/lit/ - Literature

>>9855588
>this is what being OG /a/ does to people

makes a thinken

my best friend is an avid reader, and I'm not but would like to be able to appreciate some of why she loves it so much. she gets really into the characters emotionally, but to me, it just doesn't seem right for emotional argument. words aren't inherently an emotional tool, but sound and visual are - having to go through that extra step of translation into emotion in literature seems an unnecessary barrier to artistic expression, at least when other modes such as theater, music and film are available that take advantage of more immediate emotional cues.
further, not all information about a scene or emotion can be contained in words. someone could describe the sun to you, but you still don't know what it feels like to watch a sunrise. someone could describe a babbling brook, or chirping birds, or a great band/symphony/etc, but you don't know how they feel until you've heard them. a writer could describe emotional phenomena all day, but without actually hearing/seeing them, I don't understand how they truly carry emotional resonance. an argument I've heard in favor of this is that, as the author loses control, the reader gains control and makes the story their own, but no one really seems to criticize film, music or theater for taking control away from the observer; they're praised for directorial focus and collaborative spirit, while books seem to be individualist, cold efforts thru and thru. how can an artist truly present an emotional argument when they've lost control over their product?
none of this is saying writing is inherently bad - it's the best raw form of information transfer we have, and textbooks and printed news are some of the best ways to dryly learn stuff about the world around you. however, for those emotional bits, where's the value in lit? how can I appreciate literature? why read?