/lit/ - Literature

>>23141183
OP, I already gave you an answer, but it wasn't actually an answer. It was my attitude towards people of this sort. But seeing you've only gotten answers similar to what I gave you, I've decided to give you a real answer.

When you look at any given branch of art--in this case, the audio-visual--you can look at it as a domain which encompasses the properties of the mediums it utilizes and what those mediums are capable of. For every art, you have trash and slop and you have high art (as high as anyone within that domain has achieved, at least). With cinema and television, you will have overlap with other artistic domains in various ways. The best way to think of this, is as a sort of three dimensional Venn Diagram where every domain of artistic medium touches and intersects with others--Sculpture, Painting, Photography, Film, Literature, Poetry, Theatre, Ballet, and any I may have forgotten. They are all present.

The chief areas where film or television and literature overlap are in "listening" and narrative, but the way in which these two art forms explore and utilize these mediums is different. For starters, when you listen to a film, what you hear is often a combination of many people's vision and it is only partly audiated by language. You hear the vision of the writer as seen through the vision of the director--and I suppose even the casting director and actors, but when you read, the writer has only their own voice as words to capture your imagination--which is the only visual dimension of literature--the canvas of the mind--and they must capture it through a careful balance of meaningful word choice and artistic attention to sound. In other words, for literature, you will get the highest possible level of combination between narrative and sound as language as well as a greater level of introspective investigation--being the subjectivity of a singular individual. Ask yourself, for instance, what separates Fellini's Satyricon, from the Petronius satyr play from which it takes its name? What is different about reading Aeschylus' Agamemnon than seeing it performed? Why is it that a director like Lars von Trier felt it necessary to include a Peter Brueghel painting in his film, when a painting is a static visual medium with seemingly less capacity than a motion picture? Why are there no films of great poems? And what correlations might we be able to draw between a Maya Deren short film, a Dali painting, and an Ashbery poem? These ideas could be easily executed individually, as they have been done, but could each one be executed to the same degree within a singular film?

If the people you're talking to are worth talking to at all, simply asking questions like these should make them realize that each medium is superlative within its own realm. They each possess strengths and weaknesses. If I had to simplify it, audio-visual is the Jack of All Trades, Master of None.

>>22875911
The last time I read something a woman asked me to, I reduced her to innocently seductive begging before I finally agreed. In the end, I devoured the book. Since I no longer have the patience for such tête-à-tête, I'll agree. I consent to put Glamorama on my '24 list and give it a try.

Imagine. Reduced to reading outside my comfort zone by the mere implication of a woman. What manner of creature is Man?

>>12504813
Paper Towns
Bridge to Terabithia
Pollyanna
The Eumenides (Oresteia)
Riding in Cars with Boys (because she fucked up the son learn from her mistakes)
Freedom Writers (film)
Chasing Amy (1997 film)

>>12448815
"The characters of the Iliad do not sit down and think out what to do. They have no conscious minds such as we say we have, and certainly no introspections. It is impossible for us with our subjectivity to appreciate what it was like. When Agamemnon, king of men, robs Achilles of his mistress, it is a god that grasps Achilles by his yellow hair and warns him not to strike Agamemnon (I :197ff.). It is a god who then rises out of the gray sea and consoles him in his tears of wrath on the beach by his black ships, a god who whispers low to Helen to sweep her heart with homesick longing, a god who hides Paris in a mist in front of the attacking Menelaus, a god who tells Glaucus to take bronze for gold (6:234ff.), a god who leads the armies into battle, who speaks to each soldier at the turning points, who debates and teaches Hector what he must do, who urges the soldiers on or defeats them by casting them in spells or drawing mists over their visual fields. It is the gods who start quarrels among men (4:437ff.) that really cause the war (3:164ff.), and then plan its strategy (2:56ff.). It is one god who makes Achilles promise not to go into battle, another who urges him to go, and another who then clothes him in a golden fire reaching up to heaven and screams through his throat across the bloodied trench at the Trojans, rousing in them ungovernable panic. In fact, the gods take the place of consciousness." -- p. 72

any novels of last 10 years where the writer gave a personal spin to the fabric of a preexisting story?