“One interesting observation made was that the less defined an image is, the more we are able to use our imagination to colour it.”

Scott McCloud makes a similar point in ‘Understanding Comics’. By contrast the power of a certain kind of photograph derives precisely from its hyperreality: its inability to suppress detail in the same way that the eye does. And this excess of detail gives it a kind of clinical, forensic quality.

There is a possible contradiction here with the supposed truism about written description: that it needs to be specific to engage the imagination.

Having said that, most people would still argue that books engage the imagination by leaving it room to play. But I still think there’s a potential contradiction. So, why does absence of detail engage the visual imagination, whereas precise detail is required to obtain the same effect in writing?

Interesting question (and probably one that deserves its own post). I guess I’d say that with gaming, the lack of detail sometimes allows us to inhabit the character – to imagine more fully that we are actually that little avatar on screen. In photography, we tend to look at the image from a more observational point of view. In turn, we want to let our eyes play over the ‘hyperreal’ definition.

In writing, I think it very much depends what detail you include, and how. Too much can just be an onslaught and the make the prose too dense. Using one or two key words on the other hand, can both give precision but allow room for the reader to invest it with their own emotions.

@Jonathan: No surprise then, that I was reading ‘Understanding Comics’ when I read Jess' post and made that comment (I think that was me, anyway).

I really should have referenced him, but I promise I’m making up for that in a new series of blog posts I have been writing for the past week or so that explore the notion of iconography, immersion, and the art of storytelling through video games. I compare the art of comics and video games quite a bit, so incorporating McCloud’s theories is pretty much essential.

As for your question, I would suppose that in most cases, precise detail is not needed, but that the accumulated choices of precision over an entire book might constitute a great deal of what we consider a writer’s style.

@Jess: Great post once again, and I agree with your comments regarding Jon’s question. Is there somewhere I can contact you when I do eventually (they are turning into monster posts, so probably not within the next couple of weeks) post up my theories on my blog? I’d love to hear your feedback.

Thanks phill. Also check your inbox.