scrap of definitely conclusive proof that
their "yes" means a weighing on their part of imagination differences
among readers, but proof that they do not is equally lacking, with one
probable exception.
Allowing for failures to tabulate properly in all cases, it is shown
that only a small minority of these writers allow for the varying
imagination powers of their readers or for their own imagination
equations in relation to those of the majority. Is it not mere common
sense to say that an understanding of these differences and relations
should be assimilated into an author's unconscious technique or, failing
that, be applied consciously in revision? It is all very well to say an
author should just be himself and think not at all of those to whom he
expresses himself, but as an artist it should be part of his art to see
to it that his "himself" is in communication with those to whom he is
trying to communicate, whether through his "other self" as their
representative or directly. It is not art to talk to a deaf man or to
persist in showing pictures to a blind man. Nor would it seem
unassailably intelligent to talk in French to people who understand only
Italian. Of what good is imagery if it can not be seen? What point in
trying to interest picture-lovers or sound-lovers by refusing to give
them pictures or sounds?
Mention may be made of a few of the many stray points of interest made
here and there in the answers.
Heat and cold were not included in the question, but fortunately crop
out in some of the answers.
It might be possible to divide authors into two classes--intellectual
and sensory. The former, unless they sacrificed individuality, would
have comparatively little need of sensory appeal, their natural audience
being beyond its reach. The latter class, however, would have acute need
of every device for developing and furthering sensory appeal.
Frequently the dependence of imagery upon actual personal experience is
emphasized in the answers. Since imagination is incapable of
constructing anything whatever except from elements familiar through
experience, there is opportunity for a preachment on the value of
getting as much personal experience of one's material as possible before
attempting to mold it into fiction.
I can not resist pointing out that at least one writer who demands much
description in what he reads gives almost none in what he writes.
One writer gives us a definite method for developing sight imagination.
If others can also obtain results from it, the value of the suggestion
is tremendous, and it opens the way into a comparatively unexplored
field of immense possibilities. There is involved a study of the
relation between keenness of sensory imagination and keenness of the
corresponding senses themselves. Also the variation of both actual and
imagination senses in correspondence to variation in physical or general
nervous condition. Also, note that one answerer has observed a marked
weakening of sight imagination after the age of forty, an age at which
eyesight is likely to weaken markedly, while another says the ability to
visualize through the imagination has been almost lost since
adolescence.
At least two writers, one of them a friend, and I myself have laid aside
glasses after years of use by following the directions of an oculist
whose method of cure for most eye troubles is based largely upon direct
practise with visual imagination. By developing and strengthening that,
improvement is brought about in physical eyesight. It is the reverse of
the method used by Mr. Scott for developing visual imagination and
serves to illustrate the intimate connection between the senses and
imagination.
The connection between visual imagination and actual eyesight is
comparatively unexplored territory, as is the similar connection in the
four other senses. To what degree is a writer's power of imagery, of
sense stimulation in general, dependent on his own powers of
imagination? To what extent is his imagination sense-power related to
his physical sense-power? Can the one be developed through the other?