What do you think literature has over other mediums, specifically

>>9187467
Uniqueness in the sense that what youre reading is yourself, with symbolic prompts (letters), and, therefore, supreme intimacy. What film has that individual reading lacks is an objective history (earlier films) and therefore models that may be used or referenced or both. Watching a movie is seeing with your eyes, hearing with your ears; reading a book is conning or deciphering letters so as to hear, as it were, with your eyes. Reading is synaesthetic, watching a film, less so....

>People tend to hate shit like this; nonetheless, over here, it was a fun exercise. Clearly problematic. Post this?

movies usually are around 90 mins long. you can only pack so much plot and character development into that time frame. it's like a shortstory. it can be masterfully executed but it won't ever reach the depths a full lenght book can.
books are also a lot more personal because they leave more to the imagination of the individual reader, which makes it a more relatable experience.

for example, if the prota love interest isn't described physically, you will project on to her your ideal features, which makes it easier for you to relate to his interest to her. in a movie, the main characters mpdg either appeals to your taste or not.

>>9187809
>actual content on /lit/

-Can capture impressions, stuff internal to characters a lot easier. One of the clunkiest, most difficult-to-pull off things in cinema is voiceovers, and that's about as close as that medium can come to literature.

-Ambiguity is much easier to employ and use. This can be as simple as the fact that, say, everyone when they read the phrase 'yellow chair' will have a different image of a yellow chair in their head. This usually makes the (forgive the phrase) 'phenomenology' of reading a lot more personal than cinema -- in cinema everyone can't help but see the same image, every time.

-Metaphors. I hear a lot about 'visual metaphors' but really, metaphors only happen in words, and metaphorical language is the source of a lot of literature's beauty. This dovetails with the impression thing, I guess -- literature just gets a lot more room to play around with concepts than cinema. And I don't mean 'concepts' as in, themes, or ideas behind the story -- I just mean ideas of things rather than things themselves.

>>9187853
Arguably though a movie can cut the run time of a book since quite a lot fo the content of a book is physical descriptions of scenes, characters, etc

You can't portray things like Lovecraft's descriptions of "non-euclidian forms" and "angles which appear acute but are actually obtuse" (paraphrasing) in a movie, since those things are literally impossible for our brains to imagine. This is probably one of the major strengths of lit over cinema is that lit is able to describe physical things that we don't really imagine spatially but 'feel' in a sense

>>91878539

It's utter bullshit that length = depth or that character development = depth. A poem very often has more depth than a 500 page novel.

>>9187467
Ease of production.
Objectively the best mediums are epic singing and comics. The latter has been barely explored.
Literature has this niche thing that going along with it is an active activity, while watching a movie is a passive activity, which is to say, the movie carries on unless you pause and you have no control of its speed. But comics have the same, so what does it matter.

>>9187467
In general books just feel very personal. Like the author is directly talking to me.

>>9189843
what makes you say that epic singing and comics are 'objectively' the best mediums?

>>9189758
Cinema can do that as well as literature. See something like Through a Glass Darkly and its depiction of God. Yes, it will usually resort to one character describing a dream or an event to another but they can describe it in the same way as literature can without needing to show an image of it and that is still a part of cinema. Telling a story through words can be incredibly powerful in cinema, see Paris, Texas for an example where a verbal relation is much better than seeing the thing being discussed.

>>9189843
This is true. Much cheaper to produce lit than cinema.

What I would add is, cinema cannot usually give us the introspection that literature can without being extremely in our face about it. A voice-over is a very intrusive technique totally different from the other sounds in the scene; very on the nose stuff. In literature you can really weave that voice into the work without distracting from everything else because the method of introducing a characters thoughts is no different than relating the more objective things happening. It's all through words, the same kind of words on the page. In order to make it more cinematic you'd have to imagine an author slanting every text with thoughts or making it bold or something, intentionally making it stand out against the rest of the words. McElory's opening to The Actress House or whatever that book is called is a great example of a disorienting connection between the mental and the outside world. Film has to approach that in a very different way. Just showing a sweating guy in a crowd and leaving his thoughts to be guessed usually won't work and the voice-over was already mentioned. David Lynch gets close to producing a similar effect and something like Vertigo does as well but that's more by changing entire world of the narrative; leaving us questioning if we are not in a dream but not in that cheesy "it was all a dream" kind of way. Film has to do it this way because images are not as flexible as words but are usually more subtle.

>>9187809
pretty good. it has hard to say this medium has strength x. much better idea to do what you've done and compare the strengths of two mediums.

>>9187467
Well, it's written on paper using written language

>>9187467
You develop a real, intimate relationship with literature. It's far better at forming profound connections and realizations in the human mind.

>>9190238
>Cinema can do that as well as literature.
While I did mean it more as in cinema can't "show" the same things as literature through visuals or editing or music or sound or w/e, your point's still a fair one. I think there is still a difference between a character describing something in the movie and the book describing it. First, there's the facade of objectivity with the book, as in the author is explaining things as if they were physical descriptions as opposed to those descriptions coming from a secondary source (i.e. the character's description). And second, there's a more implicit invitation to participate with the descriptions of a book, as in, in order for you to make sense of the words on the page, you have to actively imagine what those words are describing. Like >>9189843 said, reading is a more active, as opposed to cinema which is more passive; the activity forces the reader to interpret the descriptions of a book as opposed to just seeing them. (I haven't watched "Through a Glass Darkly" so I could be wrong about this. Is there a scene you can link that has what you described?)

>>9187467
metaphor is much harder to use in film and the audience may not notice it unless they're looking for it while in literature it's used all the time

>>9190789
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DqodoI00OOo

>>9187467
tv has better memes

/tv/>/lit/>>>>>>/mu/