[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: j'accuse.jpg (104 KB, 900x675)
104 KB
104 KB JPG
Anyone else think films are better than books? For one I can never imagine the story the way Tolstoy imagined it. Whatever our brains imagine will always be inferior to what Tolstoy imagine while writing it. It will be modernized and imagined by someone who is not an artistic genius. The story you are imagining is not the story Tolstoy wrote. The second reason is it's a much better experience to see a real human. To imagine a man crying is never going to be as emotional as actually seeing a man cry. A great battle in my head will always be worse than a great battle on the screen. Same with a nude lady. The only limitations are the genius of the director and budget because a film can be made word for word from the book. The only difference are the parts of the book that are setting the scene which is obviously irrelevant for a film and aren't important at all.
>>
this is the dumbest thing i have ever seen anyone post on here. god you're a retard.
>>
>>19051463
Really Tolstoy literally wrote what I did almost word for word.
>>
>>19051469
leo tolstoy didn't know what movies were because they hadn't been invented you dumb fuck
>>
>>19051451
There's no point at all in trying to "rank" different mediums. Film exploits our sense perception in a way that books cannot. Books engage our imagination in a way that films cannot. There's nothing inherently better in being able to do one or the other.

It also doesn't really matter that you don't imagine the story in exactly the same way the author did. Every author recognizes variance in how readers will unfold the story in their heads. Some of the craftsmanship in writing involves taking this into account. Tolstoy is kind of a special case because of course you need to understand the first-order details of the setting and events to even understand what he's talking about. But that's why there's history wikipedia and secondary literature. And because of its age you might miss nuances or imagine things that Tolstoy didn't have in mind. But so what? The same could be said of films from decades ago.

People differ in their imaginative capacities, and that might make film more immediately gripping to you than reading a book. That's fine. But there's also something aesthetically compelling about the way in which your imagination can leaves details /out/, and books exploit this. If you imagine a man crying, you are not distracted by the rich visual/auditory detail of him crying, and can instead imagine his inner mental life in more detail, for instance. Because you pace yourself in reading, you can stay "in his mind" for as long as you or the author pleases---whereas film is, by default, constrained by real time pacing.
>>
>>19051472
Do you know when Tolstoy died?
>>
>>19051490
>Because you pace yourself in reading, you can stay "in his mind" for as long as you or the author pleases---whereas film is, by default, constrained by real time pacing.
A film can do this it just isn't done much. Obviously everything is subjective but most people who are readers have never really watched the great works of Cinema which are usually extremely obscure. I think most of them would prefer it if they knew about it. It's like playing with dolls as a kid when Skyrim exists.
>>
No. This sentiment was refuted by Gotthold Lessing in the Laokoon.
>>
>>19051451
if visuals are so important then why am i drawn to erotic literature over any other form of coom art?
>>
>>19051590
Because you're autistic
>>
>>19051572
Of course film can do it. That's why I added the qualifier "by default."

And, you're surely right that non-movie-watching book readers should watch more films and at least try to appreciate them. Speaking just for myself, everyone I know who seriously reads literature also seriously watches film, and vice versa. It's probably true that, in our massively audiovisual era, most people will be disposed to prefer audiovisual media. It's fine to prefer film to books, as I said.

But this idea that reading books is somehow childs play and films have some inherent aesthetic advantage still strikes me as insane.
>>
>>19051612
You wouldn't understand it because you grew up reading I presume. It's like an old man who doesn't understand computers. Plenty of outdated art forms have died before.
>>
>>19051451
>A great battle in my head will always be worse than a great battle on the screen. Same with a nude lady.
That says a lot about your intellect. Sah geh
>>
>>19051451
IMO books are the most intimate form of storytelling simply because you're engaged in a relationship with the author for weeks (depending on how long you take to read). There are just some books that movies can't come close to imo.
>>
>>19051653
A good point but that's where mini series and television series come in. Especially those Eastern European series I've seen where you really feel like you are apart of a family and the ending always make you feel empty.
>>
>>19051451
You are ignoring the linguistic element of books; it isn't just about the images that come to mind when reading, is the way words are arranged in the text.
>>
>>19051690
Autismo
>>
>>19051633
I grew up doing both, in equal measure. My dad would rent classic movies every Friday and introduce them to me. But I also got into literature very early thanks to some very good teachers.

And, the fact that an art form dies out while another persists doesn't, by itself, show anything about the relative aesthetic superiority of the one over the other. Film surely has an advantage, nowadays, in how /accessible/ its aesthetics are to most people. But, again, so what?
>>
Films are a medium so much effortless to consume than books, and that says a lot about it. The problem is that reading requires an isolation and separation from everyday life that most people are unwilling to do.

On the other hand, literature is the easiest medium to produce, so what you see is a lot of writers (frustrated filmmakers, who would actually like to see their ideas materialize in an audiovisual) for a few readers. It seems that no one else today reads for reading; they read because they are writers, they read because they want to write, they read because there is no writer who doesn't read, so what's on the market is just a bunch of writers reading each other's works, and true readers, uninterested in the production of a text, there isn't anymore.
>>
>>19051451
Film is a superior artistic medium to books
Conversation is a superior philosophical medium to books
Didactic lecture is a superior informational medium to books
Experience is a superior learning medium to books
But nothing is superior to books for creating durable forms of information
>>
>>19051776
Yeah, but that's the same to say that non-fiction books > fiction books. We are on the realm of aesthetic, so it should be judged as such.
>>
>>19051723
I don’t agree with you about just writers reading though it’s probably more than I want to admit, but if we go with what you’re saying I wonder if the audience being writers reading writers is a bad or good thing. I really don’t know what to think so if you have an opinion please share but other than egos making people more critical and other than my personal desire for everyone, not just writers, to read I don’t know if it’s a problem.
>>
>>19051788
Well not necessarily, right? Films will decay over time, and reproductions will inherently (not accidentally as in translation) lead to variations from the original work. Therefore literature is superior for preserving fictional works as well.
>>
>>19051572
If film is skyrim then literature is modded skyrim.
>>
>>19051776
Not sure film is a superior art form. Books only limit is language. Film is much too reliant on other variables (performances, budgets, etc)
>>
>>19051451
I kinda agree in some sense but there's something about reading that hits different
I've never felt that paranoia that something bad can happen, to the point where I'm not able to sleep because of how scared I was after watching a film
On the other hand, I have experienced this sensation after reading a short story
I think this lack of a description and this reliance on the consumer's ability to imagine things is not necessarily a weakness
Maybe if you're a brainlet and you lack imagination, but otherwise it can be used to convey emotions that film could never
>>
>>19051805
That's a fair correction. In the typical form, books are superior to film due to longer length, no reliance on actors for achievement of the artistic vision, and no budget. In the ideal form, in which a movie represents a perfectly executed visual medium of artistry and the book represents a perfectly executed literal medium of artistry, the movie is superior.
>>
>>19051808
>>>/tv/156305186
>>
>>19051814
Why do you think the film is superior in that scenario? Genuine question. Books and film are my two greatest if not only loves in life and I have had this debate with myself so many times
>>
>>19051798
You are valuing a work for how relevant the information contained in it might be (ie, how useful it might be). I think that works of art, fiction books, are not and cannot be judged that way. I don't know how best to judge them, this is a long discussion, but I know they cannot be reduced to their utilitarianism. Although many classics, both in the film and book fields, are honored for their formal-historical value, that is, for how innovative/influential they were in formal terms. I generally like to evaluate a classic in Foucault's words, "something that keeps producing meaning."

>>19051794
I consider a bad thing. If only artists consume an art, what is the value of that art to other people? None. I say that, there are few people who would pick up a book to read for the simple pleasure of reading a book, just as there are those who play a game for the pleasure of playing, who watch a movie for the pleasure of watching a movie. That is, they treat these activities as something disinterested, "for leisure". Most people do not treat books as entertainment, but as a source of information, study, a tedious thing in itself that is only worthwhile to "gain knowledge" or, more cynically, "to pose as an intellectual." These days, if a guy comes home from work and wants to rest, it's very rare for him to be the type to pick up a book to read, which I imagine wasn't so rare in the past; these days he'd turn on a video game and play Call of Duty, or watch some netflix shit. What this all means is not exactly that the book has become something dead, but that reading in its essence is incompatible with the way we live life in the 21st century, and that is what is killing interest in books.

Well, on the other hand, I personally think this whole process is something natural. I think the popularity of an art is supported by the technological edge of its time; the fact that the gaming industry is where the money circulates these days is ultimate evidence of this, and yes, games will be the art of the future.
>>
>>19051499
1910, way before any great movie that could be considered art was created. At the time movies were mostly just a curiosity.
>>
>>19051873
I have to agree with you, but I have to hold that the very act of reading is something so profound that there will always be pockets of survival with Renaissance’s here and there My understanding is that most source material for shows, movies and games still comes from books so there is that.
>>
>>19051801
Modded skyrim is modded skyrim and Reading is the Elder Scrolls Skyrim guidebook
>>
>>19051451
Are you that autist that got BTFO'd on /tv/ the other night?
>>
>>19051881
You need to watch more cinema. D.W Griffith was making classics in 1908. Tons of great Cinema pre 1911 but that's besides the point. It's the idea of cinema as an art form which was written about in the 1890s
>>
>>19052048
No? What was the topic
>>
>>19051451
No.
>>
>>19051881
are you stupid or what?
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls053417733/
>>
>>19051451
>For one I can never imagine the story the way Tolstoy imagined it
Anon you are basically stupid.
>>
>>19051469
Tolstoy is a tard.
>>
>>19052171
Griffith only started making artistic masterpieces after Birth of a Nation, everything before that is just leading to that and him perfecting cinema, it cannot be called great by any sensible standard. Classics? Sure, no one is arguing against that, but Birth of a Nation is the first truly great film.

>>19052370
are you? none of those movies are great movies, cinema became legitimized as an artform when Griffith pretty much invented cinema as we know it, which was after 1910. The first movie in your list is A Trip to The Moon which was literally made by a stage magician who was experimenting with film to do magic tricks, so like I said, they were mostly curiosities though I'm sure there are a few exceptions, or maybe you are implying Melies and films like The Great Train Robbery are works of art comparable to the great works of literature?
>>
>>19053070
>or maybe you are implying Melies and films like The Great Train Robbery are works of art comparable to the great works of literature?
Yes
>>
>>19053084
then you are an actual idiot that gets mesmerized by things that move, basically the equivalent of people who go see Marvel flicks for the spectacle. But if that makes you happy I'm ok with that.
>>
>>19053070
I don't know why you are arguing against me when Tolstoy literally wrote the fucking words. There were plenty of Literature adaptions made before 1911.

>which was after 1910.
You need to watch The Unchanging Sea. Really great movie
>>
Jesus christ OP must eat sand.

That or its bait.
>>
>>19051451
At times what a reader imagines is more vivid and immersive than what a writer was thinking of.

For one thing a writer might consider a given scene a mundane means to an end, filler, while you're giving it the benefit of the doubt and fully investing in it rather than just trying to get through it like the writer is.

For another thing, as a writer, your brain is not being stimulated externally in exogenous ways to make it do things that would not otherwise happen, therefore creating experiences that are more potent for how novel they are. Nothing your brain will do itself as a writer is quite like the moment where a turn of phrase makes you imagine something in a way you never did before, or conceptualize something a little differently, and all of a sudden its more vibrant than it would be if you just summoned it up yourself.

As a reader as much of your brain as you devote to this is going to the textural, immersive, visual part of imagination,, and more of your brain is going to this because the writer is the one spending brainpower on thinking of the plot and other more mechanical aspects of cognition. They are not at relative rest to sink into another world in the same way.

This is all incidentally why to someone who doesn't have aphantasia if that's real films are no replacement for books. They leave out not just 3 of the classic senses, but 3-dimensionality. When you imagine a room you are not imagining a 2D image of a room, you are if you think about it imagining a cone view of a 3D model that your minds eye is inside of. Furthermore, on some level your brain recognizes that it is being stimulated to do creative work and it finds that satisfying, and your mental image to one degree or other alignes with what it subjectively aesthetically evocative to you.
>>
>>19053153
I don't give a shit about what Tolstoy said, he had highly controversial opinions about art, he never even saw truly great films. It's like someone saying videogames are better than movies because he played Pong
>>
>>19051702
It's not autismo, it's the basis of Literature, the language. Language as sound, as meaning and as image. That's why Poetry is the primal form of Literature.
You are a cretin if you can't get behind (even in the sightless) of what I'm saying, and I would thing this art is not for you. No offense.
>>
>>19053209
Do I go with what random retarded anon thinks or what Tolstoy thinks



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.