I had a bit of an interesting debate with a family unit member today. Me and them have a completely different outlook on books. They like detective books, they call them "books to use brainpower and god forbid that". Where as I like fantastical, mystical books. Horrors and supernatural stuff. They prefer straight to the point. Blank writing. They say the book requires imagination. And that the book style I like, which is more detail, more enriching environment to see the world takes less imagination. However, I disagree with that. When I look at a full body painting, let's say this for an example (Image has a bit of a nip slip, but otherwise very PG 13) I get a story. Sure the artist set the initial world up. But you must look through that detail to find the symbols and a metaphor. I take writing to be painting. But you're painting with words. My family unit likes sketches. Where as I like full body paintings. To explain this better. Sketch: My family unit likes writing like that. With little detail. For me, I get lost with that kind of writing. Even though it's a dark room. I see black walls and them floating on a magic carpet floor. Painting: Here I get it more. I can see them in a room. A red carpet, maybe it has gold in it. I guess where I am trying to get with this thread is this. Is sketch writing better or is full body painting better? Does full body painting take away the imagination of it all? [I do not believe so. As a child I love full body paintings even though yes the artist set up the world. I could bypass everything they had written in the painting to explore the world further within my mind] Is fully body painting writing to much tell and not enough show? And lastly Which do you prefer more abstract sketching to the point or full body painting rich details about the world around the characters?