Things you can do in writing that don't work visually

[Not Who You Think]

But what do you think? Do you think its possible for a movie, or a game (video or otherwise) to do these kinds of things? Is there anything you think is strictly the domain of the written word that I blanked on?

Some things are better left to the imagination and that is one area where the written word can excel. A skilled writer will know when/how to harness the reader's imagination to great effect and even make the experience more personal as the reader plays a part in creating the world of the story. This can be done by providing the reader with just enough insightful/meaningful descriptors to make the character or scenario memorable while leaving room for the reader to project a few personal touches. While people have the same general understanding of what the words "handsome" or "ugly" mean, they will also have their own visualizations.

Essentially, with movies/shows/video games one is experiencing someone else's vision. Film and video games do a lot of the imagining for their audience and this comes with advantages and drawbacks. While having characters anchored to a particular representation makes certain things easier as a shared culture (making them more meme-able), the results can be underwhelming or sometimes modified to the select sensibilities of the producer. Additionally the trappings of casting requirements of the current year, or whoever is on offer from the current pool of actors being promoted, are more prevalent in movies, etc. and usually done at the expense of the creative work.

Spoiler: LOTR film/book example

The Lord of the Rings books had a fascinating description of Shelob as basically being "evil in spider-form". In the films I was disappointed that she was just a larger version of a particular funnel spider that Peter Jackson was afraid of. I was hoping for a spider-like monster, but got an overgrown funnel spider. Kind of scary, but not a monstrous elder-thing predating Sauron. Beauty is also easy enough for one to imagine, but tricky when left to others to represent. Going with LOTR again, the elves are an example of this. Galadriel is a woman of extraordinary beauty. Nothing against her, but I would not describe Cate Blanchett this way.

Consequently, both Shelob and Galadriel are examples of what you brought up about the world of LOTR feeling "less magical" as they are just not able to live up to the way they are described in the book (Shelob = big funnel spider, Lady Galadriel = Cate Blanchett). Perils of borrowing someone else's vision via film. Fine movies all the same though.

TV/movie/video game creators have a hard time competing with the imaginations of their audiences as it is as they tend to promise more than they deliver. The imagination is a powerful thing and when harnessed correctly it can create unforgettable characters, worlds, and experiences that are personal to the reader inasmuch as the writer invites and leaves room for them to do their share of imagining.

Sometimes a lighter touch is needed, and while not impossible for film/games, they do tend to err on spectacle/celebrity when they want to play to their strength as a visual medium.

 

[Tablet County]

"Works" is a long shot since Ayn Rand's books are terrible but Atlas Shrugged ends with a gigantic "speech" that's just Rand on her soapbox ranting about the goyim deserving nothing. You can't do this in a movie adaptation

You can barely do that in literature. A much more respectable but no less obnoxious example is Les Miserables, where Hugo would occasionally stop the story entirely to spell the themes of the book out to you. Granted, I'm pretty sure he was being paid by the word but I still remember it breaking the flow when I read it.

Is there a film equivalent of second or first person? I know for games there is, but for film it's always 3rd person aside from narration.

I see you've never heard of Hardcore Henry. As for second person in film, the closest I can think would be interactive films like that Black Mirror one.

 

[BScCollateral]

There's a scene in Hunt for Red October where a Soviet submarine has a reactor accident. Each step is explained, every safety system is described in sequence, and we're told why it failed. It would never work in a film.

 

[skykiii]

There's a scene in Hunt for Red October where a Soviet submarine has a reactor accident. Each step is explained, every safety system is described in sequence, and we're told why it failed. It would never work in a film.

Indeed, in general whenever I read that novel, I feel smarter, while watching the movie makes me feel dumber.

Though I think a good adaptation of Red October is possible... but without sperging, that movie made me aware that Hollywood does indeed have a left-wing bias.

 

[Otterly]

What a great thread. Everything everyone’s already said, but also anything based off spoken poetry or set spoken rhythm rather than written - Beowulf for example is clearly supposed to be said out loud, it has a rhythm that works with the tale.
This is why books are so vastly superior to films in every way. Your own inner world of imagination allows you to play out a book in your mind, or go off on your own tangents. It gets you right into the minds of the protagonists, rather than simply ‘watching them do stuff’ on screen. It’s a far more intimate experience and it’s why even great adaptations are never quite as good as the books. If a film is as good as the book, it’s generally because it adds to something that was not quite great in the first place. The shining is a better movie than book. I’d say blade runner is better than do androids dream of electric sheep, but I can’t think of many like that.

 

[Pygmy Giraffe]

A movie can have an ensemble cast, but can't approach the sprawling number of named characters you can feature in written work. Usually, characters with similar roles in the visual adaptation are combined, or omitted altogether out of necessity. These constraints on time and distinctiveness are less costly on the page and allow an author to control a much longer list of names than a director.

 

[skykiii]

What a great thread. Everything everyone’s already said, but also anything based off spoken poetry or set spoken rhythm rather than written - Beowulf for example is clearly supposed to be said out loud, it has a rhythm that works with the tale.
This is why books are so vastly superior to films in every way. Your own inner world of imagination allows you to play out a book in your mind, or go off on your own tangents. It gets you right into the minds of the protagonists, rather than simply ‘watching them do stuff’ on screen. It’s a far more intimate experience and it’s why even great adaptations are never quite as good as the books. If a film is as good as the book, it’s generally because it adds to something that was not quite great in the first place. The shining is a better movie than book. I’d say blade runner is better than do androids dream of electric sheep, but I can’t think of many like that.

I know there's a few I think at least break even.

The Last Unicorn may lose some of the flavor but it also adds enough of its own to be a worthwhile beast in its own right.

I still have a soft spot for the David Lynch version of Dune, he was the perfect guy to try and get some of the weirder aspects across, while also adding some himself (like the whole "folding space" thing).

One movie I consider outright better than the book is The Neverending Story... tho its because I remember hating the book. The book felt to me kind of pretentious, like every page was hitting you over the head with "isn't this deep and symbolic?" while the movie managed to still be quite profound while being more fun. I don't know if I would extend "better than the book" to the various sequel films though.

 

[BScCollateral]

Though I think a good adaptation of Red October is possible... but without sperging, that movie made me aware that Hollywood does indeed have a left-wing bias.

Absolutely. One of the writers thought a Lithuanian killing Russians was "killing his countrymen," an opinion I've only seen echoed in Soviet propaganda.
Apologies for drifting off topic.

 

[Safir]

Inner monologues work much better in writing, especially if the author wants to show multiple character's thoughts. A film or game can have a character talk to themself or have the character narrate their thoughts over the footage, but it doesn't work nearly as well as when its written.

^ this. Also, a lot of feelings don't work in first person writing, it's ok when the narrator says how the character feels but it's gay for the character to directly narrate/editorialize his own feelings, you have to be more immediate and less obvious at the same time in first person, which is hard.
E.g.
third person: Bob was sad.
first person: Well this fucking sucks, what a disappointment.
For simple cases like this, you could also write "I was sad." in first person. But the more complicated the feelings, the gayer it is to editorialize.

Letters and other in-universe written material ("visually" includes comic books and such, a drawn and lettered letter looks corny).

Absolutely. One of the writers thought a Lithuanian killing Russians was "killing his countrymen," an opinion I've only seen echoed in Soviet propaganda.

> writer writes porn about a baltic subhuman killing Slavs
> "this is Soviet propaganda eckshually, Soviets love getting killed by pigdogs"

 

[skykiii]

Absolutely. One of the writers thought a Lithuanian killing Russians was "killing his countrymen," an opinion I've only seen echoed in Soviet propaganda.
Apologies for drifting off topic.

I posted my response to this in the "Who Remembers Tom Clancy?" thread since its more relevant there, not sure if you automatically got notified or not.

Letters and other in-universe written material ("visually" includes comic books and such, a drawn and lettered letter looks corny).

On that note, I always loved how chapters in both Dune and the Robotech novels begin with those in-universe excerpts from some in-universe text. Sometimes I'll pick the books up again just to read those things.

And again, can't be done in any other medium without seeming weird.

 

[The Lawgiver]

Inner monologues work much better in writing, especially if the author wants to show multiple character's thoughts. A film or game can have a character talk to themself or have the character narrate their thoughts over the footage, but it doesn't work nearly as well as when its written.

This really stands out in adaptations of comics which normally have visuals and inner monologue thoughts type stuff. Sometimes there's multiple adaptations adapting the same scene with or without the inner monologue and you can very clearly see a difference in the fluidity of a scene.

personally I think the first one of these works better because it showcases his descent into madness and despair in much less words but you can clearly tell what he's probably thinking while it's all going down. Still, him monologuing his life story's pretty funny considering he's a character that solely exists to be maimed and killed by the main villain.

 

[lIllllIiiiiLLLLiiiiIIIIll]

Did somebody already say that you can describe the exact sensation of how a sudden mood (like terror, lust, etc.) floods into a person? A great actor can basically guide you along that feeling with the subtlety of their expressions, but the greatest sensations of like "empathetic emotion" (where you feel it in your own body) tend to come from a skilled description of how the mood is washing over a person.

 

[Piggle-o]

Did somebody already say that you can describe the exact sensation of how a sudden mood (like terror, lust, etc.) floods into a person? A great actor can basically guide you along that feeling with the subtlety of their expressions, but the greatest sensations of like "empathetic emotion" (where you feel it in your own body) tend to come from a skilled description of how the mood is washing over a person.

No one has outright mentioned interiority, which is one of the defining traits of the novel. So much happens in the space of a thought or observation of interior sensations. This also means that true subjectivity is difficult to achieve in visual media; there is some assumption of an objective reality outside the narration, where written fiction can be entirely imagined. Not that it can't be done, but it's rare and hard to do.

This has been mentioned with description and exposition, but I think this is a little different. Visual novels have a particularly protracted version of it in their introductions. The onboarding process, orienting the reader to the mood of the story, doesn't require a scene or set dressing. Some plays use it as a visualized "theatre of the mind", but written fiction can exist entirely in an abstracted space with narration slowly feeding information that is either not able to be represented visually or would be expressed immediately through an image.

There is also a degree of subtext that film is simply terrible at and comics don't often attempt. I can't think of anything that has an entire occluded story completely outside the narrative itself, which is something short stories often do.

 

[⋖ cørdion ⋗]

A movie can have an ensemble cast, but can't approach the sprawling number of named characters you can feature in written work. Usually, characters with similar roles in the visual adaptation are combined, or omitted altogether out of necessity. These constraints on time and distinctiveness are less costly on the page and allow an author to control a much longer list of names than a director.

"Oh, a new Marvel movie. So which 3 heroes are they gonna include?". Meanwhile comics, you just draw Hulk. Now Hulk is there. Done.

I feel like a lot of books are just not written how people talk. There's too many words of unique qualities, replies are too snappy and well-thought out. Generally it's fine if you can tell the scene is slow and thoughtful, but two teens in the wing of a house on their way out? Hell naw

 

[Piggle-o]

Some things are better left to the imagination and that is one area where the written word can excel. A skilled writer will know when/how to harness the reader's imagination to great effect and even make the experience more personal as the reader plays a part in creating the world of the story. This can be done by providing the reader with just enough insightful/meaningful descriptors to make the character or scenario memorable while leaving room for the reader to project a few personal touches. While people have the same general understanding of what the words "handsome" or "ugly" mean, they will also have their own visualizations.

There is a literary theory I've come across which proposes that the participatory aspect of reading, that need to create the full image and fill it in, is what drives literature, especially when the narration is evocative and ambiguous. We put our own story into the gaps and do it according to suggestions that direct it into a range of "right" interpretations and projections. Film can evoke that and have you thinking about your own experience, but I don't find it as participatory or emergent in how the work is processed.

The use of subtext I mentioned above can lead to the creation of an entire imagined world that is outside the text, but comes from a direct function of it. Headcanon is one word for it, but there are usually subtextual cues and clues that make one broad guess more likely than others.

I feel like a lot of books are just not written how people talk. There's too many words of unique qualities, replies are too snappy and well-thought out.

That's all fiction, ain't it? The only difference that's particularly interesting is that novels lean towards more elevated language and make use of indirect quotations, paraphrasing and omission to create the illusion of larger conversations.

 

[Dead Lion]

Is there a film equivalent of second or first person? I know for games there is, but for film it's always 3rd person aside from narration.

You can film a movie in first person, Hardcore Henry, but i think it’s more complex than that.

There’s a film called ‘the father’ about an old man developing dementia which is written, shot and edited in such a way that you’re experiencing the movie from strictly his perspective. It’s also a great movie that I recommend. I would consider that kind of movie where you’re watching the action strictly from a single character’s perspective first person.

As for second person, many movies feature segments where a character is telling a story, so I guess that counts? Second person narration is rare in books aside from that specific purpose as well so nothing is coming to mind.

classic works

50 Shades of Grey

Kek.

 

[Greedy Fly]

As for second person, many movies feature segments where a character is telling a story, so I guess that counts? Second person narration is rare in books aside from that specific purpose as well so nothing is coming to mind.

Does the hypothetical you count? Like Hemmingway giving street directions on how to avoid walking past the tastiest shops and restaurants in Paris when you're a dirt poor alkie.

 

[Piggle-o]

Second person narration is rare in books aside from that specific purpose as well so nothing is coming to mind.

It can be extremely hokey, but you have Tom Robbins' Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas as a straight example and Calvino's If on a winter's night, a traveler that diverges from it slightly. Outside of the (post)modernists (or perhaps well within their rank), visual novels have worked out a restrained use of the second person.

 

[Punished Magician]

Ambiguity, in general, is much easier to achieve in a format where details only need to be described if the author so chooses, in the way the author chooses, and to the extent that they choose.

Another thing is hiding details that are technically "present" in the scene the entire time but only revealed later on as a twist. For example, imagine in the A-plot the MCs discover they're being hunted by the evil shapeshifting wizard, who they'll only be able to tell apart by his yellow eyes... and then it switches perspective to the B-plot that's been ongoing, where a supporting cast member is escorting some sickly old man to the heroes because he must "warn them of a grave danger", and only in the final paragraph where the character sees him off at the destination does the narration finally mention the old man's yellow eyes. In a film, you'd either notice them right away (spoiling it the second you hear of the yellow eyes thing in the A-plot), or they'd have to show him as not having yellow eyes until the twist (causing confusion), or awkwardly find a way to hide his face or only show his eyes closed every time he's on-screen.

 

[Tablet County]

Some things are better left to the imagination and that is one area where the written word can excel. A skilled writer will know when/how to harness the reader's imagination to great effect and even make the experience more personal as the reader plays a part in creating the world of the story. This can be done by providing the reader with just enough insightful/meaningful descriptors to make the character or scenario memorable while leaving room for the reader to project a few personal touches. While people have the same general understanding of what the words "handsome" or "ugly" mean, they will also have their own visualizations.

Not to sound like I'm sucking my own dick, but my imagination is so fertile it actually gets the better of me when I'm trying to write. Like I don't know what words or descriptors to include that would evoke the image I'm trying to convey. It doesn't help that because of this I've developed a bad habit of speed-reading, so I don't think I've absorbed the actual descriptive elements of certain scenes in the books I've read.