Unclear: Blind Seer

Who's the blind one? Perhaps the man Giving Odysseus The Pointer Finger? Doesn't look like he's blind to me.

...Or is it the woman with the Prophet Eyes? She seems to be blind - but I can't see the Seer-part.

Motion to pull

Pic doesn't show the seer's blindness clearly enough.

Motion to pull, for reasons given.

Maybe we get another depiction of the same scene? Or, Leknaat:

No indication she's blind or a seer.

She kinda look like one, but, well, I did expect people to say that.

What we need is someone who is obviously blind making a prediction.

Off the top of my head, only example I can think of.

Cropped.

Alternatively, there's this card◊.

edited 25th Jun '11 9:53:43 AM by Catalogue

I'm not sure how visible this will be, but she does have a...well, I remember them being called cootie catchers, but, uh, that's probably not right. But she does have it, and it looks fortune teller-y. Unfortunately, that's about as bright as I can make it without it looking washed out.

edited 25th Jun '11 11:29:02 AM by helterskelter

There's just no easy shorthand for blindness. They can be mistaken for In the Hood, Eyes Always Shut, or Prophet Eyes. Even something like Order Of The Stick above may be seen as Blindfolded Vision. The clearest one would involve scars.

edited 25th Jun '11 11:49:26 AM by Catalogue

I don't know, I think a blindfold is an easy short hand for blindness. Why else wear one, if you're not in a captive situation?

Blindfolds are acceptable (that's why I said "even...") although you can wear that if you see better without.

Lodz in Carnivale has milky eyes that he occasionally shows. I could probably get a screenshot of that if I put some work into it. I have no idea what I should look for to get the seer aspect through, though.

I vote for the OOTS example. It's the only clear picture I've seen here.

I'd go along with that.

& Only that image lacks anything to suggest that the character is legitimately blind and not just refusing to use her eyes on her own initiative.

edited 25th Jun '11 5:10:56 PM by SeanMurrayI

Addressed already in post 9.

It certainly has been, and it's still a problem with the OOTS image.

If we can't positively tell for sure that the character is legitimately blind, then we can't positively deem it a good image for a trope that calls for legit blindness and not just having ones eyes covered; that particular image is no better than any of the others that have been proposed so far.

edited 25th Jun '11 5:41:07 PM by SeanMurrayI

But doesn't that border on Red Paint Defense? I brought that up to loosen our standards, not the other way around.

edited 25th Jun '11 5:41:32 PM by Catalogue

What exact standards are we loosening? The only standards I ever hold image suggestions to is that they positively illustrate what a given trope is and use some minimal amount of relevant visual imagery to do it, and these don't seem like too much of a hassle.

Again, looking at the OOTS image, how can I positively know for sure that the person is blind and not just covering her eyes?

edited 25th Jun '11 5:48:42 PM by SeanMurrayI

Then I don't think this trope is picturable by those standards. Every reasonably common shorthand for blindness I can think of is covered by an existing trope that does not involve blindness (as listed in post 9).

edited 25th Jun '11 5:50:10 PM by Leaper

^ The trope is perfectly picturable by my standards, provided an image can definitively suggest a character is truly blind; even if it requires dialogue or expository text to make the point completely clear, that's all you need and, moreover, what all the suggestions given, so far, do not have.

edited 25th Jun '11 5:58:35 PM by SeanMurrayI

I referred to the standards of visual shorthands.

Page images are not meant to be viewed in a vacuum; they are to be viewed in a page where readers will read the title as well. They will not look at an image of a person blindfolded and fail to assume that the trope is about seers that are blind (as opposed to wearing blindfolds), since it's accompanied by the title "Blind Seer."

(Of course, blindfolded, but not physically blind, seers are abound in the examples—they're playing with the old archetype—but that's beside the point.)

With text, nearly everything is picturable. My objection is I don't think it's necessary to go that far, for reasons stated above.

edited 25th Jun '11 6:03:09 PM by Catalogue

However, merely wearing a blindfold is not visual shorthand for blindness.

Prophet Eyes might be a lot more telling, but not a blindfold.

I know; I said "might be a lot more telling"; Prophet Eyes are still generally a better way to distinguish a Blind Seer than a blindfold, however, as the two tropes are prominently paired on the Prophet Eyes page.

edited 25th Jun '11 6:16:27 PM by SeanMurrayI

But Prophet Eyes, as far as I can tell, doesn't = blindness any more than a blindfold does.

Not quite, but...◊

Or we can just get some fortune teller with a crystal ball and white out his/her eyes.