s.penkevich's Reviews > What We See When We Read

What We See When We Read by Peter Mendelsund
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
6431467
's review

really liked it
bookshelves: reading, worth_owning_just_to_look_at, visual_extravaganza, non-fiction

We perform a book, and we attend the performance.

Words have a unique power to impose pictures into the inward eye of the mind¹ In a recent thread, a friend commented on how Homer, despite his supposed blindness, had the ability to create metaphors which were more visual and imaginatively stunning that modern CGI has been able to manage. Words have a power that even visual stimulation cannot capture. It is interesting to consider the cliche that ‘the book is better than the movie’ which—in most cases, though still debatable on many—tends to be true. Consider all the different forms of art that converge onto the silver screen. There is the script and writing, the acting, the directing, editing, sound and musical score, all that work together towards capturing an intended emotional response and resonance. Yet, despite all the efforts of many artists to capture a novel in a more immediate and mulit-sensory way, the words on the page hold more of a grip on our hearts and minds. ‘Books allow us certain freedoms,’ Peter Mendelsund—of whom most of you are familiar with through his art direction of book covers even though you may not yet realize—posits in his book What We See When We Read, ‘we are free to be mentally active when we read; we are full participants in the making (the imagining) of a narrative . In a film, we are shown what to think, not given the agency of reading. Examining the visual aspects of novels and the way that the imagination fills in the gaps, Mendelsund delivers insightful musings alongside the opinions of many brilliant minds and couples this with an artistic flair that makes for an enlightening and stimulating read.

Mendelsund’s book is a visual feast for the eyes and the mind. While it may seem thick, this is actually a quick read as most pages only feature a paragraph of singular idea with a visual representation of the idea on the opposite page. While asking us to explore how we visualize a book, he simultaneously gives us a visual joy to accompany our thoughts or to further elaborate a point. While the major works used as examples for examination are To the Lighthouse, Anna Karenina, Ulysses and Madame Bovary, books from Tolkien to Infinite Jest are discussed and many examples and quotes from bright minds like Roland Barthes, William H. Gass, Franz Kafka, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Italo Calvino among others are utilized for the discussion. While there is nothing particularly new here that will shatter your mind or blow you away, and even many points that you are may disagree with, reading this book feels somehow Socratic in its method of making you realize things that have always gone on in your head, things you knew, but never realized you knew. It is quite enriching while also being extremely entertaining.

Characters are ciphers. And narratives are made richer by omission.

Mendelsund points out that many famous literary characters, such as Bovary, Ishmael and Anna K., are never given much physical description, yet over the course of the novel we visualize them each in our own way. ‘It is precisely what the text does not elucidate that becomes an invitation to our imaginations.’ In Anna Karenina, we are given her weight, her ‘thick lashes’, her ‘little downy mustache’, but Mendelsund asks ‘what does she look like?’. We all have a mental image of her, images with overlapping features, but Mendelsund claims that assuredly none of them are Tolstoy’s Anna. In one page he features a photograph of Keira Knightley as Anna and asserts that ‘this is a theft’ robbing us of our personal images of Anna. However, he states that nobody has a ‘clear’ image of a character, there is no photo-realistic image in our minds. Rather a blurred stand in, we may see hair here or an eye there (particularly in Bovary as her eye color changed throughout the novel), but never a full image. This goes with setting as well. He goes into detail and examples of how literature leaves us with a set of points to describe an object and that our mind fills the gaps in naturally. It is the magic of literature, the power of words and imagination working together to be both an active participant and an audience member when reading a novel. He also examines how when reading we receive information over time, going back and adapting our mental image to new information, and that we do not perceive words ‘ One - At - A - Time’ but instead ‘ we take in whole eyefuls of words. We gulp them like water.’ Mendelsund compares a page in a book to being like a chord in music; each individual idea is like a single note but it is through the combination of the various details that we hear the music of a character or scene. Though we only experience one note at a time, we ‘hear’ them as a chord. Also worth noting is his descriptions on how a character is not made by their descriptions, Mendelsund says, but by their actions. He brings Aristotle to his aid:
Aristotle claimed that Self is an action, and that we discover something’s nature through knowing it telos. A knife becomes a knife through cutting….


The distance between language and image is always the same’ - Italo Calvino

Another of the many aspects to the visual nature of literature covered by Mendelsund (in no way can I cover them all here) is the idea of the visual eye being like a film camera of sorts. Visualization is not like film, when an object is described the mind’s eye does not ‘zoom in’, but flashes an expression of the idea in the mind. Mendelsund questions how we perceive a scene in our mind through different P.O.V.’s and wonders how it is from first or third person (I myself tend to visualize all books in a third person perspective, ‘seeing’ the character even if it is told in first person). He also examines how we fill in details in our minds eye with images familiar to us, and asks how often we picture a character as having similar traits to someone we know in our own lives² or may transport the imagery of a Russian battlefield from War and Peace to the familiar setting of a childhood park.

What We See When We Read is a fun and visually impressive investigation into the abstract visualizations we all experience while reading. What I found particularly enjoyable was its insistence on reading as the most engaging of media forms since we as readers have our own agency and ‘As readers, we are the conductor and the orchestra, as well as the audience’. Through a vast assortment of great minds, Mendelsund has created a book that captures the essence of the visual stimulation of great novels and helps remind us of the joys that keep us coming back to books.

3.5/5

¹ The ‘inward eye’ is borrowed from William Wordsworth poem recalling yellow flowers seen by a lake:
For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood
They flash upon that inward eye
Whis is the bliss of solitude…


² While reading Mitchell’s The Bone Clocks at the same time as a co-worker, we one day realized we had both visualized the character Esther Little as looking like an older woman we worked with. We had many laughs about this for weeks to come.
82 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read What We See When We Read.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Finished Reading
March 30, 2015 – Shelved
March 30, 2015 – Shelved as: reading
March 30, 2015 – Shelved as: worth_owning_just_to_look_at
March 30, 2015 – Shelved as: visual_extravaganza
March 30, 2015 – Shelved as: non-fiction

Comments Showing 1-27 of 27 (27 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Ted (new)

Ted Lots to consider in this review. I've always thought that most books are "better than the movie" pretty simply because there's so much more of the book, so much that has to be left out of the movie.

And that in those occasions when the movie is judged "better", it's because the person making the judgement thinks that the book, while a good read, is very amenable to compression by the film-making art.

Examples: A book like Anna Karenina has way too much wonderful stuff to ever get into a movie; but movies like the Bourne movies are based on stories that are simply thrillers, which in the hands of a deft producer/director can pack a punch far surpassing the written word.


s.penkevich Ted wrote: "Lots to consider in this review. I've always thought that most books are "better than the movie" pretty simply because there's so much more of the book, so much that has to be left out of the movie..."

Very true, I think it is what is left out that ruins it for me Recently I saw Inherent Vice, which is possibly the closest book-to-movie adaptation I have seen (that I can think of right now), but even then I was bummed by what was left out. Even if I see a film first and read the book second do I prefer the book. There are a few example to the contrary though. I much preferred the film Fight Club to the book, though mainly because I think he is a terrible writer and that the changes in the film did the story better justice (however I am still inclined to point out the themes of the book left unsaid despite not really liking the book). I also prefer the film Clockwork Orange to the book, though I read that when I was 14 so I am likely wrong. When I read it I thought 'the language experiments are cool but I am tired of them'. Anna K is way too complex to put into a film! I think Cloud Atlas is a good example of that too, the movie is terrible but how could it be anything but? I wonder why there aren't more mini-series adaptations of books? At least then you have the time to let things grow and breathe. I read recently that James Franco is working on a film of McCarthy's Blood Meridian and I was very disheartened. That book is too good to film. And even if it were a mini-series it would likely fall flat if you couldn't highlight the incredible violence that spoke to the heart of the book Great points, Ted, and thank you.


message 3: by Ted (new)

Ted s.penkevich wrote: "Ted wrote: "Lots to consider in this review. I've always thought that most books are "better than the movie" pretty simply because there's so much more of the book, so much that has to be left out ..."

The movie review in the New Yorker of Inherent Vice said yes it has its faults, but it's probably the best movie that will ever be made of a Pynchon book. (Ie, I think agreeing with your point that Pnychon's writing is way too literary and complex to ever be able to simplify for a film.)

On the other hand - I liked Cloud Atlas the book a LOT. But I though the movie was absolutely BRILLIANT. (I see very few movies, but I went to see that one the afternoon it opened here. I did feel sorry for people watching who hadn't read the book - they must have been asea.)


message 4: by Dolors (new)

Dolors Fascinating stuff Spenks. You not only addressed the workings of imagination but also the subconscious mental processes that take place in the mind of readers when they transform flat words into three dimensional images, which vary depending on each reader's peculiarities and on how the authors' writing styles come across... I don't think I will ever get to read this book but I can't be gladder to have bumped into your review!


message 5: by Garima (new) - added it

Garima Excellent review, Sven. I have this book on tbr and it's apparent that there's so much for a reader to ponder upon here or even debating with the author. And as you mentioned many of my favorite people and books in your review, it's only a matter of time that I click on the 'order now' button.


message 6: by Mike (new)

Mike Puma I've had this one sitting next to the place I do most of my reading for almost a year...sooner or later, probably sooner after reading this review. This does get me wondering, though, thinking myself more word-attentive than image-attentive, and knowing that, on occasion, I arbitrarily impose various people I know onto the characters in various novels, just what might be expected, say, should I read this and then reread, oh, I don't know, let's say Suttree. Care to make a prediction, s.pharrogate?


message 7: by Forrest (new)

Forrest Great review! I sometimes wonder, if we could extract, combine, and display a thousand readers' thought-pictures of a book, or even a scene, what would the combined, overlaid product look like? I suspect it would be a mess!


s.penkevich Ted: I'm actually glad to hear you enjoyed the film version, I thought it was a lot of fun. I think they did a good job with what they had to work with, I mean its six stories in one! That said, right around two thirds in all the big changes from page to screen came about and I was bummed they removed my favorite parts of the Frobisher story (which was my favorite story in the book). I felt that one could have benefited from being a mini series. Those who hadn't been the book were likely confused though.

Dolors: thank you! Yea, there were some really cool points in here that really got me thinking about how I visualize a book. It made me wonder about in my mind do I picture character in 1800s novels wearing modern clothes? Ha.

Garima: thank you! I actually made sure to mention the Calvino contributions just for you ha, glad you caught that!

Mike: gracias! It's more one to flip through over time than plow through (I finally finished it after six months). Ha, funny, when I read Suttree I had a specific friend I pictured as that character (melon mounting not included) and pictures the whole jail scene on the Cool Hand Luke set.

Forest: thanks! Quite true. He mentions that if we averaged all readers image of Anna K, it still would probably be nothing like Tolstoys own vision


message 9: by Melanie (new) - added it

Melanie Great review! I've had this one on my shelf for a while so I should get to it soon!


s.penkevich Melanie wrote: "Great review! I've had this one on my shelf for a while so I should get to it soon!"

Thank you! I hope you get a chance to give it a go, it's pretty entertaining and thought provoking


message 11: by Francesca (new) - added it

Francesca Newbold Well you've convinced me! Sounds very interesting, I'm definitely keen to read this book now.


s.penkevich Francesca wrote: "Well you've convinced me! Sounds very interesting, I'm definitely keen to read this book now."

I'm glad! It's a pretty interesting book, and its also pretty to look at ha


message 13: by Margaret (new) - added it

Margaret From your review, it sounds as if this book might be a fine companion piece to read alongside E.H. Gombrich's great classic Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. Mendelsund demonstrates how the human imagination (key word here) represents pictorially what it reads and interprets, while Gombrich analyzes in brilliant and readable prose how humans both create and comprehend pictorial art. One writes about how we picture and understand what our words say and the other writes about how we talk about and understand what our pictures show. Very interesting, and now I'll have to take a look, as it were.


message 14: by Steve (new)

Steve Excellent job, once again, Spenx! (You'll let me know if you ever get tired of me saying that, right?) As fascinating as this topic is, it seems disappointing that this rates only 3.5 stars. BTW, I now feel deprived that I have such a hazy picture of what Esther Little should look like.


message 15: by Fionnuala (new)

Fionnuala I was in a bookshop a couple of weeks ago with time to kill and spent half a morning sitting in one of their leather armchairs leafing through this book - I had the best time.
It really is a book you look at more than read!
But it makes you think about how you read and that's always good.


message 16: by Cecily (new)

Cecily I love the Bone Clocks anecdote. If you'd discovered the older woman had also read TBC, would you have been tempted to tell her?!


s.penkevich Sorry for the delay
Margaret: Woah, that does sound like an awesome combination. I'm pretty sure we have that book at my store, I'm definitely going to check it out now. That is a fascinating combination that addresses things from all sides.

Steve: Thanks, I'd never tire of that haha. 3.5 only as it was more amusing and interesting rather than mind-blowing and 'go by this now'. I don't know, I'm trying to be more conservative with my ratings though letting the stars stay higher. Its my way of saying a 3.5 at 4 stars is better than a 3.5 at 3 stars, if that makes sense. Come to Holland, we have the real Esther Little haha. We both talk about how much we hope she one day offers us tea.

Fionnuala: Isn't this one fun to glance through? I've been seeing more and more books like this. It reminds me of the digipack versions of CDs that had all sorts of cool visuals and extras to encourage people to buy the physical album instead of downloading it. Murakami's Strange Library is similar in that aspect, seems a way to get you to want a physical book to have sitting about rather than just on the e-reader.

Cecily: Ha, thanks! I'm glad someone would get this: we have this ongoing joke that we want her to offer one of us tea. And I totally would, she would probably find that amusing. My co-worker actually admitted to her that we both talk about how she is a character from a book we read ha.


message 18: by Cecily (new)

Cecily Ooh, it sounds as if she's a delightful character and that you really need to find a way to introduce her to Mitchell. Mind you, in my experience, when you see a really close parallel between a fictional character and someone you know, the real person rarely sees the links as strongly (regardless of whether it's a flattering or worrying comparison).


message 19: by s.penkevich (last edited Apr 03, 2015 08:56AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

s.penkevich Ha, true. Recently a good friend of mine read Suttre by McCarthy. I told him one of the characters reminded me of him while I was reading it and he wrinkled his brow and said 'oh. Really? Why?' We had a good laugh but still. In the early stages of dating I recall my ex-wife describing me to a friend as reminding her of a certain character in Lost. I said 'why him!? Damn that's not who I'd want to be!' Haha oh well


message 20: by Steve (last edited Apr 03, 2015 09:00AM) (new)

Steve I once told a college friend after reading a short story by the Marquis de Sade that I was reminded of him. When everyone laughed, I had to add, only in the best way.


message 21: by Cecily (new)

Cecily Isn't the best way bad, from Sade's point of view? ;)


message 22: by Steve (new)

Steve Good point, Cecily, but I'm not sure my friend was going to like my comment no matter how I conditioned it. :-)


message 23: by Cecily (new)

Cecily And are you still friends?


Genevieve Your review makes me more eager to get the book. I’ve had it on reserve at the library for ages now…

Interesting points being made about books and their film or TV counterparts. What happens in the visualization calculation when one has read and watched both versions, or when one has seen the movie first and goes back to the book? Fun to ponder…. I also thought Cloud Atlas the movie was a pretty decent flick, though felt the visuals never quite matched up with what I saw in my mind’s eye when I read the book. And then there are movies like LOTR where the films’ visuals completely monopolized the images I originally had reading the books (not to mention actors’ voices becoming the voices from the page).


message 25: by Steve (new)

Steve Cecily wrote: "And are you still friends?"

Nah, he left school to become a pornographer specializing in S&M. (Sorry, after April Fool's Day I kind of got in the habit of lying.)


Genevieve Oh, and re: The Bone Clocks—so which form of Ester Little? I guess the little old lady that gives Holly tea in the first section always sticks in my mind... The Horologists changed bodies so often that I never could quite pin down a visual identity for any of them really. Makes me think more about how Mitchell plays with the idea of ‘characters as ciphers’ in that book.


s.penkevich Genevieve wrote: "Your review makes me more eager to get the book. I’ve had it on reserve at the library for ages now…

Interesting points being made about books and their film or TV counterparts. What happens in th..."


It is definitely worth checking out. And good point, some films become so iconic that it is nearly impossible to separate. When I read Name of the Rose, I had heard Sean Connery played the lead character. It was impossible not to hear his voice while reading dialogue after that.

And great point about the Horologists, I hadn't really thought about that but they really work as ciphers. Which plays on Cloud Atlas too where the 'reincarnations' were more metaphors on the progression of language and character tropes.


back to top