There was a long time where I thought that images in books detracted from the experience, but now I wonder why I ever felt that way. In addition, I don't get why people don't like, or at least see books that use images as inferior to works that use nothing but words. Here are some points against language in general:
- Most (if not all), languages are ad hoc messes that have little to no organization. They are hard to learn (because they don't have any sort of design to them), which means words are hard to share. Languages get outdated and lost, which means works using them can very well have the same fate.
- Language is often tainted by embellishments which most times add nothing to the idea they are trying to convey, which makes most languages extremely cluttered, and muddy and for some reason people seem to like and endorse that (and so do I, I guess). I love the word "superfluous", don't you?
- Language is slow to describe or define non abstract concepts, and often fails really hard at it no matter how good the writer is, simply because it has to hang on a readers knowledge. It's not very hard to realize how many problems can arise from the differences between what the writer is thinking, and what the reader is thinking. Language is not good at painting a complete picture, simply put.
- Language is an obstacle to creativity. Once again, it has to lean on a readers knowledge. This is not only applicable to content but to style as well, since, as language is, of course, a product of customs, you'll have to learn it by reading, which gives you very little space for personal experimentation in general, and, perhaps even more important, it conditions you into an idea of what is "ideal" in writing. With painting, for instance, you have you own view of the world before seeing a painting, but with writing this does not happen, at least not nearly with as much impact.
Of course, I'm not saying language is useless or the devil or anything like that, nor am I saying that you can't use words only to get a point across completely, but I find it really weird that comic books, of all things (keeping in mind I've never read many comic books at all), are considered inferior to word only novels, when they can get their message across more clearly (or at least have that potential). It's just bizarre how much importance language gets. What I'm saying is that it is completely ridiculous to limit yourself to words to tell a story. Words are symbols, and symbols are good to make connections.
(cont.)
>>7750484
Lets say I wanted to describe a town. What would you prefer: a five paragraph explanation of how the walls of the town were built, and how the people behave in general, and the various architectural details found around it, or a simple black and white sketch accompanied by the one paragraph that described the people in the town and maybe another paragraph mentioning key buildings around town and such?
So what are the ramifications of this choice? With the second method, not only did I spare like 10 or so minutes of your time (giving way to more interesting things), but I also gave you a much more definitive view of everything, using text only for the things that would be hard to put into images. If a battle was to happen there, you would know how tall the walls were, you would know how heavily fortified the gate really looked, the amount of guards and soldiers that often stood watch atop of the walls, and we would be talking about the same town, and not two different towns, one made up in your mind, and one made up in mine. Also, the town becomes instantly less volatile and variable, which means I'll be able to use it more often without presenting inconsistencies (even if they only happen in your mind), and you'll have a better experience with the story. And yes, all this is pretty obvious.
To me, books nowadays have spiraled into a bunch of insecurities almost. It's almost as if people are afraid of drawing and painting, no matter how simple it can be. We use groups of symbols to represent everything, even if we could use that thing to represent itself, it's just fucking dumb.
(cont.)
>>7750491
So why does this happen? Why do writers have such a fear of images other than letters? Why do people give so much importance to words? Words should be meant to complement, not base. You want to know a fun thing? The sketch of the town I mentioned earlier would probably take less time to draw for an amateur, than writing and editing the three paragraphs describing it, and it sure would save the reader time. This way, the reader can pace through the book as they want, if they want they can spend some more time looking at the town, and if they don't want to do that, they can just skip to the next page or whatever. And perhaps even more important than all of this, you as the creator would be able to create more. Life is short, or at least not long enough, after all.
I get why most people don't seem to be too fond of books, they are a big, BIG waste of time. And people who read like to call those other people dumb, but I don't see how thinking that way is dumb in any way. It's perfectly reasonable to bash something that takes 1 hour when it could take 30 minutes and be done better. In the case of a story, a better story that was told faster (and possibly with more detail, which I find funny), gives you plenty of opportunities to read other stories, or even to think about the whole story you've just experienced. It's almost as if people that read books and call others out on hatting books really have no concept of time management. I guess this is sort of a fad recently, people just seem to give too much credit to the medium instead of what is trying to be given to them through that medium.
Giving all this importance to words would almost be like giving more importance to the little pins that hold legos together rather than the pieces as a whole. It's just dumb.
Anyway, that's the end of my obsessive compulsive ramblings, and I would really love to hear your opinions on this.
I don't disagree with you.
You speak of time management but have no idea how inordinately long it takes to set up a comic/illustration.
In all the time it takes to draw that town you could have described and characterized it much more effectively in one or two, well-crafted paragraphs. Most of you're saying all depends on the skill of the writer and his own stylistic choices. Some writers actively prefer short stories or even poetry as opposed to long novels.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with learning how to read. If the reader can't get the writers language, then more often than not it means they need to update their firmware. Shakespeare being taught in schools today is a goddamn case study for this point.
This is all coming from someone who writes and draws. Ultimately if you know what you're doing then writing is much more effective for telling stories. Art is better at capturing single moments and working by implication, but when it comes to narrative it can't go anywhere near the depth literature goes..
Also, is disgustingly easy for comic producers to trap themselves with half-finished, plodding stories that aren't even all that great to begin with. With revisions being ultimately impossible without simply cancelling the thing and starting from scratch. That'll fuck you over far worse than working through Moby Dick.I guarantee you Berserk would already be finished if it was written in prose
>>7751349
>You speak of time management but have no idea how inordinately long it takes to set up a comic/illustration.
Yes, read again, I said a sketch. Even the most basic of outlines can describe a thing better than just words, especially if that basic outline is completed with words.
>In all the time it takes to draw that town you could have described and characterized it much more effectively in one or two, well-crafted paragraphs.
This is completely false and highly depends on how much detail you need for your story. A point that I left out was how something that is better fleshed out can be used more often in more different ways without fearing the dreaded "detail hole" that using just words brings. You cannot possibly tell me that you can show a whole town and how it is laid out with two paragraphs, no amount of "good paragraph" crafting could lead you to that, that's the main point of my whole post in fact. You could draw a sketch of the town way faster than it would take you to write whatever godly "two paragraphs" you're thinking about, that tell show you a clear picture of this town.
Shit, even a top down map, which is easy to make, would be more valuable than your shitty ass paragraphs.
>Blah blah comics
I just knew someone was going to attack content, and that's why I included "or at least have that potential." To be fair, I don't like comics either very much, too much super hero stuff and I hate super heroes (I probably should look more into comics to be fair). Comics are one way of using imagery, but I think the way I really like it is using it to define characters, races, places, or anything like that. If I include orcs, it would be much better to include an image of an orc, than trying to describe them using words which would only end up leaving ambiguities that could present issues to a reader later on, there's no good reason to do that. Words come from what we see and hear and feel, not the other way around, trying to define complex or important objects using words is moronic, but if you have an image next to a name then you instantly give yourself a new word to play around with.
You're so right, this is exactly why people stopped reading novels and started just looking at collections of quick sketches instead.
The same goes for music, why bother with a whole concerto when you can just have a single word that says "elated" or "angry" or "jubilant"? It's so much more time efficient.
>>7751383
Trust me bro, most people, adults in particular, would literally rather read a paragraph than stare at your shitty sketches.
Do you draw? Do you write? Do you know what goes into producing any of these things? You already said you don't read comics often so that tells us a whole lot.
And when I said comics, I meant comics. Not fucking Batman or Dragon Ball or whatever. The exact MEDIUM of comics.
This is why what you're saying is bullshit, you dont even have accurate conceptions of what you're even talking about.
>trying to define complex or important objects using words is moronic,
Literally read more, of comics and books. This is like a bad fucking joke.
>>7751349
>if the reader can't get the writers language, then more often than not it means they need to update their firmware. Shakespeare being taught in schools today is a goddamn case study for this point.
I have more reason to strongly agree with you here than I believe anyone else does. Just last week I reached some kind of mental threshold which activated latent potential my brain hadn't been able to use before, as a result I went from completely despising Shakespeare in every way to instantly being able to comprehend the structure and form of his language in its entirely and gaining the ability to perceive poetic metaphor directly for the first time in my life. I am very interested in what you experiences are, as I hope to apply for graduate studies and develop a theoretical framework around the perception thresholds that I have witnesses arising in myself, so any additional information you can provide me would be a great aid. It should then be possible to devise tests and education methods specifically around the evaluation and advancements of these perceptive abilities.
>>7751383
>If I include orcs, it would be much better to include an image of an orc
What if you were trying to describe home to someone? Would you draw a house? What does a drawing of father look like?
>>7751405
Yes, I'm so glad someone finally noticed how I completely belittled and uncovered the useless travesty that the written word is! You know what my brother, from now on we should only use emoticons to communicate. :D
Seriously though, your post is plain retarded. Collections of quick sketches do not a story make, and a word representing an emotion, does not that emotion invoke (which actually was kind of a loose point of my whole post which you ironically seemed to miss).
>>7751415
And it didn't take too long to go into ad hominem either, impressive. But you probably are right, that is probably why people hate images in their books, because of a chain of fear and insecurity. God forbid the writer actually learns how to draw too, that would be sacrilege.
And come on, the comic book market is VERY saturated with super heroes.
>>7751431
And that's where words come in. See, you're getting it already Johnny!
>>7751349
>Besides, there's nothing wrong with learning how to read.
Who even said that?
>>7751415
>And when I said comics, I meant comics. Not fucking Batman or Dragon Ball or whatever. The exact MEDIUM of comics.
>Also, is disgustingly easy for comic producers to trap themselves with half-finished, plodding stories that aren't even all that great to begin with. With revisions being ultimately impossible without simply cancelling the thing and starting from scratch.
This is an attack on comic producers, so by extension, on content, and has very little to do with the actual medium itself as an idea.
>>7751383
>>7751441
>Language is slow to describe or define non abstract concepts, and often fails really hard at it no matter how good the writer is, simply because it has to hang on a readers knowledge. It's not very hard to realize how many problems can arise from the differences between what the writer is thinking, and what the reader is thinking. Language is not good at painting a complete picture, simply put.
What's implied here is that Shakespeare and Chaucer are "problematic" because their use of language is a little antiquated, even though its a relatively simple matter of just learning to speak their language and get what we can from them.
Language is very good at painting a picture, but you have to learn how to read, you have to know its context. Its the same with art too, a Chinese peasant most likely wouldn't even understand the meaning behind a painting of the Crucifixion, because he dosent have the context.
But he can get it, if he finds it useful to educate himself on Christianity and its relation to art.
>>7751422
>Just last week I reached some kind of mental threshold which activated latent potential my brain hadn't been able to use before, as a result I went from completely despising Shakespeare in every way to instantly being able to comprehend the structure and form of his language in its entirely and gaining the ability to perceive poetic metaphor directly for the first time in my life
How?
>>7751438
>a word representing an emotion, does not that emotion invoke
Yes it does. That's exactly what it does.
>And that's where words come in
I see. So you're saying that instead of what we do now, we should write stories using varying degrees of words and images depending on which better serves the purpose. So if a story is best told in words, tell it in words, if images work better, use images, and anything else in between. Yes?
>>7751458
No. I dont give a damn about the story being told, if a comic producer dosent have the wherewithal to make sure they can actually finish their work, then things are just going to fall apart. Which is what happens very often in comics.
The entire point of that example was trashing his assertion of "time efficiency", when bringing art into the picture is probably the least time-efficient thing you can do.
It can help as supplementary, I know Tolkien did it, so did Mervyn Peake, and I do it too, but like hell if I'd actually rely on it to carry my story.
Again we can just look at so many Manga artist who have been telling the same stories since the 90s. It's not very efficient.
>>7751474
Nigga, that's like the second paragraph in my whole post. That's actually the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of my post.
I honestly don't get why people are thinking I'm saying you simply should not use writing.
>>7751459
I stand sp00ked.
>>7751467
>Language is very good at painting a picture, but you have to learn how to read, you have to know its context.
Not by itself. Language is good at putting pieces together, not creating them. That's why it is ideal to explain things like communism, but shit at explaining a dog to someone who has never seen one.
>Its the same with art too, a Chinese peasant most likely wouldn't even understand the meaning behind a painting of the Crucifixion, because he dosent have the context.
What? He sees, he would understand that that's a man nailed to something and everything around it. He might not know the circumstances that led the man there, but it's not the job of the picture to give him the context. Once again, I really feel that you are simply thinking that I'm telling people they should just use images. I dong get it.
>>7751471
I'm in the process of writing up a lengthy explanation of this. It mainly involved listening to western art music and concentrating on specific aspects of its form and structure. The thing is, this isn't the first time I've done something like that, I achieved a similar mental leap a number of years ago, which is what enabled me to achieve this second leap now. I hope to develop a theory that systematically explains what has occurred, why these distinct threshold levels levels exist and how they enable the cognitive perception of particular forms.
I posted about it before here.
>>7740004
>>7751496
If you're talking about producers you are inherently talking about content, not the medium as a whole.
I never said writing comics was time efficient and I don't get why you keep saying that I did. I never said it should carry a story by itself, that's not the point. Did you even read what I wrote?
>>7751512
I mean, how did you do it; what music did you listen to? What were you reading?
>>7751516
>If you're talking about producers you are inherently talking about content, not the medium as a whole.
You'll need to prove that then, try not to delve into some shitty conversation about genre.
>I never said writing comics was time efficient and I don't get why you keep saying that I did. I never said it should carry a story by itself, that's not the point. Did you even read what I wrote?
The very fact you bring time into the picture and try to say novels are a waste of time for the readers. I'm bringing you the other side of the coin.
>I get why most people don't seem to be too fond of books, they are a big, BIG waste of time. And people who read like to call those other people dumb, but I don't see how thinking that way is dumb in any way. It's perfectly reasonable to bash something that takes 1 hour when it could take 30 minutes and be done better.
If you're so worried about time for the readers, think about production, your own time. Especially if you're talking about utilizing art. Again, how much experience do you have with any of these things?
And whats funnier is that you can spend so much time with your illustrations, then people will just gloss over it to focus on the dialogue.
>>7751422
Personally, I never had much problem with grasping poetic metaphor. So in my studying literature its more or less about refining what was already there.
>>7751535
>If you're so worried about time for the readers, think about production, your own time. Especially if you're talking about utilizing art.
I did nigga, that was one of my points. A drawing is as complex as you want, and even a simple line art can get a point across better than a thousand words, especially if complemented by words (if it is well done, but again, god fucking forbid if a writer learns how to draw).
>And whats funnier is that you can spend so much time with your illustrations, then people will just gloss over it to focus on the dialogue.
Illustrations complement everything, nobody is going to "gloss over" an image labeled with a weird monster name or strange city when it is how they are shown to the reader. That's like saying people will gloss over a characters description to focus on dialogue, that's just dumbo.
>The very fact you bring time into the picture and try to say novels are a waste of time for the readers. I'm bringing you the other side of the coin.
I meant to say that text only stories often waste time by not using images when they should, how does that bring me the other side of the coin?
Seriously, I must be really bad at expressing myself.
>>7751523
So far, I've made the leap on two distinct levels. The first, which occurred around five years ago, allowed me to perceive what I call universal lyrical perception, which is the sense that all sounds can be perceived to have phrase structure, and hence the sense that musical instruments can seem to communicate with each other through abstract sentences.
What triggered it? It likely had a number of causes, but what specifically activated the sudden advancement beyond the first level was listening to Gustav Leonhardt's performance of the harsichord solo from J.S. Bach's 5th Brandenburg concerto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxzY3tFTz9k
This is the only interpretation I'm aware of that I feel successfully reveals the piece's structure with real clarity, and this section has many qualities which I believe make it ideal for activating the transition past the first perceptual level.
Going from the second to the third level is something I'd have far more difficulty identifying a unique cause for, as I'd been trying to understand additional qualities of musical structure that the lyrical level revealed, but which I still couldn't directly or intuitively comprehend even then, for years; on top of this the initial effects of the second transition were far more subtle initially compared to the first. I do believe though, that the third "super gramatical" level is necessary to comprehend Shakespeare, blank and free verse, and high art poetic effects in general.
>>7750484
1. See pic related
2. William Blake drew his poems on plates. Vonnegut also added sketchings to his books. But Blake was a mad genius and Vonnegut wrote satirical fiction so his childishly scrawled drawings helped the theme. Only shitposters on 4chan really diss whole mediums, or Megacorps thinking that 'animation/comics are kiddie shizz'. But I don't like your 'blanket attitude' argument
3. As a person who writes but also learns drawing I am always fucking pissed by people like you who thinks that everything is malleable/translatable easily. To get the sense of the author into pictures you need a fucking good artist. To get a sense of the picture into words you need a fucking good writer. The marriage of the two perfectly is one of the rarest occurrences even in comic-book land, which is overrun with superhero shit.
I would never use a bad writer with a good artist. I would also never use any bad artist with a good writer.
4. Try seeing if you can translate this into pictures
Let not the pilgrim see himself again
For slow evisceration bound like those huge terrapin
Each daybreak on the wharf, their brine-caked eyes;
—Spiked, overturned; such thunder in their strain!
And clenched beaks coughing for the surge again!
Slagged of the hurricane—I, cast within its flow,
Congeal by afternoons here, satin and vacant.
You have given me the shell, Satan,—carbonic amulet
Sere of the sun exploded in the sea.
5. For that matter I can think of an example of a poem that alleviates statue/drawings greater than the medium itself (and other super good ekphrastic poems too):
ARCHAIC TORSO OF APOLLO
We cannot know his legendary head
with eyes like ripening fruit. And yet his torso
is still suffused with brilliance from inside,
like a lamp, in which his gaze, now turned to low,
gleams in all its power. Otherwise
the curved breast could not dazzle you so, nor could
a smile run through the placid hips and thighs
to that dark center where procreation flared.
Otherwise this stone would seem defaced
beneath the translucent cascade of the shoulders
and would not glisten like a wild beast’s fur:
would not, from all the borders of itself,
burst like a star: for here there is no place
that does not see you. You must change your life.
I can see a case of your argument being used with crappy genre writers who abuse description, but knowing where to place what needs skill involved.
Sometimes writers LEAVE OUT things from a description, or focus on particular things to create a mood. Sometimes satirists purposely over-describe to make things grotesque. Only bad writers can be easily translated into drawings because they don't see the power of the word.
If you don't know where description is melded with the abstract, and thus untranslatable (or only translatable by a Picasso or Van Gogh) then you don't know how to use both mediums properly. If you don't know that then you shouldn't say shit.
>>7751548
In this case I believe you may have activated this threshold early enough to not be consciously aware of any transition. I'll need to inquire about many more people's experiences in order to gain evidence for it, but I know I'm not the only one who has had experiences of this kind.
I do believe I am in a unique position to describe and explain the nature of these mental phenomena systematically in ways that no one else has though.
>>7751600
When did I say you should turn that into an image? I don't get how you got that idea.
>Sometimes writers LEAVE OUT things from a description, or focus on particular things to create a mood.
Sure, that's perfectly fine if that's what they want to do. Not that you couldn't use images AND do that as well though, but apparently you don't seem to be a big fan of the "images + words" thing.
>As a person who writes but also learns drawing I am always fucking pissed by people like you who thinks that everything is malleable/translatable easily.
You should also become a person who knows how to read, because my second fucking paragraph was about where language should be used instead of images. I, in no way, said that everything should be turned into an image, and I don't get why people seem to think this is the case. I go into further detail, but at the second paragraph I say
>Words are symbols, and symbols are good to make connections.
This is the exact opposite of saying words are useless or that everything is translatable into an image.
Also, why does it matter if you are learning to draw or not? How do you know that I don't also draw and write? Can we drop the ad hominem already?
>To get the sense of the author into pictures you need a fucking good artist.
>To get a sense of the picture into words you need a fucking good writer.
This is just dumb. We're talking about an illustration, not a painting. It is meant to show you something as it would be seen, not bring forth emotion necessarily. This seems like such a vapid point. I'm not even sure what you're trying to get across here and how it relates to what I'm saying. I am starting to believe that nobody is actually reading my shit.
>The marriage of the two perfectly is one of the rarest occurrences even in comic-book land, which is overrun with superhero shit.
Attacking content.
Again, it to me just seems like a huge chain of insecurity. Writers can't be bothered to learn how to construct properly, and then people think that books with images are for children, because the pros do it without them. I thought people who read books were supposed to be smart or something. And then you give me all these artsy reasons why the descriptions of things are half assed, when these clearly apply to only certain cases, and when I clearly said that images shouldn't replace words in every case.
>>7751568
When people don't read books it means they just have shit attention spans and generally low comprehension.
And no, simple line art is actually inferior to a well-done description. This honestly tells me you have no idea of the power of words if effectively handled.
I can agree that illustrations can be a nice embellishment, something supplementary, but the best effects of prose literally cannot be summed up in an image.
And if you're actually a good writer, you wont be wasting time. Each word will seamlessly blend the physical and the psychic, much like the best pictures would, but much faster.
How well you "get the picture" all depends on how good of a reader you are.
>>7751606
Hey, I may have some experiences to share on that.
An interesting thing I found out was that base creativity translates across all mediums, from Art to Music to Poetry, although its harder to translate Art & Music into reality because you need the trained technique.
For some reason my mind likes to mess around with the pure sound of words so I can pretty much grasp any kind of meter instantly now, although I couldn't before. I can even write in meter intuitively even though that takes slightly more concentration. But when I write I also like to hum random improvised variations (like jazz-type improvs) on tunes I've heard before, even pop songs. Before I sleep I also like to 'free conjure' images in my head and I can pretty much imagine any kind of image. If I had the skills to translate the stuff that goes on in my head into reality, I would be damned happy. Sadly, except for poetry, I can't.
Though, I picked up guitar and learned a few simple chords and keys, but there were moments when I would just have 'insight' and play together a jumble of sounds very much like 'outsider music' (think Daniel Johnston), and just keep wheedling out the improv, although I knew that if I never built up my technique my range of improv would be hideously small. I can also sing 'random words' that fit a tune if I don't know the lyrics.
It also gave me insight into why people like Blake and Victor Hugo could also wander into other art-forms as well. I think base creativity is like a 'semblance' machine that knots together outside perceptual input and plays with it. I bet if you gave any great artist double their lifespan, they could easily conquer another field. The problem is that base creativity is one thing while using the combinations you create to make high abstract intellectual communication is another thing. I read up on Vygotsky who put forth the thesis that sounds and words (or abstract thoughts) are separate and have their own parallel developments before melding together, and it seems to ring true here.
>>7751669
>And no, simple line art is actually inferior to a well-done description. This honestly tells me you have no idea of the power of words if effectively handled.
Disagree, even line art can show you something much more clearly than any amount of words. You call me ignorant, I call you delusional and scared.
>I can agree that illustrations can be a nice embellishment, something supplementary, but the best effects of prose literally cannot be summed up in an image.
Again, you seem to think I said images should be used solo and not complemented with words. Also, this sentence:
>but the best effects of prose literally cannot be summed up in an image.
is very questionable as an argument against what my first posts suggest, and I'm not sure what to say about it, other than it is very vapid.
>And if you're actually a good writer, you wont be wasting time. Each word will seamlessly blend the physical and the psychic, much like the best pictures would, but much faster.
If you're a good writer you will waste all the time embellishing your text instead of writing your story, but that's another battle for another day. Again, a very vapid and opinionated point (even inside the realms of philosophy), which brings nothing to the discussion. Further more, if you actually think we can read faster than take shapes before our eyes in, I don't know what to tell you.
>How well you "get the picture" all depends on how good of a reader you are.
Again, false, and I don't see why you would think that no room for ambiguity is left by words. It actually blows my mind how much in denial you are here.
>>7751697
I bring you facts and all you can do is scramble and say I'm in denial, yet you are the person who is admittedly not very knowledgeable of either art, writing, or even its mixture being comics.
>If you're a good writer you will waste all the time embellishing your text instead of writing your story
Nope. Read some Shakespeare, he consistently captures the psychic profile of his characters with every single line and in perfect form. Not one word is wasted and all of it adds up to the full vision. That is mastery.
>Further more, if you actually think we can read faster than take shapes before our eyes in, I don't know what to tell you.
How about inversely: How fast can you produce an effective sketch compared to a writer who knows exactly how to portray his scene? Are you even good at drawing? Again, bringing time into this conversation is only hurting you. I wouldn't have done it.
And are you really denying how much a reader's comprehension affects how they perceive a text? Are you sure you're even ready for this type of conversation?
>>7751722
>I bring you facts
Ok, I'm done here, you don't even know what a fact is.
>How about inversely: How fast can you produce an effective sketch compared to a writer who knows exactly how to portray his scene? Are you even good at drawing? Again, bringing time into this conversation is only hurting you. I wouldn't have done it.
>And are you really denying how much a reader's comprehension affects how they perceive a text? Are you sure you're even ready for this type of conversation?
Ok, yeah, you're right, you won, this completely represents the things I've been defending and I'm wrong, pat yourself on the back good man. Once again, I was bested by ad hominem and "hard facts".
>>7751730
You were done from the first post, not to mention you cant articulate yourself worth a damn.
I suggest reading a little more before asserting half-assed theories on how writing works. The only insecure one here is you. You notice how just about everyone disagreeing with you actually has experience in art and writing? What do you have? You consistently dodged that question. So much for credibility.
>>7751689
>For some reason my mind likes to mess around with the pure sound of words so I can pretty much grasp any kind of meter instantly now, although I couldn't before.
Great, when did this occur and could you describe your experience in more detail? Because this ability "pretty much grasp any kind of meter instantly now" is exactly what I believe is enabled by, and only possible with, "super grammatical" perception. I would very much like to seriously corresponding with you, if you are willing to and believe you have further insight to offer, because I think I can go pretty far with this and the more people I have to aid me the better.
I good, simple test for this perception level is this.
In A Station of the Metro - by Ezra Pound
The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
Petals on a wet, black bough.
To someone at the "super grammatical" level, the sounds and imagery should be immediately striking and beautiful at a subconscious level. At any lover level though, you will only be able to apprehend the poem analytically, and it will likely instead be felt as a cynical comparison between the blackness of the branch and the image of the crowd at the station.
>>7751752
>You notice how just about everyone disagreeing with you actually has experience in art and writing? What do you have?
Dude, I have over 300 confirmed books written. I also have over 300 confirmed illustrations, and I was top figure drawer of my class. I read Loomis while I take a bath nigga.
What now faggot?
>>7751659
Yea I already noted that you didn't seem to be fighting for anything especially pertinent - Dore & Romanticists, Beardsley & Wilde, William Blake, Vonnegut etc... have been melding the form together for years.
>I, in no way, said that everything should be turned into an image
True, but the example you gave wasn't a very good example because there are cases when I would prefer the 5 paragraph explanation depending on how well it was written.
You also seemed to missed out the point where I was supportive of your point and said that it might work for crappy genre writers but not for those who have reached the level of writing where the abstract is necessarily melded together in every single description that they have.
>This is just dumb. We're talking about an illustration, not a painting. It is meant to show you something as it would be seen
My question would be why the hell would you want to do this?
Point: Japanese Light Novels - there are some books out there written by quite good writers whose illustrations are all these kind of standardized moe-style drawings that completely clashes with the tone of the book. The fact is that even when you illustrate, you have to know what kind of style you're illustrating for.
A drawing of Art cannot escape the abstract connotations that underlie it. Any drawing, by being nature of a structured expression, is also a language. No drawing can just purely 'depict'. That's why your method only fits into places where the writing is so bland that even the most basic connotations fit.
It's like Mind/Body Dualism. Saying that the Art can be used to purely depict and not communicate, and saying that language is only the 'knots' and does not hold depiction inside it. Sounds very nice in abstract, but the simple point is that marriage of content determines.
>You don't seem to be a big fan of the "images + words" thing
I am not a fan of the "images + words" thing because to see these two as separate is, to me, a false abstraction. The question is really a matter of content. There are places when no pictures fit, there are places when pictures fit, there are places when even with descriptions, pictures don't fit, there are places where words don't fit.
Basically my argument is a picture says a thousand words, but it says all the wrong ones. A writer says 5 words, but says all the right ones.
> Language is an obstacle to creativity. Once again, it has to lean on a readers knowledge. This is not only applicable to content but to style as well, since, as language is, of course, a product of customs, you'll have to learn it by reading, which gives you very little space for personal experimentation in general, and, perhaps even more important, it conditions you into an idea of what is "ideal" in writing. With painting, for instance, you have you own view of the world before seeing a painting, but with writing this does not happen, at least not nearly with as much impact.
This is bullshit because there are a number of old texts with images that nobody can make heads or tails of. Words only limit you so much as you know how to use them, it is much same with images which still relies on "forms" if you want to communicate anything readily identifiable.
What do you even mean by "personal experimentation"? Are you aware of how many writers have raped the different literary and poetic forms to hell and back to create new forms?
And do you think an artist dosent spend much of his time practicing to render the Basic Forms? Learning Anatomy? Perspective? Light and Color? Are you aware of how immensely obsessive artist have gotten about rendering the ideal forms, often which were relative to their times?
Come the fuck on man.
>>7751752
inorite? i don't understand why some people start query threads and can't handle reasonable disagreements.
both of you are awkward little children, but at least you aren't lost in the ravine like OP.
>>7751775
Actually I wouldn't be able to properly state when it occurred. I spent a lot of time daydreaming as a child though, and mixing together like scenes from the cartoons I saw into other scenes, or coming up with new endings for them. Obviously being introverted gave me like a lot of time to do that.
I couldn't grasp Shakespeare at 14, when I was forced to learn it for Literature, but 2 years later I discovered (like any teen) Beat poets & Salinger, and no matter what people say those two are like perfect examples of writing that translates sound perfectly and blatantly into the word (even Kerouac said that Shakespeare was great because he could just send sound straight into verse). I think the early imagination stuff mixed into language at that moment and I started being able to 'hear' the cadences. I've never completed On The Road, but I read the first chapter and my mind just started sounding like Kerouac for a while. Then I read Song of Myself by Whitman and my mind did the same thing. But I also listened to a lot of music, so maybe that contributed to.
So when I revisited Shakespeare (one day I just came across the latter part of the "2 be or not 2 be speech" from "fardels..." and suddenly it just clicked) I found out I could understand his image movement. Then I tried to mirror the meter in my head and found out that I could somehow intuitively do rhyming couplets, although for very trite imagery e.g. (a quick one):
Let cupid burn the stars today in bright
And falter into everlasting night
Music and Art came next, but I can't exactly pinpoint when I could envision those clearly. I think Jazz had something to do with it.
The problem is at this stage, people who do merely sounds and decorative imagery are boring to me. Like this Elinor Wylie poem:
Say not of Beauty she is good,
Or aught but beautiful,
Or sleek to doves' wings of the wood
Her wild wings of a gull.
Because I think I could probably pull off something like that myself with little effort (e.g.):
Justice has a fair coat of Gold
But his chest is black and mar
And if you touch his flowing robes
He'll feather you with tar
>>7751422
>>7751512
>>7751584
>>7751606
>>7751689
>>7751775
>>7751911
lmao i think u have the 'tism mah nigger
>>7751929
If the 'tism gives me this aural jism
Then, mah nigger, i don't mind the 'tism
>>7751814
>My question would be why the hell would you want to do this?
Simple, because material relations are easier to portray with an image.
>No drawing can just purely 'depict'.
Of course it can! There is a place for "non-artistic," if you will, drawing, and that is depiction. The same way botany books depict trees and leaves, those illustrations are not meant to bring an emotion or anything like that, they are meant to communicate an idea through vision, giving a concrete meaning to the word that references them. You could use drawing like this to flesh out a place for instance. And of course, you could use words to fill details that you can't show well with your image (for various reasons), like colors, or textures.
>Basically my argument is a picture says a thousand words, but it says all the wrong ones. A writer says 5 words, but says all the right ones.
I guess my argument would be kind of different actually. A picture doesn't say any words, nor is it meant to.
>>7751832
>This is bullshit because there are a number of old texts with images that nobody can make heads or tails of.
So?
>What do you even mean by "personal experimentation"? Are you aware of how many writers have raped the different literary and poetic forms to hell and back to create new forms?
With their ideas always hindered and polluted by previous writers because there's no where else to look to. Maybe this is not a fair point to make now that I think about it, I think I'm being a bit short sighted with this one.
>And do you think an artist dosent spend much of his time practicing to render the Basic Forms? Learning Anatomy? Perspective? Light and Color? Are you aware of how immensely obsessive artist have gotten about rendering the ideal forms, often which were relative to their times?
Again, god forbid if they actually learn how to draw and actually have to do some subject studies huh? I shudder to think. And you don't need to learn all that to create something simple that can still convey what you're trying to show to others, knowing how forms should be handled, and perspective will allow you to depict a lot (with the added study of the subject, of course). And please, if the old masters show us anything, is that even in a time where information was scarce and hard to find, toning skills took more thought than time. You'll always be learning, but that's true with everything. This is the kind of fear I was talking about too, the fear of "we're too late to do this, so we mustn't even attempt it." A borderline childish view.
I'm not saying you should use images constantly, or even frequently, I'm saying that writers just seem afraid of using them when they seemingly would be a nice addition and would probably cut down on some reading time with better results. I'm just sort of afraid of that notion of "books with pictures are for kiddies and dumbos", since to me that is limiting for no reason (and no, tradition is not a good reason).
>>7751938
why would you need jism, aural or otherwise? Do you not have any of your own?
>>7751941
>I'm saying that writers just seem afraid of using them when they seemingly would be a nice addition and would probably cut down on some reading time with better results.
If this is all you're saying, its been proven wrong a hundred times over in the course of this thread. Try working without a strawman next time.
>>7751941
Like I said, even 'not-saying' is saying in a fiction book. Botany and medical diagrams all have the underlying connotation of a scientific community. They are 'saying' that this is drawn like this to be validated by a community that believes in empirical reality
This review shows the difference between what one drawing conveys and what the other drawing conveys: https://mercurialblonde.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/daisuke-igarashi-and-sculpting-the-sublime/
The only places where I've seen those diagrams really fit are like Mystery Novels where detail is highly important and so they draw a whole map of the house.
But all books aren't just descriptions underlying a reality, but an accumulate of signs of artifice. I need Gustave Dore to fit into Gothic books, and even then the writer Borges said that he found Dore's illustrations of Coleridge's Rime to be completely missing the point, because it sought to depict 'Romantic Obscurity' from Coleridge's 'Sublime Clarity of Images' in his poem.
So a writer that intends to write like an empiricist is probably where it fits, but even writers who wrote believing in naturalistic ideology, like Mori Ogai, have terse poetry that, if it were to be melded with image, needs to have more than just a one-for-one depiction, but also that in the 'right' way. If you touch even a bit of film theory you'd know that, even if everything depicts 'reality', the placement of a shot, how far, how close etc... conveys a completely different mood altogether, and that's for photography!
You need artists to be with writers that fit, and sometimes writers write things which, if you illustrated, will add unnecessary signs and signifiers to the mix which only bad writers wouldn't care about, but good writers can see where the precise tone gets undermined.
>>7751985
>The only places where I've seen those diagrams really fit are like Mystery Novels where detail is highly important and so they draw a whole map of the house.
Really? If I ever wrote a story about space ship things I think it would be pretty cool, if not important, to have depictions of the spaceships. If I wrote a story set on an alien planet I think it would be pretty cool, if not important, to have depictions of the strange alien races the characters encounter. How would these things not fit? You're not supposed to show character or personality with them, it's just physical representation.
Basically OP is saying to lessen development of the literary tradition because some people are illiterate as fuck>>7751941
>I'm just sort of afraid of that notion of "books with pictures are for kiddies and dumbos", since to me that is limiting for no reason (and no, tradition is not a good reason).
So you're afraid of this hypothetical boogieman and lashed out here over it. This is why I said read more of everything, particularly comics, these sort of questions have already been covered by experts in the respective fields. Scott McCloud should be a good start.
And once you've covered that, realize that there are many prose effects that images simply cannot hope to replicate. And no, writers should not feel the need to tack on images for the sake of "easy reading" if it dosent fit with their vision. Like the other anon said it honestly runs the danger of interference more than supplement if not carefully managed.
>>7752024
Lol go on and ignore the shitpost at the top, since i actually read your recent post
>words are hard
>>7752005
SF I guess would be another example of a fiction underlying a statement of empirical reality. Asimov etc.. didn't care as much about the prose than ideas.
But (and since Gene Wolfe is being meme-ed around so much), if you look at a cover like pic related can't you see that something like that completely mis-sells the prose of his book? A design student knows that empty space is also a form of conveyance. Orwell's 1984 cover had the name censored for example.
My version of Dostoyevsky's Brothers K has this kitschy headless bleeding Christ crucifixion on the cover, and I had to convince a Catholic friend that it in no way represented the contents of the book whatsoever, and was just a bad design.
So I can think of plenty of moments where an illustration can screw over the contents of the book. I think SF suffers so much partially because everyone sees the same kitschy mass of covers without knowing who or what writes in what style and they miss out on how to differentiate like Space Opera guys from people like LeGuin, Delany, or Wolfe.
>>7751507
>Its the same with art too, a Chinese peasant most likely wouldn't even understand the meaning behind a painting of the Crucifixion, because he dosent have the context.
(To the original writer, just using this link)
You're a fucking idiot. This is a shit metaphor, you know why? Some of Europe's peasants became their best spiritual leaders. They would not have been able to derive context-reliant meaning from a painting either. No fucking wonder the rest of your logic blows.
>>7752047
>mis-sells the prose of his book?
no.
>>7752047
Are my examples good or not?
>>7752074
>he thinks he can argue without examples
>>7752058
You're assuming the Euro peasants didnt at least have a rudimentary knowledge of the symbols, whereas we know the Chinese had zero before their arrival. They had to be taught, thats the entire point.
Besides, the big point is that, when we go beyond the face value, images are not suitable replacements for words.
OP is basically assuming writers arent trying to do more with their words aside from basic, physical level description, which bettays a lack of knowledge of how literature works.
>>7752082
What? Seriously now, do you think my examples are good or not? If I wrote a story set in space and with tons of spaceships, it would be cool to have depictions of the spaceships, even showing basic measures and such.
>>7752091
>OP is basically assuming writers arent trying to do more with their words aside from basic, physical level description, which bettays a lack of knowledge of how literature works.
No, no I'm not you fucking idiot!
>>7752091
In the 7th-8th century peasants certainly didn't. And the priests didn't either. In fact, too many peasants and entertainers invented stories for art they knew nothing about, even tales as fundamental as Adam and Eve. It was a horrible time when everyone was faking it.
Learn2history noob
>>7752082
>Kant joke
>picture of hegel
fuck right off m8.
>>7752109
So whats this about images being able to "shorten description", are you even aware that description can do more than describe a fucking house?
But if I'm misunderstanding, then tell me in the simplest way you can of your overall premise. I fear it may have gotten lost in that obsessive compulsive rambling above.
>>7752114
Lol i guess nobody knew shit then, it dosent really contradict my point but that is interesting. Thanks.
>>7752064
As a Wolfe fan, that cover is much too rudimentary to accurately reflect Wolfe's writing polish, but it is immature enough to suit his emotional growth regarding women.
>>7752132
I know, I just thought the metaphor was bad.
>>7752135
Are you confusing Severian with Wolfe?
>>7752124
I have been saying over and over again that you could use both an image and words to describe something for that same reason, as well as saying over and over again that images shouldn't be used for everything.
I honestly don't know what else to say.
>>7752121
homie, you know so little that you think you're right. it's sad.
>>7752150
Read Wolfe's short stories with female characters, and his views on females in literature, the man is clearly stuck in his early 20s, at least in terms of wimminz.
God, I can't imagine a world where I didn't discover Wolfe, but still...
>>7752154
Alright then, so you can, and honestly comics have done much in pulling off that synthesis you describe, but it still stands that prose can and does acheive much different effects than images, and if it were to be a comparison as to which is better then that depends on the quality of the examples, and the intention of the artist.
I strongly beleive you hurt your argument in being so overly agressive towards literature.
Ultimately then, there is no argument, since each form has its own qualities that the artist would seek to draw from or not. Its not even a matter of being "scared" of diving into a new medium, its just mere preference. You learn those preferences after experimenting with any which medium.
>>7752096
The problem is that you didn't really contextualize like who the heck you were talking about when you went on your rant.
You said that people were being snobs towards Text and Image. I said that nobody was actively denigrating that and gave examples of like Romanticist illustrations and Vonnegut. But I also said that the caveat was that you must have artists who fit the tone of the writer, which is highly dependent on who the writer is because even a picture that merely depicts is still commenting something about the reality that the text is inhabiting.
(In fact one of your arguments that text is ambiguous is, actually, one of the greatest things about descriptions in text. See -> Impressionism)
Then you gave the example of the Town Picture, and that made it seem like you were talking merely about descriptive kind of fiction, and then I added that not all fiction that appears descriptive aims at pure description. I also added the corollary that those who do are probably bad writers whose text doesn't have a primary thrust like genre fiction.
So are you trying to say that descriptive genre stuff should be illustrated or are you trying to argue for Text-Image to be lauded among literary circles? If you were arguing for the former then I would say that well go right ahead, but I don't think that's really a thing to rant about or fight for because both SF & F are genres that are equally denigrated by the Literary Establishment.
On the other hand, if you're arguing for the latter, then my thrust was that there's a reason why the literary establishment would prefer it that stuff like penguin classics should be covers with no image because translating that level of text, which aims beyond description, into something that conveys exactly what the book represents is significantly harder than your 'botanically drawn stuff' and requires more than just technical skill. Think Shakespeare Comics anyone?
So I don't even know what your example is fighting for exactly. You're being hopelessly unclear.
>>7752159
Making any sort if investigation would require me knowing what you even consider as "mature". How old are you anyway?
Wolfe himself is very old and had a wife who died not long ago, they were together before he even started his writing career.
>>7752194
I used a internet slang word from the late 2000s, and in the late 2000s I was at an likely impressionable age, how old do you think I am? Sorry for being pretentious.
I'm the nerd who digressed the medieval trivia btw
>>7752208
Tbh, hardly older than Wolfe who undoubtedly has more experience in life and women than you.
>>7752215
I'll accept the ad hominem, but I'll also leave the claim that I was better with women in my mid-20s than he ever allowed himself to be. I do not care what you believe.
>>7752194
>having a wife means he's mature about women
kek
>>7752228
In fucking them or having relationships?
Lol i dont get you crying about ad homs since thus entire exchange is based from your ad hom
