Young Writers Society

Blah, titling this was hard...

Lately, I've been dabbling in some description and sometimes I really wish prose could give you an instant, clear, concrete visual. You read a book and the author describes a spaceship to you. You read a few lines or paragraphs of description and you form your own image. It can be a fun process, deciding how you think it should look and having participation in the process. But a movie can give you that spaceship, fully formed, without having to interrupt the storytelling process to describe it to you. The characters just turn a corner and you see it for yourself.

Movies (and television and other visual mediums) have the ability to instantly give you an impression. Something can happen on-screen that isn't necessarily pointed out by anyone, but is still there and making an impression. The way a character moves in reaction to something, coupled with the fact that it isn't commented on or pointed out specifically, can make it all the more powerful. It just is, rather than being made an object by a specific description in prose. And fight scenes are often (not always, but often) much cooler to watch than to read about.

Of course, I love prose for many, many things. Prose gives you the ability to point things out specifically without weird camera angles. Prose gives you the opportunity to get inside characters' heads and hear what they are thinking without resorting to weird voice-overs. There is a potential for beautiful poetic description and horrible, gritty metaphors that just can't happen in video. I love prose (there's a reason I write prose rather than make movies); I just recognize some of its limitations.

So, what do you like most about prose/video? What is something about one that you wish the other could do?

One of the things I love about video is how completely video can capture the expression on a person's face. Such an exact expression is hard to completely capture sometimes in prose.

However, I must say that prose, for me, is much more enjoyable than video. Prose has rhythm to it; the way it beats and sounds frames what is happening and who is talking. I think it can capture images very well sometimes, but I rather like its ability to be ambiguous too, to let the reader conjure up the setting. Also, there's all the fun thematical weaving and irony which can be done beautifully in prose.

They both have their charms, but the appeal of prose is stronger to me than the appeal of video. ^^

Sudden releases of emotion has my vote for video. You can get the moment in just that: a moment. In prose, a sudden release of emotion can take multiple paragraphs. It can get to drag if you include everything the character is thinking/feeling/looking like. You can only hope that your reader knows the character enough to fill it all in.

Prose, however, wins for being able to capture character emotions and psychology much more completely.

Some things work better in one medium than the other. I'm reading the Dark Tower now, and I think there's no way a film could do it justice. On the other hand, some movies wouldn't make very good books. Then there's stories that work best as poems, video games, comics, or even paintings. It's important to know the strengths of the media tyoe you use. Don't try and write a book that would work best as a film; write a book that works best as a book. Ever notice how film adaptations of books aren't usually as good, and vice versa?

Hippie wrote:Don't try and write a book that would work best as a film; write a book that works best as a book. Ever notice how film adaptations of books aren't usually as good, and vice versa?

I agree with you. I'm just curious as to what parts of each (books and films) you sort of wish you could have in the other (e.g. a film's instant image, a book's ability to get in a character's head).

Each has their strong points that make them so effective and that don't really translate well into any other medium.

Well I'm glad video has its limmitations that books can fulfill, otherwise where would us writers be.

But sure, there's things I wish a book could do. Sometimes I picture a really awesome action scene that would work well as a video, but when I write it out it's crap. I've had to cut a lot of blow-for-blow action from my works because of this. I try to focus more on character thoughts and emotions now. I used to be a 3D artist, animator and wannabe video game designer, so I still tend to think too visually though.

One thing I love about descriptions in writing is they can be tainted by the viewpoint character. On TV, a cloud is a cloud whoever looks at it. In writing it can be many things. To a farmer, the promise of rain, to a child, a fluffy animal shape, to someone depressed, it's a malicious dark object come to smother the sun. Simple descriptions can be used to convey character and emotion.

I was thinking about this today. As I'm an auditory thinker, I largely don't see the characters in my head, so I'm one of those people that likes fanart because it lets me "borrow" other people's imaginings of what the characters look like. I look forward to movies of books I've read, for the same reason.

However, I also like reading books because we can see the character's intentions, plus they just have more, longer, in depth scenes because, well, it's cheaper to add 20 pages to a book than 20 minutes to a movie.

Actually, if I really like something, I like to both watch and read it! I read Harry Potter first, then looked out for the movies, and since I watched Lord of the Rings, I want to read the book now. They complement each other.

Edited to add: I guess since I can easily imagine character's voices, but not their faces, I get more "new" insights from looking at Harry Potter movie stills than listening to the audiobook (with all those great voices!). But I suppose a visual thinker might get more from the audiobooks than photographs.

Prose is more implicit, Video tends to be more explicit. So it depends on your "sway".