/lit/ - Literature

lol inferior art forms

>>12010579
>That’s why reading is obsolete, and your “imagination” can only go so far.
Leave this place.

>>12010622
Not an argument.

>>12010579
Fuck off

>>12010628
Never said it was an argument. If you don't like books, you have to go back to /tv/. This is not for you.

>Reading words on a book or a screen just doesn’t captivate people the way an actual visual experience does.
Breaking news: NPCs are idiots who can't appreciate reality past their immediate senses.
>That’s why reading is obsolete, and your “imagination” can only go so far.
Speak for yourself, retard. Your imagination is simply stunted by years of cheap sensory pleasure and at this point you're basically a pleasure seeking drone. "your imagination can only go so far" if that's true about literature then what can we say about movies, that are even more bound by physical limitations?
>Isn’t literature an inferior art form when you can literally just watch all of your favourite characters & worlds come to life in a cinematic or television adaption?
Isn't language an inferior communication form when you can just point and guide with your finguers? Why speak at all if words are just abstract things that don't move people? Why say yes when you can nod your head?

>>12010579
this couldn't possibly have been written with incendiery intentions?

>>12010579

Here are my arguments for the irreplaceability of literature as a medium, though I am not necessarily arguing its superiority. I do not think you can define a medium as superior or inferior as the aesthetic experience is always an existential experience, i.e. people will connect with a medium in relation to their own subjectivity. That said, one can argue that certain media can do things that no other can do and therefore claim that they are irreplaceable i.e. they don't grow obsolete.
Now I consider literature as the art which uses language as a medium for aesthetic experience. There are the reason why language cannot be replaced by movies.

Literature is far more complex than movies. There is no other code on earth which can reach the complexity of language in explaining or describing. Which is why "science" is in written form rather than filmed. That said, literature, as it describes individual experience rather than general knowledge, is still the best medium when it comes to description of inner experience. No other medium can reach the same complexity in describing someone's inner states, simply because no other medium was thought for description as much as language.

Moreover, most movies (though not all) heavily rely on literature in that they need to be written. This shows you, again, that since the most basic modality of experience sharing among humans is still mediated by language, it is extremely difficult to lay out stories without the use of language without greatly limiting the complexity of both plot and depth of meaning.

Moreover, in terms of mere intellectual exercise - this is an old argument - literature requires an active approach (read word -> project image) rather than a passive one (project image), i.e. literature is an exercise in building up your own inner experience starting from words. Literature develops your own inner monologue which, NPC meme apart, gives you control over your own psychic life - which is why the exercise of writing is still considered therapeutic nowadays in psychology. Images or music, despite having a strong merit for other things, simply cannot do this. Moments of insight in your psychic life are articulated in words or they are not moments of insight but mere feelings. You do not have control over your inner experience, or your thoughts, until you can articulate them in an inner monologue. Literature provides the reader with the "words" to describe his own inner and exterior experience, which means it gives him the possibility to control them as part of their inner life. Moreover, it explores the modalities of expression through words, which is, it explores new modalities of articulating your inner life, to the point that, you may say, literature actually -creates- new ways of thinking, perceiving, and therefore living in the world.
In sum: your psychological life is composed of stories and words. This is literature.

>>12010579
literature is almost completely different, if it isn't for you functionally then you haven't engaged seriously with the medium (nor language). it's got its own capabilities and limits, workarounds and failures, history and future, etc., just like any other, is why there's "pretentious" movies too; is why some movies go unwatched too; is why some movies are only lauded by people tired with movies too. you'll like what you'll like and how you'll like it, i've no say on that, but your comment is inflammatory, a polemic, and nothing else. if by "obsolete" you mean "out of fashion"—and you certainly do—then sure, the numbers agree, no argument there, but you seem to imply it lesser because of that, and i don't follow. whatever you're implying can be disregarded as it's surely baseless (art /should/ x, art /should/ y and so on): i'm for aesthetic merit, for instance, but /i/ am for it, i don't force it down anyone's throat, and my opinion can change, as it's done before. if movies are the logical conclusion of popular appeal, the medium where it's easiest to exploit—both i doubt—then so what?

>>12010579
Surely your imagination can go further than TV?

>>12010715
Yeah. No shit. Language/verbal communication is the basis for most of humanity/forms of media. Never said it wasn’t. Movies have screenplays and scripts.

But, you don’t have to read them. You don’t have to go through the tedious, time consuming, strenuous activity of reading thousands & thousands of pages on some book or screen, only for it to be ultimately unrewarding and un-fun. Reading objectively isn’t exciting and does nothing to stimulate your senses (humans are visual creatures) aside from maybe widening your vocabulary, and even then, that’s not a given.

That’s why people don’t read. Most people would rather watch a fun movie or tv series than sit down and sift through pages of a book. I, and many other people, can’t picture things very vividly, and it takes away the “pleasure” of reading.

>>12010842
>I, and many other people, can’t picture things very vividly
Kek, i can only thank god i don't have an underdeveloped brain. Just imagine actually being like this. You're actually on the level of a gorilla with 85IQ. Most of the high level scientists report being able to solve complex abstract problems by imagining them. Imagination is heavily correlated with IQ.
>That’s why people don’t read.
Why are you making a thread to prove that retards are retards? We know that already, dummy.

>>12010842
Who the fuck cares about you bitch ass nigga

>>12010842
go fuck yourself
>Not an argument.
go fuck yourself, i can't argue your taste nor your arrogance around

>>12010842
So much projecting in one post, fantastic bait
Also
>he thinks you have to make a visual image of what you're reading instead of abstractly taking it in with the aesthetic filter of the prose
Also I hate the meme but you are literally an NPC

>>12010579
>Reading words on a book or a screen just doesn't captivate people the way an actual visual experience does.
assuming this is true in all cases, that doesn't necessarily mean its a better art form. you imply that being captivated can happen in multiple ways; could you give the ways that one can be captivated? why is one better than the other? one can only be better in respect to a goal; what is the goal of art forms? to captivate? to captivate in a specific manner? to a certain degree? how do you measure the degree?

>>12010842
This is a character

>>12010887
>>12010888
>>12010955
>>12010972
>>12010974
>>12011010
seething lol

>The Virgin Literature: working with meaningless linguistic proliferations
>The Chad Cinema: literally sculpting with reality itself

>>12011035
argument: not detected

>>12010715

>this is an old argument - literature requires an active approach (read word -> project image) rather than a passive one (project image)

Active / passive dichotomy not useful. When you watch a movie you have to project image -> higher-order construct -> overarching structure (3-act play hero's journey et al.).

>>12010579

>Annotated frog drawing

>>12010842
>humans are visual creatures

Movies are successful because people are trained to deduce meaning from facial expressions. Like you said. Visually.

Of course it doesn't matter, ultimately, since you're not hunting for deer and tusking mammoths or whatever the fuck.

>>12011035
go fuck yourself