Can literature evoke as much emotions as music can?

OP is just trying to say that life without emotion would be worthless, which is understandable. But to degrade literature in the process is unnecessary, to say the least.

nice

What do you mean you couldn't live without music. You'd kill yourself?

music is the land of emotion, is the easiest art to evoke music.

colors also seem to evoke music in less regard, but it seems painting can also evoke emotions, but in less regard than music.

film can also make someone cry, because is the combination of several arts.

literature however, can also evoke emotion, the same way film can do, literature also can.
but doing emotions effectivelly requires a master mind on the trade.

David freeman has a book on making emotional games, great techniques.

yes music honestly of seems like pure trash to me sometimes, its quite a crude artform
i dont feel this way when listening to something beautiful though, usually when my brain is tormented by some piece of fuck and i start to resent the existence of it

More like "you've known and enjoyed X all of your life. X suddenly ceases to exist and no one can do it anymore". Would you prefer X to be music or literature?

If I was forced to choose, I'd choose literature.

I'm pretty sure most people would too. To me, music seems more 'universal' than literature because it doesn't require any education (you can be an analphabet, or don't know the author's language, be a complete ignorant about every existing subject, etc.), you just enjoy it out of the box.

Don't you feel weird posting this on a literature board? Or did you just want to trigger people?

when a person is "ignorant of every existing subject" who gives a flying fuck what they think is universal?

fact is we already have a name for people who are totally ignorant and with naturally built-in universalist tendencies. we call them: infants

why would you post I Prefer Music To Books on Veeky Forums? it makes no sense. not even mad, just confused

Yeah I know it's weird, but there's no better place to ask.

I have read a lot throughout my life, and I do enjoy it, but in the sense of being interested or intrigued.

The guy who killed John Lennon, for example, was inspired by The Catcher in the Rye. So I'm definitely sure there's people that feel it more than I do.

That was why I wanted to know if you guys actually feel 'moved' by books (just as I feel when I listen to my favorite albums). What were the shared charasteristics of those books that 'did it' for you?

recent examples
Confessions of a Mask was moving because it was very personally relatable in a sensuous way. Gave a sensation like affirmation, or camaradery, or a mythic, aesthetic liveliness to things I've had with me all my life.

Another example in a different way. Counterparts from Dubliners, just because of the strong feelings of empathy and sympathy it elicited in me for people that are different from me.

Music is a lower, more animalistic form of art.

Thanks for this, user. I'll check both out.

Makes me think that the ability to relate to and feel empathy for the protagonist or other characters is the key to enjoy a novel.

Perhaps that's why so many people here like The Stranger so much.

>Can literature evoke as much emotions as music can?
Yes, with the caveat that I can listen to music on emotion-amplifying narcotics but not read.
>I mean, I could live without literature but not without music. Does that make me a pleb?
Yes.

maybe try listening to something other than what you hear on the radio?

how does animalistic equate lower? if we're discussing the primal essence of art, vibrations before music, material before creation, i don't think art has any place in describing either; outside a purely aesthetic approach, in which case the answer to OP's question is absolutely yes

The consumer of the art is where the emotion comes from, OP.
Art is like a reflection.

The artist can only lead the horse to water, you see?