What does writing do better than other mediums, such as film.

>>8499557
Also, any book recs which cover this question?

>>8499557
Very extensive discussion. The baseline is that they're different mediums that can do different things.

I could go on for fucking pages cause I dig the subject, but the baseline in my head is that written word can be given qualities a visual medium can't--rhythm, diction in narration and description, aesthetic juxtaposition, etc. Abstract ideas and emotions can be conveyed more fully with connotative writing when they reach outside the bounds of visual media. CGI can only go so far in the recreation of things that can't even be seen or properly imagined.

Meanwhile acting in film can often do more for one's conception of visible emotion than a book--a viewer can more quickly gain an understanding of an actor's character just by looking at them, which is displayed better by better actors. Writing has to take more time through description to do this, and often the description can fall short of the fine details an actor can give. When a book describes something that exists, too, it's easier and can often be captured more fully on film, especially when talking about places and detailed structures.

In essence one relies on boundless imagination and the other relies on displays of skill to give impressions on the reader/viewer. Both work differently and can achieve all sorts of different effects. Shall I go on?

>>8500397
Essentially this
Just because of further time investment, books can more accurately describe and act as a simulacrum of existence (as well as a lengthened discussion of a complex topic) more than a film (look into the myth of total cinema), but a film can easily be more decidedly poignant and subtle

>>8499557
Use of sound and color can also reach bounds in film that literature could never meet. Imagine the rebirth sequence from 2001 on paper--yeah, no. This also goes towards descriptions of melodies and background music between writing and movies: actually hearing the songs creates a much different feel than just knowing they're playing, or just reading that they're beautiful or complex.

>>8499557
I often hear people saying that the novel lets you access the human psyche far better than other art forms.

Writing is less subtle than other arts. I think part of what modernist were trying to do with subtext had to do with wanting a more subtle or nuanced literature. In film you can place something in the back or corner of a frame and you don't need to draw attention to it. You can have symbolic imagery in the frame as the narrative continues undisturbed. In lit however, you must dedicate a word in print to it maybe even an entire phrase or sentence which will take away the subtler aspects.

What's always made the difference for me is what language itself actually does. Language is the most logical tool we have, making even abstractions concrete. It's categorical and, if done well, precise. The problem for writing then comes in trying to capture the vague and uncertain that can be caught easier through forms such as music or art. Film does a good job in bridging the gap between all these forms, however doesn't go as in depth as any specific area on its own