/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6436202]

>No chapter on any novel you can write will have the same impact as a well directed scene with music on it

[Anonymous No.6436284]

>>6436202
Maybe what YOU can write you dirty philistine.

[Anonymous No.6436321]

>>6436284
Please, tell me of one scene in a book that has made you feel more than your favorite scene in any movie/tv show that has music in it.

[Anonymous No.6436364]

>>6436321
>not him but when Caleb learns that Aron was killed in the war In East of Eden

[Anonymous No.6436404]

>>6436364
Mind copypasting the passage?

[Anonymous No.6436405]

>>6436321
This is now a thread about powerful parts from books
>the library part from The Road
>when Stephen is by the sea in The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
>Stoner's last moments
when Dumbledore died. It was so much better in the book.

Really though, for the most part movies just don't do it for me. Off the top of my head, I can only think of a few movies that nearly had the impact of books on me. Stop projecting OP.

[Anonymous No.6436418]

>>6436404
It won't mean anything to you if you don't read the whole book, dingas. You have to become attached to the characters over the course of chapters. watch them grow up.

[Anonymous No.6436427]

>>6436321
>the horse getting beaten in crime and punishment

[Anonymous No.6436474]

That's not the strong point of books though. Books allow for deeper exploration of a story or character or whatever. The impact of a book comes from the whole work.

No, no scene in a book will outdo an equally well-crafted scene in a move for pure visceral reaction, but plenty of books are considered to have far more merit as a work than even the best movies ever made. Use the strengths of your medium.

[Anonymous No.6436483]

Is this a /tv/ bait thread?

[Anonymous No.6436509]

>>6436474
So you would agree that books lack a movie's power to put a lot of emotions without words in a single moment, but make up for it by stretching those feelings throught the whole book?

[Anonymous No.6436522]

>>6436474
This is just bullshit.
>>6436321
Please name one of these scenes that is so great.

[Anonymous No.6436604]

>>6436509
Sort of. I'd say that books lack the ability to induce a truly visceral reaction. You don't have the same gut-wrenching disgust when reading about a human centipede as you do to actually seeing the human centipede in action, for example.

Books "make up" for it by offering something different. A book can go into far more depth simply because it has more space, and is far more explicit. Longer stories, deeper characters, a more expansive setting, more comprehensive arguments and themes and so on, and they can all be outlined much clearer. Books just offer a more "complete" experience.

They're also vastly easier to make.

[Anonymous No.6436615]

>Flowers for Algernon when Charlie goes back to the bakery. I cried.

[Anonymous No.6436666]

>>6436604
>less expensive =/= easier to make
Just stop. You are even dumber than OP.

[Anonymous No.6436683]

>>6436666
>implying books aren't vastly easier to make than movies
YEAH IT'S SO HARD BECAUSE UMM I'M A LITERARY GENIUS AND UMM WELL IT'S JUST HARD OKAY

I'd love to see you chucklefucks as executive producers for a movie managing a team of hundreds over several years and dealing with millions of dollars.

Writing a few thousand words every night is not hard.
>b-b-b-but designing the s-s-s-story and c-c-characters is
Guess what? Movies have those too! In fact, they employ people like you to design them! It's just that after the thing is written, the work doesn't end.

[Anonymous No.6436731]

>>6436683
I laughed. You obviously watch way more movies than you read books.

>All you have to do to write a good book is write a few thousand words each night.
Then all you have to do to make a movie is turn on a camera for three hours. Just the terminology you are using to describe writing is obviously from someone who knows nothing about it and thinks GRRM is the height of literature. Go back to /tv/.

[Anonymous No.6436745]

>>6436683
it's pretty silly trying to argue that one art is easier/harder to do than another. they're all different, but they're all difficult in their own ways. the only reason why film-making is so difficult is because they have a budget and only so much time to work. otherwise, there's literally nothing more difficult about film-making than dealing with the elements and set-building

[Anonymous No.6436763]

>>6436321
The end of The Dead by Jimmy Johns
Go back to >>>/tv/

[Anonymous No.6436766]

>>6436321
when the wolf dies in the crossing

[Anonymous No.6436774]

it's always refreshing to be reminded that there are people on /lit/ who actually read

[Anonymous No.6436797]

>>6436731
If movies and books require equal effort expenditure why is one often the work of just a single person and the other almost never the work of less than 20, and generally at least 100?

Clearly, movies are not just more expensive to make. They are more expensive because they require more effort. You know what we say about things that require more effort than other things?

We say that they're harder.

You're simply objectively wrong. Movies are harder to make than books. By DEFINITION you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.6436799]

Has a book ever been made with an accompanying cd which instructs you to play tracks a at certain times?

[Anonymous No.6436802]

>>6436797
More people does not equal more effort, and you missed the Anon's point, obviously

[Anonymous No.6436803]

>>6436745
>there's literally nothing more difficult about film-making than dealing with the elements and set-building
How about managing a team? Sticking to a deadline?
>b-b-b-but i have to do that when writing too
Not in anywhere NEAR the same capacity. That's the point.

[Anonymous No.6436808]

>>6436797
what a normie

[Anonymous No.6436821]

>tfw a single line of good poetry has more intense feels than any movie can produce

[Anonymous No.6436822]

>>6436797
Difficulty is not just about effort, dingus

[Anonymous No.6436835]

>>6436802
>More people does not equal more effort
So 1 man pulling on a rope is an equal effort expenditure as 20 people pulling on a rope?

>and you missed the Anon's point, obviously
What was it then, friend?

Anon doesn't have a fucking point. He's just bitching and moaning because I called writing books what it actually is - not particularly difficult. Sure, writing a MASTERPIECE is probably pretty hard. But writing a book of passable quality is nowhere near as hard as making a feature film of ANY quality.

And that's a fact.

Why? Because films require CAPITAL. They require everything a book requires and MORE. Films are not a "higher" form of art, but they are certainly a more complex form.

[Anonymous No.6436841]

>>6436822
difficult
ˈdJfJk(ə)lt/Submit
adjective
needing much effort or skill to accomplish, deal with, or understand.

[Anonymous No.6436857]

>>6436683
True, but a director wouldn't have to deal with all this alone, he would have a managing team behind him.

[Anonymous No.6436864]

>>6436841
>what is the word skill

You are a retard

[Anonymous No.6436870]

>>6436835
>So 1 man pulling on a rope is an equal effort expenditure as 20 people pulling on a rope?
No, but one man pulling a rope while playing the drums requires more effort than a dude pulling a rope while another dude brings him coffee and donuts. Yes, that's a purposefully exaggerated analogy, but your style of argument relies so much on forced assumptions that it's hard to take it seriously.

>What was it then, friend?
That just as you can say that writing a book is just typing a few words you can say that creating a film is just turning on a camera for a while. Ever heard of a movie called Wavelength?

Nice speech too, faggot.

[Anonymous No.6436872]

>>6436797
Yeah, at this level of autism I'd say you are beyond hope.

[Anonymous No.6436874]

>>6436202
>"movies"
>art

[Anonymous No.6436875]

>>6436797
But the fact that movies have hundreds of people working on them just means that they take LESS individual effort, so you can't really compare them like that.

[Anonymous No.6436879]

>>6436835
How is making a feature film of 1 and a half hour footage of my wall so much harder than writing a bunch of shit for whatever a book's length is

[Anonymous No.6436885]

>>6436321

The IJ chapter with the AA meeting where the girl talks about the foster house she lived in.

Holy fuck, I was in a coffee shop reading that and I actually started pulling on my hair

[Anonymous No.6436892]

>>6436835
You're right, but actually thinking about big Hollywood movies. Some movies have been made with small budget, small crew and in little time.

You example is actually pretty telling:

>So 1 man pulling on a rope is an equal effort expenditure as 20 people pulling on a rope?

If it's 20 people pulling the same rope, the total effort would be the same, and the effort by person would be much lesser. If it's 20 people pulling 20 ropes, the total effort would be 20 times greater, but the individual effort of each person would be the same. And you also have to take into account the time spend pulling the rope. A book written over 10 years, even if passable, would perhaps require more work overall than directing one decent movie.

Person you and anon are talking about different kinds of efforts (individual, collective) though I agree that in a movie with sizeable budget at least the director will work more than most authors working on an average-sized book.

[Anonymous No.6436898]

>>6436857
Of course. I didn't say directors worked harder than authors, I said movies are harder to make than books.

>>6436864
>writing books is a skill
>making movies isn't
top lel m8

The only thing that differentiates them is effort, not skill, and movies require more effort.

>>6436870
"I didn't say directors worked harder than authors, I said movies are harder to make than books."

Individual effort is not relevant. It's the effort required by the enterprise that matters in determining the difficulty of the enterprise. Building a farm will always take X effort. When you have 10 people it's an individual contribution of X/10, when you have 100 it's X/100, but the sum of all effort is always X.

>That just as you can say that writing a book is just typing a few words you can say that creating a film is just turning on a camera for a while.
So he is in fact focusing on a pithy aside and not the central point. Good to know.

>>6436872
Where do you think you are?

>>6436875
>individual effort
Read before posting.

>>6436879
One hour of wall footage is not a feature film, just like a book full of shit is not a book in the sense I am using the word.

[Anonymous No.6436900]

>>6436885
You were actually reading IJ at a coffee shop? That's not healthy, anon.

[Anonymous No.6436908]

>>6436821
This x10000000000000

[Anonymous No.6436913]

>>6436898
>One hour of wall footage is not a feature film

Not the guy you're responding tp, but a movie doesn't need to be a feature film to be powerful, just like a book doesn't need to be a full-on novel to be important (who is Heraclitus ?).

This whole thread is misunderstandings and poorly used terminology, not to mention focused on a rather pointless debate.

Let's stop the trainwreck already.

[Anonymous No.6436924]

>>6436898
>Individual effort is not relevant
Why? Oh right, because it's what your whole argument relies on even though no one else said it was specifically about collective effort. If anything YOU directed the discussion towards individual effort, implying being an executive producer would be miles harder than writing a great book.

>in the sense I am using the word.

Oh Christ. Just give up.

[Anonymous No.6436927]

>>6436913
But his autism won't let him. He is just going to continually shitpost until all interested parties grow bored and when he has the last post he will think he has won. He doesn't even have the self-awareness to begin to understand why he is wrong.

[Anonymous No.6436939]

>>6436898
>One hour of wall footage is not a feature film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBOzOVLxbCE

Though with what I've gathered from your posts I fully expect you to respond with "that's not an hour, it's forty-six minutes!" or "but there are people moving, and zoom!"

[Anonymous No.6436944]

>>6436892
My central point has three branches.
1. movies require more cumulative effort
I think that's pretty inarguable.
2. movies require the same elements that books do, plus more
Basically, any justification of books requiring more effort based on a particular element of production equally applies to movies, so it's impossible for a book to require more effort. This is also common sense. If writing a story makes books hard then it must also make movies hard, because movies have stories too and someone has to write them.
3. the individual effort contribution varies person to person, but any person who is equally skilled at both producing and writing will have to expend more effort as a producer than as a writer (especially if you consider responsibility as a component of effort).

>>6436913
The ride never ends. Besides, we're on a tangent. Nobody's saying this is explicitly relevant to the OP.

>>6436924
>being an executive producer would be miles harder than writing a great book.
No, being a PASSABLE executive producer would be miles harder than writing a PASSABLE book.

Executive producers are expected to do far, far more than writers. That's the whole point. Being an author is not difficult compared to being an executive producer.

[Anonymous No.6436955]

>>6436939
>Wavelength consists of almost no action, and what action does occur is largely elided. If the film could be said to have a conventional plot, this would presumably refer to the four "character" scenes. Snow's intent for the film was "a summation of my nervous system, religious inklings and aesthetic ideas," he said of the 45-minute-long zoom–which nonetheless contains edits–that incorporates in its time frame four human events, including a man's death.[8] In the first scene, a woman in a fur coat enters the room accompanied by two men carrying a bookshelf or cabinet. The woman instructs the men where to place this piece of furniture and they all leave. Later, the same woman returns with a female friend, they drink the beverages they brought, and listen to "Strawberry Fields Forever" on the radio. Long after they leave, what sounds like breaking glass is heard. At this point, a man (played by filmmaker Hollis Frampton) enters and inexplicably collapses on the floor. Later, the woman in the fur coat reappears and makes a phone call, speaking, with strange calm, about the dead man in her apartment whom she has never seen before.
>In the end, one can hear what sound like police sirens, but could just as well be a part of the musical score, a distinct piece of minimalist music that pairs tones at random. These tones shift in frequency (and in "wavelength") as the camera analyzes the space of the anonymous apartment. What begins as a view of the full apartment zooms (the zoom is not precisely continuous as the camera does change angle slightly, noticeably near the very end) and changes focus slowly across the forty-five minutes, only to stop and come into perfect focus on a photograph of the sea on the wall.

Yep. Literally just 46 minutes of footage of an empty, blank wall.

[Anonymous No.6436959]

>>6436944
>>6436927

[Anonymous No.6436962]

>>6436927
You're free to leave at any time.

[Anonymous No.6436964]

>>6436944
>1. movies require more cumulative effort
>I think that's pretty inarguable.

Do you really believe that the amount of "effort," however you quanitify it, put into Ulysses is less than the effort put into some shitty Transformers movie?
Go back to >>>/tv/ and never come back

[Anonymous No.6436966]

>>6436962
>>6436927

[Anonymous No.6436974]

>>6436955
>Yep. Literally just 46 minutes of footage of an empty, blank wall.
Please tell me this isn't irony. If it is, holy shit. I fucking called it, I so did:
>Though with what I've gathered from your posts I fully expect you to respond with "that's not an hour, it's forty-six minutes!" or "but there are people moving, and zoom!"

You might actually be the most autistic person I've met on /lit/, and that's really saying a lot.

[Anonymous No.6436991]

>>6436964
>Do you really believe that the amount of "effort," however you quanitify it, put into Ulysses is less than the effort put into some shitty Transformers movie?
Yes.

Even if he worked 9-5, five days a week, for those two years, on his novel, it would still only be EQUAL to ONE of the people employed by the Transformers company.

They employed hundreds.

>BUT HE WORKED FOR YEAAAAAAARS ON IT
So did the people making the Transformers movie, you retard. It's not about quality.

>>6436974
>being this fucking retarded.
He claimed that footage of a blank wall was a feature film. I said it was not. He cited Wavelength. Wavelength is not footage of a blank wall, which is why I posted the plot summary where that is very clearly outlined.

Ergo he is wrong.

[Anonymous No.6437010]

>>6436991
Man hours does NOT equal effort you dumb shit.
Also you don't even know what Ulysses is, which is the largest fucking meme on this board.
GTFO
T
F
O

[Anonymous No.6437017]

>>6436991
Oh my God, you're really not trolling, are you? You really argue with people so you can get by on pointless technicalities and pat yourself in the back for "winning" the argument, don't you? Shit, I'm out, this is too much.

[Anonymous No.6437025]

>>6437010
>Man hours does NOT equal effort you dumb shit.
Even if he worked at 200% the capacity of a human being, literally working twice as hard as humanly possible, he might just brush the effort expended by six or seven of the employees of the Transformers company.

>>6437017
cya

[Anonymous No.6437037]

>>6436991
>>6437010
>>6437017
>>6437025

See: >>6436927

[Anonymous No.6437045]

>>6437025
Let's say, for a moment, that you are right, and that movies require more effort than books.

Doesn't it then say something about how shitty movies are compared to books then? If it takes WAYYYYY more effort to create a "passable" movie as you've said then to create a "passable" book? Doesn't that prove that books are better since somebody can spend less "effort" on them, yet produce a product on equal footing as a movie?

[Anonymous No.6437052]

>>6436321
Books have come close to making me feel as MUCH as movies, but not MORE than.

Also with a much lower frequency.

[Anonymous No.6437064]

>>6437045
I don't think either is better than the other. I think they both have advantages and disadvantages as a medium. I think anyone saying that one medium is categorically better than the rest is probably wrong.

All I've said is that books are easier to produce than movies, and then the discussion striated this into various different branches of "easier".

[Anonymous No.6437068]

>>6436321
Is this what it feels like to be a patrician, /lit/? To read one post and realize it is wrong on such a fundamental level that you know you are intrinsically superior to the poster?

[Anonymous No.6437195]

>>6436321
Cien años de soledad was the first thing to make me feel anything in over a year. No movie could have done that.

[Anonymous No.6437211]

>>6436885
Isn't that the one where she's just whining though and everyone hates her? I thought the speech by the ex-prostitute was the most brutal of the AA stories

[Anonymous No.6437218]

>>6436799
ooooooooo

[Anonymous No.6437225]

>>6436321
the end of A Prayer for Owen Meany, jesus christ, the feels

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6438359]

Movie scenes with music are pretty much shit, unless it's an original score and the score itself is very good. Few directors could pull off adapted scores without being retarded. Kubrick and Scorsese sometimes, but a lot of it is cliche shit that they just stuck on the film because they liked the song. The Blue Danube in 2001 for instance is waaay to drawn out, and the song is so cliche he might as well have used Vivaldi's Spring. Don't even get me started on A Clockwork Orange and the use of fucking Rossini.

Books have way more feels, Ecclesiastes and Odysseus with his dog pack far more emotional punch for me than film scored scenes. If I want musical emotional feels with a scene, I go for opera.