Doesn't literature feel empty, or even lacking, just in

>>8604453
No. The best film I've ever seen is vacant predictable shit compared to great writing.
Not necessarily, but that wouldn't mean it was "empty or lacking," quite the opposite. You can't fully grasp something really complex and profound on first encounter.
You think understanding a Mozart symphony requires less attention, knowledge, or skill than analyzing a novel? You can read a book with just as little attention as you listen to music, but that doesn't mean you're getting any decent part of it.

>>8604753
what writing is so great huh?

I literally just used 6 words that are in ALL BOOKS. Proves how bad they are

Reading does require greater concentration than listening to music or watching a movie.

But listening to Mahler requires greater concentration than listening to Wiz Khalifa, and watching Tarkovsky requires more concentration than watching Michael Bay.


In each of course I'm assuming that whether watching, listening, or reading, the intention is to derive something profound.

>>8605573
That's... too stupid to bother discussing.

>>8605617
You...responded seriously

>>8605604
>Reading does require greater concentration than listening to music or watching a movie.
I disagree. To listen to and comprehend(!) a great many part of fugue by Bach or Palestrina requires an immense amount of mental effort far in excess of what you would use to read the vast majority of books. We are talking reading Kant or Hegel tier except you can't stop. There are no breaks to make, you can't go back over something before continuing. It often feels like the level of intense concentration to understand all the parts and their relationships to each other is something akin to a serious game of chess.

Obvious troll thread.

>>8604753
>No. The best film I've ever seen is vacant predictable shit compared to great writing.
You should be ashamed of this, not use it as a bragging point

File: 1476144337867.png (24KB, 652x848px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 652x848px

It depends on the level of the writing you are reading.

If you compare Rap and hip-hop to YA books or Dan brown books then its a fair comparison.

Once you get to the master level then you can start arguing over which has more dimension.

Choosing one over the other sounds stupid.

>>8604453
So your complaint is that literature requires a little effort from the reader to enjoy while the others allow you to be a passive consumer? This is only a problem in the generation of spoonfed millenial babies

Yeah, I know this thread kind of went down the shitter but I still feel I have to say this.

As you grow as a person, you grow into many different things. You appreciate mediums for different reasons. I listen to a lot of radio, and great radio compared to great writing is just entirely different. When you get to any certain level, like YA fiction, non-fiction, you can see the patterns easily.

So if you want anime, you're going to be watching a lot of anime. That doesn't mean you don't like radio, and can't appreciate other strengths of other mediums and how people use them.
If anything, writing is great because it's very low cost these days. When making movies gets even cheaper than it is now, you'll have more people being able to explore the limits of that medium in greater depth.

Not to mention, even if you walk away from all the pretty pictures in the end a movie still needs a screenplay, a concept, and a language. Writing will always be the start of it.

>>8604453
that's a pretty good shoop as a thumbnail

>>8604753
Youve seen platoon, apocolypse now, paths to glory, et cetera?

>>8606344
Yes, but comparing them to (for instance) Four Quartets, The Brothers Karamazov, or The Iliad just doesn't work. The medium is too new to even have developed a stylistic vocabulary that can operate with that subtlety and power. I love Apocalypse Now, but parts of it (even the redux) are poorly-realized compromises and desperate changes. Films are just too complex and huge an operation, requiring so many hands and (usually) so much money and opinions.

>>8605663
Telling someone they're dumb for that "6 words" comment is not discussing or responding seriously.

>>8604453
OP's post summarized:

>isn't reading hard? I'd rather listen to my phone or watch a movie

Listen to this piece. For someone who has no clue in music it owuld seem very simplistic but someone who understands a bit about music theory will immidiately recognize that its actually very complex and innovative(in its minimalist way).

>>8606781
forgot to link it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acnH6M1Ee8k

>>8604453
Absolutely not.

>>8605787
Do you actually compose music? Or are you an edge master trying to focus on dozens of individual parts at once?

You can always hit rewind or go back a page in the score.

>>8604453
It is empty, because it has to spend too many words on setting and characters. These are just filler because they don't advance the plot. In a visual medium they are established in parallel to the plot development without slowing it down. The solution is fanfic, where those things are already established.

>>8606850
>Ulysses
Well I could, I am musically educated but I don't because it would be shit.

>Or are you an edge master
Why would understanding what's going on make you an edge master? Are you an edge master for for understanding GR or Ulysses if you aren't a writer then? What do you even mean by edge master. It just looks like a meaningless buzzword you have made which can do whatever you want.

>>8606781
It's not complex at all. That's the whole point. The tintinnabuli system is extremely simple and intuitive. It's literally just a diatonically ascending and descending pattern which occasionally shifts into a different chord progression to do the same thing again. It's a good piece of music and it can be hard to write good simplistic music but in terms of theory this can be understand by a skillful child.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ4KuWA3-AQ

1v1?!?

File: 1451448811019.jpg (634KB, 776x3623px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 776x3623px

>>8606668
the point of that post was that these aren't exactly deep and artistic movies, but rather kind of pleb.

They're like the catcher in the rye of cinema, the general public thinks of them as masterpieces, but they really aren't all that, and there are alot more artistic films

>>8608927
Catcher in the Rye was legit good though. Nabokov thought it highly artistic. I'd say anything of Steinbeck's that wasn't Of Mice and Men fits your description better.

>>8604453
>Doesn't literature feel empty, or even lacking, just in terms of pure mental stimulation compared to music or a well-composed film?
I actually unironically used to feel this way. Reading was tedious and music and film were more immediate. The problem was that I just wasn't reading anything that I liked. A good book is a completely different experience than music or film. They're different styles of art meant to fulfill different purposes. There's a type of beauty in each that can't be found in the others.
>Doesn't literature require more work to reap "entertainment" or even the philosophical fruits of that work?
You could kind of say that, but it's not really "work" if you like what you're reading. I'm sure anybody who's ever read something they liked has experienced not being able to stop reading until they're tired.
>I mean if you want to be a reader, you almost have to contemplative whereas just enjoying music, though more passive, doesn't require much to enjoy other than a listening ear.
If you want to enjoy shitty music then yeah all you need is to put it on as background noise but most music fans find more purpose than that and like to be a bit more discerning.

>>8606207
It's not a bragging point. If you have a film to suggest that is the equal of the greatest literary works, feel free, but you're wrong.