/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16070955]

Why read when films exist?

[Anonymous No.16071003]

Why watch film when mathematics exist?

[Anonymous No.16071007]

>>16071003
Why do math when logic exists?

[Anonymous No.16071024]

Movies are the very temporary century-old medium. If you want something millenias old supposed to contain the eternal truth, see books. If you want something novel and technically superior, make interactive computer games and search for the emerging technologies.

[Anonymous No.16071029]

>>16071007
>>16071007
logic is a branch of mathematics

[Anonymous No.16071045]

>>16071029
The law of identity is present in math but it's not defined in it. The law of identity in math is only possible for numbers. The law of identity in logic is for all variables, not just numbers. Also commutative, associative law aren't defined in math, they're an axiom that is defined in logic.

[Anonymous No.16071059]

Because, like apples and oranges, books and movies are unique flavours of being alive.

[Anonymous No.16071070]

>>16070955
People say theatre is a high art form but you can literally just film a play and then it becomes a film. Nothing is stopping the script of a film being Euripides-Tier.

[Anonymous No.16071132]

>>16071003
I am too stupid for maths, if i was good, i would spend most of my time solving problems.

[Anonymous No.16071142]

>>16070955
Video games have surpassed both

[Anonymous No.16071152]

>>16071142
Shooo, Shoo, this is a serious discussion.

[Anonymous No.16071205]

>>16070955
because of faggot actors
>>16071003
>Why watch film when mathematics exist?
based
>>16071045
>The law of identity is present in math but it's not defined in it
>they're an axiom that is defined in logic
what about the researchers that reject those axioms?

[Anonymous No.16071241]

>>16071152
>films
>serious discussion

[Anonymous No.16071255]

>>16071241
I bet you are only aware of Hollywood shit

[Anonymous No.16071671]

>>16071003
Films can be mathematical.

[Anonymous No.16071682]

>>16071205
If you reject it you do it in logic, you can't reject it in math

[Anonymous No.16071690]

>>16071045
>The law of identity in math is only possible for numbers
Anon...

[Anonymous No.16071691]

>>16071671
I love the cinematography of "Last year at Marienbad", but the movie is really pretentious.

[Anonymous No.16071697]

>>16071255
Name a movie that isn't shit. I've watched james dean movies, audrey Hepburn, chaplin, indie shit. I like indie shit but it's just a movie

[Anonymous No.16071703]

>>16071690
Or variables but those refer to numbers. What's one that doesn't out of genuine curiosity?

[Anonymous No.16071746]

>>16071703

[Anonymous No.16071776]

>>16071697
>james dean
>Audrey Hepburn
>chaplin
>indie shit

This must be bait

[Anonymous No.16071779]

>>16070955
Tbh the only reason to like a film is to feel like you're spending a few hours with the protagonist, if he's cool then it's a good movie, if he's a cringy loser then it's a shitty movie. I don't even know what determines a good movie actually, I can't say for example why I love the movies taxi driver, trainspotting and american psycho so goddamn much.

[Anonymous No.16071842]

>>16071746
It can refer to functions but those are defined in logic as well, please answer anon I must know

[Anonymous No.16071850]

>>16071776
Movies suck ass mate. It's all aesthetics

[Anonymous No.16071876]

>>16071842
Plus the functions equal a number in the end just like variables, anon pls share ur wisdom

[Anonymous No.16071890]

>>16070955
>Why have sex when porn exists?
Oy vey, i wonder why

[Anonymous No.16071935]

>>16071029
Not really, logic and math are two separate formal sciences. One is autoformative and the other is hetero formative:

Logic (autoformative):
A * A = A
p ʌ p p
p ˅ p p

Mathematics (heteroformative):
A * A ≠ A
A + A = 2A
A – A = 0
A / A = 1

[Anonymous No.16071952]

>>16070955
I honestly feel this is true for most novels. If a novel doesnt have great poetic language or psychological introspection (which people hate nowadays since its telling instead of showing) than it isnt doing anything a movie could do better.

[Anonymous No.16071953]

>>16071935
Logic is autoformative of math and math is heteronormative of logic and numbers

[Anonymous No.16071966]

>>16071935
Logic is the subset of math, you dumb pseud.

[Anonymous No.16071968]

>>16071952
Which is any good book. That ever ya gets turned into a movie as a goal while you can't film critique of pure reason in any meaningful sense is proof enough.

[Anonymous No.16071971]

>>16071671
I hate that fucking piece of shit movie. Hiroshima mon amour, on the other hand...

[Anonymous No.16071974]

>>16071966
How do you figure anon?

[Anonymous No.16071981]

>>16070955
Television is the synthesis of movies and literature

[Anonymous No.16071995]

>>16071981
No it isn't anon

[Anonymous No.16072098]

>>16071966
>Logic is the subset of math
Maybe that's true for model theory, not for logic. when you say that "Logic is the subset of math" you are only giving a denotative definition of logic, but you're not describing the gnosoleogic field of logic. It's obvious that a rule of inference like Modus Ponens is not part of the gnoselogical field of mathematics, or that a circunference is not a logical construction.

[Anonymous No.16072183]

>>16070955
so you don't have to look at that stupid face

[Anonymous No.16072191]

>>16071697
Otto e mezzo

[Anonymous No.16072243]

Dorsky elaborates on what he film can do that books can’t and things that books do better. If you shoot film, buy this book. Check out his films too.

[Anonymous No.16072346]

why participate in any form of leisure when you could be laboring in your lords field?

[Anonymous No.16072454]

i just read huckleberry finn and asked myself the same thing. i just dont get how one manages to concentrate and envision all the descriptions of the enviroment and not skim through until the meaningful part comes. how does one cope with this?

[Anonymous No.16072808]

>>16070955
Why learn when having you balls stomped to a pulp exists?

[Anonymous No.16072904]

>>16070955
why film when imagine

[Anonymous No.16072927]

>>16070955
why eat a sandwich when I can eat my own hand?

[Anonymous No.16073468]

>>16071697
Color of pomegranates

[Anonymous No.16073552]

>>16071671
the difference between lyam and Hiroshima Mon amour is astonishing, it's like lyam is a parody of his former films with all substantive expression removed, last year at Marienbad is garbage even the Cinematography is mostly basic symmetry and westernised aesthetic theory applied to film (which is more than most modern films live up to but still)

[Anonymous No.16073571]

>>16070955
why live when death exists

[Anonymous No.16074622]

>>16070955
I've watched all of the good films ever made already. I started reading books because of that.

[Anonymous No.16075883]

>>16074622
Post letterboxed account

[Anonymous No.16077206]

>>16072346
Based

[Anonymous No.16077224]

what should i watch tho

[Anonymous No.16077256]

Only reason to watch movies is if you're watching with your girlfriend. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.16077310]

>>16071697
You watched loads of shit. Why bother with faggots like chaplin when Chang Cheh exists?

[Anonymous No.16077879]

>>16077224
A Brighter Summer Day.

[Anonymous No.16077986]

>>16070955
Film is inherently inferior to Literature.

Film is a lazy modern medium, all it has is a cinematography that tricks the instantly gratified into a true, purely human emotion. It's primarily entertainment, and at very best a lower artform. For whatever it is in those moments of its artistic uniqueness, juxtaposed to the older, far nobler arts which we call the "traditional". And whereby a modern European Christian definition of art is given, the fine art of that definition which the Greeks had sort to thunk all of mans creations, in which there was no specific word for the fine of the arts, but it was known as it were intuitively, that a poet could not exist without divine inspiration. Above all film is extremely overrated by midwits who liked to hail it as the "artwork of the future", and it is only a sign of our modern cultural and artistic decline that it is called the medium of the 20th century. It includes so little worth of itself contrasted to the true arts, but it mercilessly steals what it can to bring to the alter. And on this very stone is sacrificed just as mercilessly any work of art before it that it deems possible to use for its lazy mission, as it corrupts it down to its level. The piece is useful for the specificity of the film, and that is that. From the limited potential of film, to its utterly disastrous manifestation as an art-form, developed under jews and lukewarm liberals, paedophiles and sodomites.

Don't get me wrong however, I enjoy good films, but there is always a problem when one assumes it to to be what it is not.

[Anonymous No.16078004]

>>16077986
Literature is waybmore information dense. Film is slower in a real sense to convey a point and it's relatively slower concerning all the spaces in a movie which flash by points.

[Anonymous No.16078024]

>>16077986
>All those words that say absolutely nothing
i'm impressed.

[Anonymous No.16079081]

>>16070955
They are different though, a film narrative and a novel narrative function differently and are shaped by their form.
The Shining is a shit novel but a good film, but there's plenty of examples of the opposite too

[YandereDev !W3WJP6pIt2 No.16079317]

>>16071029
rhizomatic structures my dude

[Anonymous No.16080261]

>>16070955
>films exist
they don't, anon. They fucking dont!

[Anonymous No.16080287]

>>16077986
I may refute this silly frog with what Griffith accomplished for film

Griffith had no prior framework for intertextuality. What he did was more significant and transcends the barrier of
"film." Griffith utilized all of history and facets of representation to make his parallels. Griffith united all arts
under one moniker, and in doing so, exceeded all arts. Intolerance is the largest celebration of mankind and the
harshest vindication of its existence, the grandest expression of its futile virtue. When divine intervention reveals
itself at the end, Griffith is cementing the greatest irony of all time. He is showing the ultimate peace is an
impossibility through the illusion of editing and recorded reality. It is dual-edged irony. With Bobby Herron's
rescue against storming civilizations, he reveals that through the deified action of choice, man can become God,
man can change history, man can change time, all this lingering on the notion of capability.

"For many critics and scholars — myself among them — D. W. Griffith’s Intolerance is the greatest film ever made. A century later we are as close to its subject as we are distant from its art. Political specifics, moral arguments, and movie styles may look different today, yet the only real difference is Griffith’s still-daring ingenuity, which calls for a more open-minded reception than in our simplistic habits we are accustomed to: It calls for an optimistic, united popular audience, which Griffith took for granted. When Intolerance premiered on September 5, 1916, its opening intertitles introduced silent-movie viewers to an extraordinary narrative device: “Our play is made up of four separate stories, laid in different periods of history, each with its own set of characters.” Employing a prologue and two acts, Griffith called it “a sun-play,” marked by florid melodramatics developed from Emersonian Transcendentalism, which film scholar Bill R. Scalia has described as “calling for an original American literature,” for “poets with the ability to ‘see’ past the material, apparent world to the world of eternal forms, which shaped nature in accordance with a divine moral imperative. Through this connection, man-as-poet would discover God in himself."

[Anonymous No.16080295]

>>16079081
>the shining is a shit novel

Kys

[Anonymous No.16080299]

>>16080287
Griffith had already, in the over four hundred movies he had made — from the one-reelers on up to THE BIRTH OF A NATION — founded the art of screen narrative; now he wanted to try something more than simply telling the story of bigotry in historical sequence. He had developed discontinuity and crosscutting in his earlier works, and in INTOLERANCE, he attempted to tell four stories taking place in different historical periods, crosscutting back and forth to ancient Babylon, sixteenth-century France, the modern American slums, and Calvary. He was living in an era of experiments with time in the other arts, and although he worked in a popular medium, the old dramatic concepts of time and unity seemed too limiting; in his own way he attempted what Pound and Eliot, Proust and Virginia Woolf and Joyce were also attempting, and what he did in movies influenced literary form as much as they did. INTOLERANCE is a film symphony. No simple framework could contain the richness of what Griffith tried to do in this movie.

[Anonymous No.16081174]

>>16077986
Imagine reading this

[Anonymous No.16081196]

>>16070955
For the price of a movie ticket, I can pick up multiple books. I can be entertained for longer. Books are generally more thought provoking than movies, but it totally depends on the film/book in question

[Anonymous No.16081260]

>>16070955
Film is the worst possible medium when conveying art simply because you have to rely on others to achieve what you want. if your actors are shit then your film fails. if the music is shit then the film fails. too many factors to make it even considered good and even then it could sacrifice the artistic vision

[Anonymous No.16082546]

>>16081196
>movie ticket
>>movie ticket
there's your problem bro.
>more thought provoking than movies
Not really. unless you're reading philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16082640]

>>16070955
>tfw pre 1960 films are basically plays

[Anonymous No.16082688]

>>16070955
Because watching films is a passive activity for brainlets. I need stimulation, since my intellect isn't mush like your's is .

[Anonymous No.16082714]

>>16082688
>Passive
so i guess video games are an ''intellectual'' medium.

[Anonymous No.16083796]

>>16077986
kys

[Anonymous No.16083826]

>>16070955
You realize that books offer something different than film and that they're two different things right?

[Anonymous No.16083860]

>>16083826
>two different things
How?