Philosophical attempts to understand imagination sometimes focus on its nature – what imagination is – and sometimes focus on its phenomenological character – what imagination is like.  This paper takes up the latter project.  I explore three different views one encounters in the literature – what I call the impoverishment view, the will-dependence view, and the non-existence view – in an attempt to assess their plausibility.  Ultimately, I suggest that each of these views is problematic, and I conclude by considering what this shows about the prospects of providing an adequate account of imaginative phenomenology.