Is literature the best way to present a story?

No. I was merely commenting on Veeky Forums's shitty attitude towards books read for plot rather than faggy "prose".

>tfw Veeky Forumss idiocy has created an artificial competition between plot and prose
>nobody seems to realize both aspects of the craft are best used in the service of theme, its the glue that keeps them both from becoming indulgent drivel

Story - film

Sentiments- literature

I would watch a movie without dialog or a plot, only a inner monologue and some lanky guy going full autist at everything based on À Rebours

How do Veeky Forums posts compare as a medium?

It's a high fantasy series.

>My question is, can movies, TV shows, and video games even compare to Veeky Forums when it comes to story telling?
Depends on what sort of storytelling it is. Games for example is an interactive medium and you can tell stories unique to it. There are things only possible in writing and things only possible through the use of cinematography. Each medium have its own strengths and weaknesses.

OP pls don't make any more threads on Veeky Forums

I cannot understand how anyone can read Feast for Crows and not abandon and disparage that series.

Perhaps one of the worst books I've ever read, doubly so compared to what I had read years before.

>pretentious
Where is the false pretense?
Exactly there isn't any, stop misusing that word, dumbfuck pseud.
>shitty
Fuck off, retard.
You're supposed to be indulgent, idiot.

I think you should read more.

>magic exists only in dark forests and legend
>the rise of a sorcerer is a once in an epoch occasion
>civilization is post high-culture
>most of the story takes place in a grinding 30 years war type situation where culture has basically died
>hordes

its like stereotypical low fantasy. Conan is higher fantasy than this.

>even though I hear you guys hate them
Selamat datang ke Veeky Forums

>You're supposed to be indulgent, idiot.
No great artist ever shat on their canvas, through their instrument or on paper. All great art requires both knowledge and discipline. This isnt something to be argued.

All great art is narcissistic, retard.

>Dragons
>Magical amulets
>2spooky4me magical ruin inhabited by sorcerers that doesn't adhere to physical law
>Dragons
>Prophetic destiny fulfilling visions
>Ice zombies
>Dragons

It's high fantasy idiot. It's just focused on the political aspect.

It's still trash and not worth reading.

t. read the first 3 books

Books tend to be best for more intimate stories, being ones where you need to understand a character in there entirety. In a book, it's simple to show a character's thoughts, where as in a movie, you need something like a voice over, which can become very contrived after a while. Novels are also the most "free" medium, being that they are cheap to make, come from a single person's vision, can be as long or short as needed, and unlike other mediums, are not limited by technology.

Films are more visual experiences. Take the star gate sequence in 2001 a space odyssey for example, how would you ever show that in a book? Film is different in how it presents time. In a book, events and descriptions tend to occur one after another after another, leading to a constant flow of information and events to the reader, where as in a film, you can have substantial time to dwell on emptiness. A good example of this is Andrei Tarkovski, and how long his shots go on for. How could this be done in a book? "And then the man carried the candle across the empty pool" the words just do not match the artistry of the film.

Video games are easy to dismiss, but I still believe they have merits. Things like Shadow of the Colossus or mgs2 would never work in print or in films, because the experience and the story are built around the interactivity. The problem with the medium is that it is still in its early stages, and most games are still about pure escapism rather then making a moving or interesting experience.

My point is that you cant really rank different mediums, as each has its own strengths.

You got it wrong. It's

Books>Plays>Video Games>Miniseries>T.V. show>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>movies

Oh baby, really good post. I hope you stick around a while yet; summer™ is killing me.

Nope, most art is today though, but also most art today barely qualifies as art.

>hurr muh modern art isn't art
Easiest way to spot a pseud with no skill or talent

Dont you have some spaghettios to play with

...

>being like everyone else
>a good thing
Well spooked, mein property.

When we say that both tv, vidia and literature have plots, it's a shorthand. Really, the concept of plot in a book or a movie is vastly different, so comparing them is pointless.

This is especially apparent with video games, I suppose, where narrative works structurally different. That's why adapting stuff is tough, for the most part.

And EVERY book has a narrative, even though it may not have a traditional plot, so please stop with the fucking "lit enjoys books with no story".

The role of narration is severely diminished in a visual medium. Narration is selective -- it decides what leaks to the reader. Visual impressions are too permissive to guide this restriction with as much subtlety as written text. Textual narration can hold something from leaking, or it can import effortlessly from far away.

Veeky Forums hates books with "no story" nearly every post here about The Beetle Leg is whining about how "pointless" it is.

It's not that literature is about "books with no plot". Rather, plot is not a relevant factor when assessing literary quality.

Lit adores Book of Disquiet - well, it doesn't, lit doesn't have opinions, people on it do - which is a perfect example of book usually branded with "no plot". But it has plot, in the myriad emotive arcs, and even though it is not overreaching, it stays consistent within each passage, even following the classic three-act structure most of the time.

But modern art is the art that doesn't require any skill or talent.
Which is exactly why art students embrace it.

Go back to retard

How is anything I said /pol/-related? I must have really hit close to home for you to use such a desperate response.

>muh fine arts xD
Confirmed for never actually being trained in them.

Good post, thank you.

Id argue that video games are sometimes a better storytelling medium than a movie

Books > Vidya > Movies

Fantasy is a shit genre. It's the electro of litterature.

Video games can achieve something completely different though. I've seen a few people point out that the plots of most games, even rpg's, are thread bare and shitty. But what about games that dont just copy and paste the same techniques as movies? What about interactive story telling like journey? Or investigative world building and lore like Dark Souls? Or games where you tell your own story and make your own experience, like Mount and Blade or Crusader kings? Good story telling in video game should place an emphasis on the player to create and interpret a story, not have a story that just so happens to feature a character you play.

>But modern art is the art that doesn't require any skill or talent

This sentence alone raises more questions than it answers, and pseuds just cant divorce their personal opinion from some kind of standard

>what counts as modern?
>what counts as good?
>who decides this? Hoe do you factor in individual tastes and experiences?
>is all non-modern art good? Can it be critqued or held up to the same standard
>is all modern art bad? Why?
>what skills are necessary? Is that the only pre-requisite?

Inb4 he posts 50 examples of MUH CLASSICAL art

This post makes me slightly sad because it had to be written at all.