[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: E-ox_yhXMAIUzjQ.jpg (116 KB, 1241x693)
116 KB
116 KB JPG
Is it possible to write a "readable film" or "cinematic novel"? Like a novel that is very much a projection of a film into paper, but without being a screenplay or a traditional novel. A text that someone could read and play it and straightforwardly reproduce as a movie in their mind.
>>
>>24773678
There are extremely visual writers. Siegfried Lenz is a good example, but also often Dickens - though his influence was the theatre, causing him to describe all scenes so that you know where the "actors" are standing.

It's quite nice, that is all
>>
>>24773678
A lot of shitty writers do this. Pick up a random author's first publication, do this for a while. Eventually you'll find an author who obviously only watches TV and their style is reflection of visual storytelling and nothing else. Their writing is bland, devoid of polysemy. Chapters are set up like movie scenes, a lot of day-to-day stuff you can put in a book is omitted, you don't want to bore your viewer, even though it makes characters feel more life-like. See "walk and talk" etc.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.