We all know what a minotaur looks like, it has the body of a man and the head of a bull. A famous creature from Greek mythology that has appeared in multiple works of fiction. There is just one issue, when I say a minotaur has the head of a bull do I mean it has a bovine like head, or do I mean it is literally a bulls head? Now I know this sounds redundant, but if you look at a lot of artistic interpretations of minotaur they don't actually have bulls heads. Rather the head is altered, and deformed, sometimes to look more human, sometimes to look more monstrous. Spoiler: Example #1 Spoiler: Example #2 Now for comparison here is a picture of a minotaur with a literal bulls head. Spoiler: Example #3 It looks pretty silly doesn't it, something you just can't take seriously. Doesn't matter what sort of story you're trying to write, it automatically becomes a joke as soon as that doofus walks into the scene. Now back to what I was originally saying. When a writer describes a minotaur they normally don't try to specify if they're being literal when they say "bulls head" they just assume most readers will be able to figure out what they should be imagining. The question is should they? Personally unless specifically said otherwise I'll picture something like example one or two. They look cooler, and I can take them seriously. So an author yammering on about how it has a head like a bull, but not literally a bulls head would just come across as condescending. What about you though, do you think an author should specify rather than leaving it to player interpretation, or keep they're descriptions simple and trust readers to reach the correct conclusion on their own. Minotaur is just the example I went with, this question can be applied to any subject.