/lit/ - Literature

In what way do books not leave room for imagination?

>>15924637
Go on...

Movies are more aesthetically enjoyable. The aesthetic enjoyment is the ability to be far removed from sex so much that the dopamine surging causes your dick to shrink.

>>15924637
>Movies are better than books because they leave room for the imagination.
Literally the opposite. Films give you all the answers. Filmmakers have talked about how film is a medium of answers and rather meterially limited.

>>15924637
This, but the other way around. With books, you can interpret and imagine things differently each time you read it, or sometimes you can imagine it in multiple different ways at once. With movies, all the sensory work is done for you, and filmmakers have mastered the ability of using music and visuals to procure the exact emotional/mental reaction to their work that they desire.

>>15924648
>>15924656
Movies can't tell you the exact thoughts or emotions of the characters because monologues don't work in film so you have to be actively looking out for visual cues and facial expressions to try to discern what the characters are like or what they are thinking at any given moment.
Some characters are so vague you can paint them however you want to i.e (self insert).

>>15924692
There's more left to the imagination in Hamlet than there is in Come and See. Anyway why do you think "leaving room for the imagination" makes one art form better than another?

>>15924692
All this dumb shit also applies to books. It's not like every single narrator is third person omniscient.

>>15924714
It's something you hear bookfags say a lot.
>>15924721
A lot are. Or small you can have small sentences that give away too much information, lot of writers just have bad prose.

>>15924721
This.
>>15924692
Go back to /tv/ and blow your load to the zoey 101

>>15924743
>Zoey 101
How about you guys watch some decent cinema for once instead of jerking off to David Wallace or whatnot.

Movies are better than books because they leave room for cooming to feet.

>>15924736
>It's something you hear bookfags say a lot
The difference is that when you see an image, your brain can register it at a glance and create an internal version of said image with almost no effort, and with a similar level of detail.
To recreate that same frame in text form, down to the tiniest of details could take you several pages, hence the expression 1 image is worth a thousand words. Which is why books don't do it, and by definition, leave a ton more up to the reader's imagination.

>>15924637
i think a visual medium has the potential to be much better than the written words. But i just can't take /tv/ seriously when there are daily threads on reality tv with 10x more serious discussions than the rest of the board combined.

>>15924637
what kind of dumb consideration is this? go back to /tv/

>>15924668
>>15924672
>>15924692
These.

>>15924775
And that's exactly the point, the stuff that the book lets you imagine is mostly superficial "what colour was the pillow ?", "How did the character feel as he laid his head on the pillow ?" , "Insert half a page explaining how soft the pillow was". Films leave you with just essence .

>>15924810
So, it leaves you to imagine a ton of detail, albeit superficial. Cool.
We had already established that some books are not written from the perspective of an omniscient narrator.
Here's another thing. There's a writing guideline (actually a meme) that says "show, don't tell". A ton of writers adhere to this principle. What does it mean? That even if the narrator is omniscient, sometimes a smile or a facial expression will be merely described and not explained, leaving its interpretation up to the reader.

So, books not only require the reader to make up unnecessary superficial details, but intent, behind the action and the writer.
Kindly go back to your low iq board or at least read a couple of books before making dumb statements.

>>15924637
enjoy the brainwashing

>>15924692

>>15924978
fucking brilliant
how old is this?

>>15925022
Don't know.

>>15924961
I'm 130 I.Q wise.

>>15924637
MOVIES ARE A LAZY MODERN MEDIUM AND YOU, FOR THE MOST PART, SHOULD NOT WASTE YOUR TIME ON IT IN YOUR MIND AS AN ARTFORM.

>>15924736
sup tourist what made you wander out of /tv/?

>>15924637
Imagine them making a movie about girls. and they show the boobies

>>15924973
What a shitty thread to spend time screencaping.

>>15925173
>>15924643
>>>/tv/136851828
These threads might have something to do with it

>>15924668
movie is an answer, yes. but your answer is not necessarily better.

>>15924973
Literal schizo posting

>>15924637
What you're saying is the total opposite of the truth. Reading is way more about imagination. I realize some people can't read using their imagination, but you should try to understand most people are able to create images in their mind, even if you're not.
People who think movies are a higher medium cannot read fiction properly, and I feel sorry for you.
If you're able to read the way you're meant to read, create images in your own mind based on just looking at squiggles on a page, then there is way more room for the imgaination. You're creating everything in your own imagination with the help of the author. If you're watching a movie, all you're able to do is accept the images given to you. There's no room for imagination. Movies are much more strict and delineated than reading. Reading is the best way to open your imagination. I really do feel sorry that you're not able to do this friend.

>>15924973
All based and true. They live in the cave.