I've realized that literature cannot be replaced

I've realized that literature cannot be replaced.

I recently reread The Lord Of The Rings, and I liked it a lot. I also liked Peter Jackson's movie adaptation of the trilogy. But what struck me when I was rereading LOTR is how powerful textual passages can be, in such a different way than visual images on a screen. Movies and books are fundamentally not like each other, and one is not a substitute for the other. You are driven to feel very different things by each of them.

Here's a good example: the Ride of the Rohirrim at The Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Here is what it looks like in the movie:

youtube.com/watch?v=Pis3veqKl8k

But this is what Tolkien actually writes in the book:

>At that sound the bent shape of the king sprang suddenly erect. Tall and proud he seemed again; and rising in his stirrups he cried in a loud voice, more clear than any there had ever heard a mortal man achieve before:

>Arise, arise, Riders of Théoden!
Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter!
spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,
a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!
Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!

>With that he seized a great horn from Guthláf his banner-bearer, and he blew such a blast upon it that it burst asunder. And straightway all the horns in the host were lifted up in music, and the blowing of the horns of Rohan in that hour was like a storm upon the plain and a thunder in the mountains.

>Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!

>Suddenly the king cried to Snowmane and the horse sprang away. Behind him his banner blew in the wind, white horse upon a field of green, but he outpaced it. After him thundered the knights of his house, but he was ever before them. Éomer rode there, the white horsetail on his helm floating in his speed, and the front of the first éored roared like a breaker foaming to the shore, but Théoden could not be overtaken. Fey he seemed, or the battle-fury of his fathers ran like new fire in his veins, and he was borne up on Snowmane like a god of old, even as Oromë the Great in the battle of the Valar when the world was young. His golden shield was uncovered, and lo! it shone like an image of the Sun, and the grass flamed into green about the white feet of his steed. For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and the darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them. And then all the host of Rohan burst into song, and they sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them, and the sound of their singing that was fair and terrible came even to the City.

Both the movie and the book are very powerful, but both are powerful for different reasons.

Attached: 96456-1532336916.jpg (640x360, 32K)

I liked the movie version of that scene better. Both are quite good though.

Le Guin talks about the rhythm of LotR in an essay of pic related. The inhale/exhale of it, and mentions the film cutting out all the relaxed parts for all the action. She liked them both, but the films felt too rushed and unrelenting

Attached: 3D5251C5-6D08-49C9-A30C-36027E96E296.jpg (1936x2592, 2.42M)

>I've realized that literature cannot be replaced.
Of course it can't be. Fucking theatres sell out whole auditoriums for more successful plays, there's even a small renaissance of radio plays going on, so how the fuck would one expect something as primeval as literature being replaced or outdated?
>Movies and books are fundamentally not like each other,
It's kind of retarded that this is a revelation to a Yea Forumsizen now. Isn't this obvious if you're not an insecure literary poseur who only lives to feel superior?

The films are pretty poor adaptations but they've become such a sacred cow you can't really talk about it to be honest.

>Arise, arise, Riders of Théoden!
>Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter!
>spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,
>a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!
>Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!
tolkien laying it down with based anglo saxon alliterative verse

Tuck your shirt back in user. It is one thing to know intellectually that literature is a very different thing from visual arts. But it is quite another to be hit by a good example of just how different it is.

Movies are obviously limited by human psychology as well as the pragmatist material limitations like budget etc.

Literature does not have these limitations. Literature also has more depth because of this. We read into things, we sink into prose and we can immerse ourselves within it. The world of film is always just out of reach, just beyond the screen.

Still love films though and I appreciate the art form. Shame the film industry is now either cash-grabbing franchise films and reboots or heavily politicized films that set out to subvert things. Hopefully that will change.

It's kind of woeful how much film and tv pale in comparison to literature. The accessibility of the former prevents a lot of people from even attempting to try the latter.
A film or tv series robs you of your imagination, and can't provide the same immersion and detail. Videogames have more purpose because they can bring interactivity to storytelling, but no one with talent will write for them.

>Videogames have more purpose because they can bring interactivity to storytelling

videogames are virtual toys bucko, not art

Attached: v.edditors.jpg (480x482, 56K)