30th January 2005, 4:38 PM
I cannot think of many major instances where the visual medium matches the depth and complexity that a good example of the written medium offers.
For one thing, as we all know, movies and TV are overwhelmingly sold to the lowest common denominator. Many are trite, shallow, and simple, and to make up for that, we get lots of sex, violence and pretty explosions. We watch wrestling, even when we know it's totally scripted. We watch reality TV, even though a child can tell it's totally fake, that the Survivor cast is never in real danger, and that the Bachelorette already knows who the winner is before the first show is taped. We eat up mindless drivel like The Hulk, we give Academy Awards to actors based more on their marketing muscle than their actual talent. Toy commercials like Dragonball and YuGiOh are tremendously popular. Any movie that does even remotely well at the box office is guaranteed a sequel next summer. The movies with real depth, with real substance, are ignored, except for the lucky few that find a niche.
Many people see the same in video games. I prefer not to comment.
Now the written medium is also dominated by star power, and some think it's detrimental. However, most of these stars get where they are by sheer virtue of their talent. Books are never marketed with even a fraction of the strength that TV and movies are. Books don't have creative teams, they don't have 43 million dollar budgets. Usually, a book is written by one person, sometimes a small team of people. To build the setting, the charaters, the atmosphere, they must rely only on description and dialogue. Thus, the reader is challenged to create these in their mind, to put themselves into the book.
Stephen King, in his memoir, gave an example, which I don't remember off-hand but I can give you an idea.
Think of a rabbit in a cage. The rabbit is white and brown, with spots. The cage sits on a table, which is small and rectangular. There is a covering for this table. It's made of red velvet. Everything seems normal, but inspecting the rabbit closely, one notices a tattoo, the number 8.
The essentials are here. We know there's a table, there's a cage, and in that cage is a rabbit. We have some basic detail (the velvet color, the spots on the rabbit). But all this is still simple and basic.
However, as you absorb this, you are adding your own details. Maybe to Grumbler, this table cover has an embroidery. Maybe OB1 sees no embroidery but does see a pattern. Maybe Edenmaster sees a cage made of steel. Maybe ABF sees it with brass coloring. Perhaps Beano sees a small rabbit, young, and more white than brown, while I see an older, larger rabbit, more brown than white. Maybe one of us sees this table in an sterile, laboratory-like environment, while another sees this in a warm room with a fireplace and armchair. Perhaps later on we will find out what kind of room it really is, and maybe it will surprise us completely.
If this were a movie, we would know all of these details within a second. Our imaginations would never be taxed. We're spoonfed the whole thing, and all we are really left to wonder is what the tattoo signifies.
Movies are limited not only by their ability to make you imagine, they are also very limited in description and introspection. Books allow for much more in the way of narration. Also unlike books, movies are limited by length. Rare is the movie that exceeds 140 minutes, so if you want to tell a story, you have to tell it in about two hours, and that prevents you from allowing real depth to permeate, unless your story is fundamentally a short one to begin with (see Phone Booth). Even movies that are adapted from great books, even when the movies themselves are great (Silence of the Lambs, for instance), the movie is always missing details for the sheer sake of necessity, and the source material, to me, is always superior. Books are nearly unlimited in available space, and a truly creative writer can add as much depth and complexity as he has the talent to produce. His book can take a week to read, and no one will complain, because avid readers are more intelligent, and have greater attention spans. Because the average person does not, TV and movies are more popular and make more money.
Now, there are cases when a movie or a video game can nearly match the complexity and depth of a good book, movies like Jacob's Ladder and games like Silent Hill 2. Even still, though, they would both be able to benefit from added description.
For one thing, as we all know, movies and TV are overwhelmingly sold to the lowest common denominator. Many are trite, shallow, and simple, and to make up for that, we get lots of sex, violence and pretty explosions. We watch wrestling, even when we know it's totally scripted. We watch reality TV, even though a child can tell it's totally fake, that the Survivor cast is never in real danger, and that the Bachelorette already knows who the winner is before the first show is taped. We eat up mindless drivel like The Hulk, we give Academy Awards to actors based more on their marketing muscle than their actual talent. Toy commercials like Dragonball and YuGiOh are tremendously popular. Any movie that does even remotely well at the box office is guaranteed a sequel next summer. The movies with real depth, with real substance, are ignored, except for the lucky few that find a niche.
Many people see the same in video games. I prefer not to comment.
Now the written medium is also dominated by star power, and some think it's detrimental. However, most of these stars get where they are by sheer virtue of their talent. Books are never marketed with even a fraction of the strength that TV and movies are. Books don't have creative teams, they don't have 43 million dollar budgets. Usually, a book is written by one person, sometimes a small team of people. To build the setting, the charaters, the atmosphere, they must rely only on description and dialogue. Thus, the reader is challenged to create these in their mind, to put themselves into the book.
Stephen King, in his memoir, gave an example, which I don't remember off-hand but I can give you an idea.
Think of a rabbit in a cage. The rabbit is white and brown, with spots. The cage sits on a table, which is small and rectangular. There is a covering for this table. It's made of red velvet. Everything seems normal, but inspecting the rabbit closely, one notices a tattoo, the number 8.
The essentials are here. We know there's a table, there's a cage, and in that cage is a rabbit. We have some basic detail (the velvet color, the spots on the rabbit). But all this is still simple and basic.
However, as you absorb this, you are adding your own details. Maybe to Grumbler, this table cover has an embroidery. Maybe OB1 sees no embroidery but does see a pattern. Maybe Edenmaster sees a cage made of steel. Maybe ABF sees it with brass coloring. Perhaps Beano sees a small rabbit, young, and more white than brown, while I see an older, larger rabbit, more brown than white. Maybe one of us sees this table in an sterile, laboratory-like environment, while another sees this in a warm room with a fireplace and armchair. Perhaps later on we will find out what kind of room it really is, and maybe it will surprise us completely.
If this were a movie, we would know all of these details within a second. Our imaginations would never be taxed. We're spoonfed the whole thing, and all we are really left to wonder is what the tattoo signifies.
Movies are limited not only by their ability to make you imagine, they are also very limited in description and introspection. Books allow for much more in the way of narration. Also unlike books, movies are limited by length. Rare is the movie that exceeds 140 minutes, so if you want to tell a story, you have to tell it in about two hours, and that prevents you from allowing real depth to permeate, unless your story is fundamentally a short one to begin with (see Phone Booth). Even movies that are adapted from great books, even when the movies themselves are great (Silence of the Lambs, for instance), the movie is always missing details for the sheer sake of necessity, and the source material, to me, is always superior. Books are nearly unlimited in available space, and a truly creative writer can add as much depth and complexity as he has the talent to produce. His book can take a week to read, and no one will complain, because avid readers are more intelligent, and have greater attention spans. Because the average person does not, TV and movies are more popular and make more money.
Now, there are cases when a movie or a video game can nearly match the complexity and depth of a good book, movies like Jacob's Ladder and games like Silent Hill 2. Even still, though, they would both be able to benefit from added description.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR