Creative Visualisation: Being There by Catherine Czerkawska
Been spending a lot of time with this lady! |
There is a whole spectrum of abilities, and people at one end of it can’t do it at all. I was intrigued to note that the late great Oliver Sachs was ‘face blind’ so that when shown, for example, a photograph of Oprah Winfrey, he had no idea who she was. Well, maybe not everyone does know who she is, but this was not a one off. A series of well known faces provoked a shrug and a shake of the head. There’s a whole section of the population who lead perfectly normal lives without being able to visualise things inside their heads. They know, they just can’t visually imagine.
It got me thinking, especially because I had just finished a draft of a rather complicated historical novel, so I was very much in creative writing mode. Most writers of fiction will know that alongside the perennial ‘where do you get your ideas from?’ question, (which makes a lot of sense to non-writers who are intrigued by it, but provokes a faint feeling of dismay in writers, who are generally drowning in unsolicited ideas), there’s the OTHER thing.
I used to think there was a gap but I think of it more as a yawning chasm between non-writers and writers in this respect, and now I know that the ability that creative writers tend to have in spades has a name: hyperphantasia. For most of us, it may be even more intense than that.
Let’s, for argument’s sake, call it super-hyperphantasia.
I suspect most writers of fiction are hyperphantasiacs (if that's even a word!) and if they aren’t, I’d lay bets they aren’t very good creative writers.
But the reports got me wondering if the scientists conducting this research have thought about ways in which writers and other creative people, artists for example, enter this state? To some extent you can summon it at will but I’m not entirely sure you can do it to somebody else’s specification. If you ask me to visualise pretty much anything, I will be able to see it quite clearly ‘in my mind’s eye’ – to the extent that I will be able to describe it for you. I have a strong visual imagination. Years as a playwright – where you always have to see what’s going to be happening and to whom, on stage or on film - have only reinforced it.
I once took part in an experiment in past life regression. It was intriguing, faintly disturbing, immensely vivid. I can still remember who I was, where I lived, how I was dressed, dozens of details. But I have a suspicion that the writer in me was simply inventing the character in response to a number of prompts from the person doing the regressing. Not that she gave me any of these details. She simply asked a series of questions. Where are you? How are you dressed? What are you doing? Where do you live? I knew all the answers, right down to the 'best' shoes that were almost too uncomfortable to wear. But this is exactly what I do when I'm writing.
I know that when the writing is going really well, it’s similarly intense and vivid. I’m truly elsewhere. I’m in the world of the book or story or play. Mihaly Csikszentmihalji called it a state of ‘flow’, and so it is. Time has no meaning. Then you suddenly come back into yourself and find that several hours have passed by and you have no remembrance of them. And that’s because your mind, your whole imagination has been somewhere else. The room may have grown dark or cold, and you’re hungry and thirsty, and often you feel quite ill and disorientated. Well, I certainly do.
You have been in the world of the book or story or play. You have been seeing it, feeling it, living it and experiencing the emotions of various characters – and for a while at least it doesn’t just feel as real as the ordinary world. It feels hyper real, a place beside which the ‘real world’ feels quite disappointing. You’ve been kind of playing God and sometimes you have the uneasy sense that we’re not really designed to do that. Which is why it takes its toll, why we feel so strange afterwards and so utterly bereft between projects.
Is it worth it? Well I think so. And if you can’t do it, you’ve no idea what you’re missing, literally, so you won’t mind. I’m not sure you can be taught how to do it, but I do think innate abilities can be honed and improved.
I’m often asked about dialogue. It’s hard to teach people how to write good dialogue. There are the usual hints and tips, such as reading it out loud, listening to what people say, how they really speak. But I think good dialogue only comes when you are in one of these states of being 'in the zone', because what you are then doing is not so much ‘making’ people say something as listening to your characters. Climbing inside their heads, overhearing them talk and writing it down – all at the same time. And it’s almost impossible to teach somebody how to do that if they can’t make that quantum leap into being there.
Somebody once said to me that the worlds inside her head were far more real, more vivid than the world outside. I’d identify with that. It doesn’t happen all the time, and I’m not at all sure it could be induced under controlled conditions. Writers of historical fiction have to do a lot of familiarising first, which is essentially what the research is for. It's like a secret agent being briefed before a mission. And then, armed with all that knowledge, you make the quantum leap into inner space.
Also, the experience is not without a few unwelcome side effects: rabid insomnia being one of them. The inner world has a habit of either invading your dreams – not so bad, because at least you’re sleeping - or prodding you awake several times a night, reminding you of its existence. Come back, it says.
And then your characters join in. 'We’re here. We have things to tell you. And no, we’re not going to shut up or go away until you give us the voices we think we deserve.'
If you want to sample a couple of my historical novels to see what happened when I made that leap into the past, you could try:
The Physic Garden
or
The Curiosity Cabinet
And look out for a new historical novel called The Jewel, to be published in 2016.
Let’s, for argument’s sake, call it super-hyperphantasia.
I suspect most writers of fiction are hyperphantasiacs (if that's even a word!) and if they aren’t, I’d lay bets they aren’t very good creative writers.
But the reports got me wondering if the scientists conducting this research have thought about ways in which writers and other creative people, artists for example, enter this state? To some extent you can summon it at will but I’m not entirely sure you can do it to somebody else’s specification. If you ask me to visualise pretty much anything, I will be able to see it quite clearly ‘in my mind’s eye’ – to the extent that I will be able to describe it for you. I have a strong visual imagination. Years as a playwright – where you always have to see what’s going to be happening and to whom, on stage or on film - have only reinforced it.
I once took part in an experiment in past life regression. It was intriguing, faintly disturbing, immensely vivid. I can still remember who I was, where I lived, how I was dressed, dozens of details. But I have a suspicion that the writer in me was simply inventing the character in response to a number of prompts from the person doing the regressing. Not that she gave me any of these details. She simply asked a series of questions. Where are you? How are you dressed? What are you doing? Where do you live? I knew all the answers, right down to the 'best' shoes that were almost too uncomfortable to wear. But this is exactly what I do when I'm writing.
I had a pair of shoes like this but only in my mind's eye. |
I know that when the writing is going really well, it’s similarly intense and vivid. I’m truly elsewhere. I’m in the world of the book or story or play. Mihaly Csikszentmihalji called it a state of ‘flow’, and so it is. Time has no meaning. Then you suddenly come back into yourself and find that several hours have passed by and you have no remembrance of them. And that’s because your mind, your whole imagination has been somewhere else. The room may have grown dark or cold, and you’re hungry and thirsty, and often you feel quite ill and disorientated. Well, I certainly do.
You have been in the world of the book or story or play. You have been seeing it, feeling it, living it and experiencing the emotions of various characters – and for a while at least it doesn’t just feel as real as the ordinary world. It feels hyper real, a place beside which the ‘real world’ feels quite disappointing. You’ve been kind of playing God and sometimes you have the uneasy sense that we’re not really designed to do that. Which is why it takes its toll, why we feel so strange afterwards and so utterly bereft between projects.
Is it worth it? Well I think so. And if you can’t do it, you’ve no idea what you’re missing, literally, so you won’t mind. I’m not sure you can be taught how to do it, but I do think innate abilities can be honed and improved.
I’m often asked about dialogue. It’s hard to teach people how to write good dialogue. There are the usual hints and tips, such as reading it out loud, listening to what people say, how they really speak. But I think good dialogue only comes when you are in one of these states of being 'in the zone', because what you are then doing is not so much ‘making’ people say something as listening to your characters. Climbing inside their heads, overhearing them talk and writing it down – all at the same time. And it’s almost impossible to teach somebody how to do that if they can’t make that quantum leap into being there.
Somebody once said to me that the worlds inside her head were far more real, more vivid than the world outside. I’d identify with that. It doesn’t happen all the time, and I’m not at all sure it could be induced under controlled conditions. Writers of historical fiction have to do a lot of familiarising first, which is essentially what the research is for. It's like a secret agent being briefed before a mission. And then, armed with all that knowledge, you make the quantum leap into inner space.
Also, the experience is not without a few unwelcome side effects: rabid insomnia being one of them. The inner world has a habit of either invading your dreams – not so bad, because at least you’re sleeping - or prodding you awake several times a night, reminding you of its existence. Come back, it says.
And then your characters join in. 'We’re here. We have things to tell you. And no, we’re not going to shut up or go away until you give us the voices we think we deserve.'
If you want to sample a couple of my historical novels to see what happened when I made that leap into the past, you could try:
The Physic Garden
or
The Curiosity Cabinet
And look out for a new historical novel called The Jewel, to be published in 2016.
Comments
I really see things in dreams, so vividly I have mistaken them for real life. But in waking imagination, no. They are ideas, words, concepts, but not images. Maybe it's like that for everyone, and some people just describe the experience more fancifully, saying they 'see' things when they don't really see them. I don't know. It's unknowable maybe.
But I've never been someone who cared much about what characters looked like. If it's significant that they're very tall or very small (for instance) then fine. But a high domed forehead? A heart-shaped face? Delicate comma-like eyebrows? Don't bother, I'll have forgotten in two pages.
And yes, I do have problems recognising real people too!
I don't care much about what other people's characters look like either, and I try to remember that readers probably don't care much about how mine look - but I do see mine, how they move, how they dress...
Somewhere in 'Ghost Drum,' I described how, when reading a book, the reader sees the events of the book as if they moved on a translucent screen between the reader's eyes and the words. At a talk, a member of the audience picked up on this, and said it described exactly her experience. The woman next to her said, no, she never 'saw' anything at all.
It was the first time I'd ever heard of this, and said, 'How can you ever enjoy a book?' Other members of the audience chimed in (the 'seers' seemed to far outnumber the non-seers. The discussion became quite heated, as the seers could not grasp how someone could not see things in their imagination. I ended by feeling quite sorry it had ever been brought up.
Catherine - I should have said this before: Wonderful post!
(And, by the way, I'm sick of trying to identify things with oranges or popcorn in them simply to prove I'm who I say I am.)
Looking forward to your new book.
The Ghost World books are very vivid, visually, and I do remember picturing the huge door to the Ghost World very clearly, and the iron woods, and plenty of other places. (And blood. Lots of blood). But it never seemed as if eyes were involved... it was like somewhere I'd been, long ago. (But thankfully, I never have. I hope.)
"Can someone please comment on my behalf and say yes - I see everything as if I am there ! And no it isn't like a figure of speech. It's more real than reality!."
About being able to visualise things - I've just been watching Pointless and it was very frustrating because they asked for the names of actors in Bladerunner. I could 'see' the faces of the actors who played the toymaker, the older robot woman, and the robot man who isn't Rutger Hauer... I could have given descriptions of them to the Police. Didn't know their names.
Another question was: what actress with the initial JS played 'Young Bess' in 1956. Answer - the same actress who played the slave-girl in Spartacus. Could see her, so plainly, in her Roman slave-girl costume, talking to Kirk Douglas. Jean Simmons! Could I remember her name? No.
Catherine also mentions the state of 'flow' where you forget time, hunger, cold. I've certainly experienced that with writing. I think it's a form of self-hypnosis - an altered state of mind.
I remember when I wrote in the house of a friend while she was at work. It often happened that, when she came home and put her key in the lock, I reacted with a truly violent start, throwing my hands in the air, leaping off my chair. It was a reaction out of all proportion to the tiny noise of the key. It's happened, too, when someone has pushed open the door of my room, while I'm working, to ask me something.
I did some research on hypnosis. Something that struck me was that, when you're in a hypnotic trance, you don't know it, you don't 'feel hypnotised.' The first thing most people say, I read, on being woken from their first experience of being hypnotised is, 'I wasn't hypnotised.' Or they assume that the attempt to hypnotise them was a failure when, it fact, it suceeded, and they may have been 'out' for 30 minutes. But being 'in an altered state of consciousness' doesn't feel any different from being awake. In a sense, hypnosis is increased concentration - the hypnotist directs your concentration.
Hypnotists wake people gradually, leading them back to their normal state but if someone is woken suddenly from a trance, then they react with shock, as if violently startled - which reminded me strongly of my reaction to the tiny click of a key in a lock, or of someone opening a door.
So, I suggest, when we're deeply involved in writing, and go on and on, for hours, ignoring everything else - we're actually in 'an altered state of mind.'
In tandem with teaching them the techniques of acting, I started teaching them how to write their own speeches and plays, so that they could understand narrative structure. This led to further amazing discoveries and the development of a small workshop, facetiously entitled 'How to write like Shakespeare in one hour and forty five minutes (Guaranteed!)'. Subsequently I was asked to teach this to writers and am currently writing a book on they process. It is all about flow.