Novels are an obsolete technology

_ciaran_

A film is one mans interpretation of a story.
A book is the readers interpretation.
They are different experiences.

I'd understand if you were claiming that 3D cinema will replace 2D cinema, or MP3 will replace the minidisc or making some sort of reference to technology..... but to suggest that the written word be replaced by film is like suggesting that sound be replaced by smell. They are not comparable.

ThirdMan

_ciaran_ wrote: »

A film is one mans interpretation of a story.
A book is the readers interpretation.
They are different experiences.

I get what you're saying here, but films are open to interpretation as well. In fact, I find I'm able to pick apart a novel much more easily that I can a piece of serious filmmaking. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. But I agree with you, this is a silly debate.

wilkie2006

HeadPig wrote: »

It's pretty obvious from speaking to anybody who knows what they're talking about that Aherne is not a good writer. We all rely on opinions of good critics in order to decide what to read, rather than plucking books from thin air.

ThirdMan wrote: »

I agree. But I wouldn't read a critical review of a book that the critic never read.

Appreciate your point, ThirdMan. I wouldn't dismiss an author blindly, though. I've always looked at credible (and informed!) reviews and endorsements (or lack thereof) before deciding a writer is or isn't worth investigating.

beauf

nyarlothothep wrote: »

...I was probably too hasty in my judgement on books, but I think that most of them are a chore to read and not that rewarding.

Just because you don't enjoy something doesn't mean it has no value. Its a very singular point of view, and thus flawed.

Other medium don't contain the same amount of information as a book. Because a book is a more useful medium for containing that information in many situations. So hence you have films and TV which are a "lite" version of the story, quite often missing critical parts of the story or indeed a fraction of the rich detail in the book. Also the a book requires more imagination than a movie. So for many the movie is a lesser experience.

Thus far nothing has been created which can replace a book. You might have decided to go with the lite option. Nothing wrong with that. But its not the same experience.

nyarlothothep

wilkie2006 wrote: »

OP, to what degree do you feel like you engage a TV programme or a film? I'm not trying to be rude, but it sounds like all you're interested in is the plot and maybe a bit of characterisation? What about the editing, the colours, the photography, the cultural context, the script, the casting, the locations, the lighting? The things that make a good film Great are more than what's happening plot-wise. It's the very same for novels: it's not just about the narrative.

With greatest of respect, I'm not convinced that you really "get" all of this about films, in which case it's not surprising that you can't understand why people enjoy books.

Actually I hate films that are plot centric, it's characterisation that really brings me in, not plot, I care not for plot. Yes, I can mention all those things, I just didn't.

My friends work in film and they said they never read books years ago. I was shocked at the time but now I understand. I hope to burn books in the near future and would encourage people to do the same.

nyarlothothep

beauf wrote: »

Just because you /U] don't enjoy something doesn't mean it has no value. Its a very singular point of view, and thus flawed.

Other medium don't contain the same amount of information as a book. Because a book is a more useful medium for containing that information in many situations. So hence you have films and TV which are a "lite" version of the story, quite often missing critical parts of the story or indeed a fraction of the rich detail in the book. Also the a book requires more imagination than a movie. So for many the movie is a lesser experience.

Thus far nothing has been created which can replace a book. You might have decided to go with the lite option. Nothing wrong with that. But its not the same experience.

My POV is all there is and in truth I dont agree with anyone on the planet about anything generally. Books contain too much information, it's precisely the fact that tv/film is a lite version of a book that it's better. It contains the wheat and not the chaff.

beauf

nyarlothothep wrote: »

My POV is all there is and in truth I dont agree with anyone on the planet about anything generally. Books contain too much information, it's precisely the fact that tv/film is a lite version of a book that it's better. It contains the wheat and not the chaff.

McDonalds all the way eh...

beauf

Many films make no sense because they chopped the meaning out of the story.

_ciaran_

beauf wrote: »

Many films make no sense because they chopped the meaning out of the story.

Watched Cloud Atlas at the weekend, a great example of this.

The book, through all of its "chaff" has excellent character development.
Then in the film, you'd be forgiven for not knowing any of the character names because the director was more concerned with cramming a whole book into an "acceptable" length for box office.

A great film visually but utterly pointless and an utterly different experience to the book which is fantastic.

nyarlothothep

beauf wrote: »

McDonalds all the way eh...

I have to read books, it's a pain in the arse. I'm more qualified than anyone here to discount the bloody things. Films are so much more immersive and fun. In fact films have many similarities with the novel to the extent that directors like Coppola and Tarantino chop their films into chapters. There are academic arguments that compare the two. Films/tv/games, we who forsake books are the early adapters to the new world, a world without books. I will one day make it my mission to protest against books. Burn the books!

wilkie2006

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I have to read books, it's a pain in the arse. I'm more qualified than anyone here to discount the bloody things. Films are so much more immersive and fun. In fact films have many similarities with the novel to the extent that directors like Coppola and Tarantino chop their films into chapters. There are academic arguments that compare the two. Films/tv/games, we who forsake books are the early adapters to the new world, a world without books.

Really? What qualifications are these? (seriously, I'm interested)

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I will one day make it my mission to protest against books. Burn the books!

You might like Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451".

SpaceTime

I actually think we could see a major boom in writing rather than a decline as online publishing and e-readers are making it very cheap to get a book to the market.

Paper books may become a bit like LPs though and be consigned to being a collectors item at some stage in the near future.

The television and film industries will never be able to create the sheer volume of ideas that are created by novelists.

A novel takes one person and a pen or keyboard and a bit of editing.

Even the most simplistic tv show takes lots of money and a huge crew. So the novel will always be the place where new and interesting ideas will be most likely to emerge first.

I don't think it's going to disappear as a format anytime soon.

jimgoose

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I have to read books, it's a pain in the arse. I'm more qualified than anyone here to discount the bloody things. Films are so much more immersive and fun. In fact films have many similarities with the novel to the extent that directors like Coppola and Tarantino chop their films into chapters. There are academic arguments that compare the two. Films/tv/games, we who forsake books are the early adapters to the new world, a world without books. I will one day make it my mission to protest against books. Burn the books!

Oh? Why so that because? You're starting to intrigue me, my good man - you're either a very interesting character indeed, or some sort of deranged person who hallucinated being attacked by a herd of rabid books sometime in the '60s. I'm more qualified than anyone here to decide which!

beauf

wilkie2006 wrote: »

Really? What qualifications are these? (seriously, I'm interested)...

Generation Y doesn't have the patience to read. Its instant gratification all the way.

beauf

_ciaran_ wrote: »

Watched Cloud Atlas at the weekend, a great example of this.

The book, through all of its "chaff" has excellent character development.
Then in the film, you'd be forgiven for not knowing any of the character names because the director was more concerned with cramming a whole book into an "acceptable" length for box office.

A great film visually but utterly pointless and an utterly different experience to the book which is fantastic.

Similar to the English Patient. Which made little sense unless you'd read the book.

--Kaiser--

efb wrote: »

I've yet to see a movie that was better than the book on which it was based.

Fave Book. Nineteen Eighty-Four

Fight Club the movie is way better than Fight Club the book (though it is good). I think the author even said as much

--Kaiser--

Anyway, the argument of the OP is ridiculous. The only way film could make literature obsolete is if it performed the exact same job, which it does not and can not (the same way a novel cannot mimic a film)

Earthhorse

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Anyway, the argument of the OP is ridiculous. The only way film could make literature obsolete is if it performed the exact same job, which it does not and can not (the same way a novel cannot mimic a film)

Are you sure of that?

What are your qualifications in this field? :eek:

beauf

He's the Emperor? Kaiser...

cathalio11

Just had a read through this.

I feel that the OP is completely wrong but alas, he has the right to argue it.

But a lot of credit to Wilki2006. Great choice of good writers too.

Also, the term "Poo-flinging" was used way too much in this thread.

--Kaiser--

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I hope to burn books in the near future and would encourage people to do the same.

Oh lord, I think I nearly wet myself!

Pretzill

I think the OP is looking for an argument. I think he got one. But it's a non argument, it's like saying chips are obsolete technology and are going to be replaced with Pizza. The commonality being they are both a type of food, some prefer pizza, some prefer chips, some enjoy both and others wouldn't touch either.

I know it's ironic because I'm posting on this again but I don't believe this topic deserves the airing it's receiving.

cathalio11

Pretzill wrote: »

it's like saying chips are obsolete technology and are going to be replaced with Pizza.

hardCopy

The Buggles made the same prediction about Radio but it's still going.

We've had motion pictures for over 130 years.

We've had sound and colour since the 30's.

We've had 3D movies since the 50's.

We've had IMAX and surround sound since the 70's.

Even with all this immersive technology, people still crave the written word. At what point do you think film-makers will unleash the true potential of their medium and blow writers out of the water?

No projection system will outdo a well written book's ability to create a world inside the reader's head.

Yes, it's often easier to watch a film for 90 minutes than read a book over the course of a week but it's also easier to grab a burger than head out for a steak.

This is stuck in my head now, so you can all join me.

Dirty Dingus McGee

beauf wrote: »

Similar to the English Patient. Which made little sense unless you'd read the book.

I preferred the film to be honest.The film made perfect sense, although I did think the main character in the film differed a bit from the main character in the book.He seems a more amiable person in the book but I liked Ralph Fiennes grump portrayal of him in the film

longhalloween

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Books contain too much information, it's precisely the fact that tv/film is a lite version of a book that it's better. It contains the wheat and not the chaff.

You don't seem to realise that this is exactly the reason why people prefer books over TV and film. You're not getting a cut rate, dumbed down version that's made with the lowest common denominator in mind.

Films will never live up to the books they're based on purely because of all the detail that's lost in the transition. I watched, then read Patriot Games last week. The film was good, but if the book did anything, it highlighted the huge plot holes and inconsistencies in the film. All as a result of trying to fit 500 pages into 90 minutes.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I hope to burn books in the near future and would encourage people to do the same.

And now you've proven what we all expected. Troll.

Honey-ec

longhalloween wrote: »

And now you've proven what we all expected. Troll.

Indeed, and I've reported him as such at least three times, yet the thread remains open.

It'd be like going into the Soccer forum and announcing you think football is sh*te and only supported by hooligans.

If, y'know, the Soccer forum wasn't access-controlled.

Femme_Fatale

What makes you, a human, so different to other humans OP?

nyarlothothep

Honey-ec wrote: »

Indeed, and I've reported him as such at least three times, yet the thread remains open.

It'd be like going into the Soccer forum and announcing you think football is sh*te and only supported by hooligans.

If, y'know, the Soccer forum wasn't access-controlled.

Oh lovely, I indulge in a little hyperbole and I get accused of being a troll. No surprise there. It's exactly the same kind of thinking process behind the Salem and Mc Carthyist witch hunts. You express an opinion that differs from the norm and you get labelled a witch, communist or troll in this case. Contrary to the soccer forum analogy, I did not merely wander onto this forum and say that books are sh*te, I expressed my dissatisfaction with the format and proposed how in the near future it will become obsolete like the scroll, when technologies such as film, tv and games maturate, given that they haven't been in existence for long they have not been adequate in the purpose of conveying the vast quantities of information that can be stored in a fictional novel. However with continuing advancements in technology that may no longer be the case. Concordantly the limitations that they entail may be beneficial for the purpose of artistic expression. Moreover your argument fails in that I did not make any attack on readers in my original post. In fact I have stated several times that I myself am a prodigious reader of books. Does this sound like a troll to you? So again, it seems that you all want me to be a troll so you can disregard everything I say, not that my words should be so irritating to your sensibilities in the first place as I am merely expressing a point of view, however unconventional it may be.

Incidentally my consternation with the written word has subsided somewhat, to the extent that I no longer hate books but in fact feel a passing sympathy for them. I no longer mind reading. I have exorcised the ghosts of Peter F. Hamilton, George R.R. Martin and Stephen King novels through this thread.

Dirty Dingus McGee

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Oh lovely, I indulge in a little hyperbole and I get accused of being a troll. No surprise there. It's exactly the same kind of thinking process behind the Salem and Mc Carthyist witch hunts. You express an opinion that differs from the norm and you get labelled a witch, communist or troll in this case. Contrary to the soccer forum analogy, I did not merely wander onto this forum and say that books are sh*te, I expressed my dissatisfaction with the format and proposed how in the near future it will become obsolete like the scroll, when technologies such as film, tv and games maturate, given that they haven't been in existence for long they have not been adequate in the purpose of conveying the vast quantities of information that can be stored in a fictional novel. However with continuing advancements in technology that may no longer be the case. Concordantly the limitations that they entail may be beneficial for the purpose of artistic expression. Moreover your argument fails in that I did not make any attack on readers in my original post. In fact I have stated several times that I myself am a prodigious reader of books. Does this sound like a troll to you? So again, it seems that you all want me to be a troll so you can disregard everything I say, not that my words should be so irritating to your sensibilities in the first place as I am merely expressing a point of view, however unconventional it may be.

Incidentally my consternation with the written word has subsided somewhat, to the extent that I no longer hate books but in fact feel a passing sympathy for them. I no longer mind reading. I have exorcised the ghosts of Peter F. Hamilton, George R.R. Martin and Stephen King novels through this thread.

Can you please explain why you are a prodigious reader of books yet seem to dislike reading and find it pointless?