/lit/ - Literature

>>13246923
Writing is easier. Comics/movies/tv all require writing at the basic level.
You can write on your own without the need for help for 80% of the initial process before you need an editor or agent, but hell, you can even self publish these days.

>>13246923
*what would be needed to make it not so
>>13246930
yeah, but effort/manpower aside, what aesthetic advantage could a high concept novel have over a comic/film with the same idea?

>>13246941
Well if you'd like your writing to be put to film or game someday having an already successful novel is a great selling point.

>>13246923
-Comic Industry is run by Jewish interests and only services left-wing anti-white nonsense. It deliberately fails to make a profit because pushing anti-white ideology is more important than making money to the people responsible.
-Hollywood is exactly the same.

Both require starting capital that you don't have to break into. Writing, however, requires nothing except a word processor, and there are still publishing houses that are not literally run by Jews for the express purpose of hurting western civilization.

>>13246923
>high concept
i don't like this phrase because it implies ambition but assumes there's some kind of sliding scale that isn't based on the author's experience
the problem with our era is that we're four generations deep into the era of visual media, and that has made it so that visualization is at the heart of the cultural concept of storytelling. somehow, this has done nothing to harm the integrity of the novel, which in itself suggests something of its validity

I'm in the middle of writing a huge fantasy-adventure serial in a screenplay format. The key difference I found that made me consider adapting the screenplays into novel form when I'm done, is how in-depth you can go in novel form. You can take your time and really go beat by beat on anything you want as long as you think there's something of interest to it.

The novel format is slow and that is where it shines. Look at The Count of Monte Cristo, the book is a fucking tomb, but the events in the story play out with a simplicity that leads to profound storytelling. I think novels lend themselves better to a linear format as well, since jumping around in the narrative is used more as a time-saving device, or for foreshadowing. It works well in cinema / TV but can feel pointless in a novel.

I would assume the intent when writing a novel is to have it be an experience that a reader can get lost in. Think of the Lord of the Rings, it wouldn't be so highly regarded if you could breeze through it in day. I'm not saying length equals quality, because it doesn't. But I would definitely argue that brevity in a novel does have a negative effect on the story if rushed.

Reading a story like Stephen King's IT was a complete slog for me that I wanted to enjoy more than I actually did. Stephen King's works made masterpieces at best when adapted to screen, or are complete shit and everything between. King is a cinematic writer when it comes to character and plot, but his prose is airport novel-tier.

The novel is the greatest storytelling format there is. It is timeless, because words are timeless. But it is this same timelessness that inspires readers to recreate their reading experience in visual form. Movies can be timeless to an extent, but not like the greatest novels ever written.