Things you can do in writing that don't work visually

[Atli]

"mythology" stories.

I think what you're describing *could* be possible in visual mediums, but I think it'd need to be done in a somewhat abstract or surreal way. But in general, I completely agree with you. The weightiness and ambiguity that is always present in the "mythological" genre or old epics and sagas really just cannot be translated into film. Especially because a lot of these myths are so filled with meaning. Genesis being the best example. If you just show a purely literal interpretation of the text, it loses a lot of its grandeur (and is why I don't like hyper-literal interpretations of the Bible generally). Beowulf is another great example of this, you almost need to read it in the Old English to really feel the impact of the story due to how it is written (and originally spoken). It can be cool on the screen, but it just isn't the same. Same with LOTR, imo. A great film series, and certainly does a good job capturing the heroicness of the novels. But it just doesn't strike that "biblical" tone that Tolkien often employs.

And also many writers are clearly movie-watchers first and readers second, third, fourth, or not at all.

I think this is the main issue. Tolkien, to stick with him, was heavily inspired by the eddas, the Bible, and folklore of Europe. Modern writers (and artists in general) are just copying what they see in movies or anime a lot of the times. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I agree with you that there really hasn't been much good art made in recent decades. This is why I've been very strongly inspired to write, especially from a Christian perspective. A lot of Christian "art" is just slop or cheap propaganda (prime examples being God's not dead or the late great planet earth). I think us writers need to be like Tolkien and simply make a good story first, and let our morals worldview seep into it naturally, as is the case in LOTR

A skilled writer will know when/how to harness the reader's imagination to great effect and even make the experience more personal as the reader plays a part in creating the world of the story.

This is a good way of putting it. It's why the ambiguity or brevity of mythology works so well imo. Modern writers often make the mistake of going on for way too long rather than letting the reader fill in the blanks. This may be a weird example, but it's why I really appreciate ancient chinese writers. I can't read it, but studying it is fascinating because they'll only say a couple of words, but they're so well chosen that what they said can explain a rather big idea. But, the brevity leaves room for interpretation. They have a respect for words, and I think that's interesting and something that we moderns simply don't have anymore. But maybe I'm just being autistic, idk

my imagination is so fertile it actually gets the better of me when I'm trying to write.

too real. At this point i just immediately write down what comes to mind and then edit it later. It's better than just being paralyzed with indecision

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Anything highly detailed. You can show a fight, for example, but you can't relay the nuances of it visually, like how the characters feel (physically, emotionally, etc). You can glean that information to a degree obviously, which is why a film like Rocky still works, but there's much more specific depth if it's written.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

I'm actually going to give an opposite example: Extremely rapid dialogue exchanges can be very hard to get across in writing. I have always been annoyed by this.

 

[BABANGUIDE64]

Breaking consistent narrative into schizophasia cannot be visualized
Postmodernism in literature is exclusively for writers, not directors

 

[Anonymous8330]

This is a very interesting thread for me because I've been saying prose fiction is dead for awhile, I even intended to write a legitimate essay about it and get it published. Basically what I would posit is that the novel was a phase, whereas poetry is eternal. The ability for stories to be told on a screen has supplanted a lot of prose fiction's power, in the past it was the only option. This is especially the case as we increasingly become cyborgs and so much of our time is spent online. How are you supposed to realistically convey a day in the average person's life when it consists of gooning on X and updooting on reddit? In the past the novel could show conversations over a distance very eloquently, because people wrote very literate letters to each other. Now the average person is a subhuman who sends a string of emojis or reaction gifs. It's very easy for a camera to show a phone or computer screen, but a writer sounds retarded if they have to say "Jayden sent five fire emojis with one laughingcrying emoji and added 'Fr bruh'." But at the same time if you don't show the digital part of a person's life, which these days is like 85% of it, you're simply conceding that you're not capable of rendering a full picture. The camera also has the advantage of focusing on exteriority, we can simply take it on faith that people are also online. Whereas the novel is primarily about interiority, if you're going to realistically show someone's thought processes you can't leave out that most of it relates to content they see on a screen. Beyond this, a screen is far more capable of achieving scope and kinetic effect. This is why any sword and sorcery slop can be elevated to legitimate cinema. You can read "Dany had a dragon that went woosh" or you can see the fucking dragon and hear it go woosh and go holy shit, that's a dragon. So both actual literature (which is interior) and genre fiction (more about action) are no longer capable of competing with stories on screen, which is not hampered by the need to translate the digital world into undignified description, while also outmatching words for kinetic effect. This is why modern novels, like Sally Rooney's, are increasingly spare in description and light in substance. People who grow up reading classic novels still dream of being novelists so that's what they try to do, unaware of the fact that it's over. The only way to write a legitimate novel anymore is for it to be Period, but once you concede that fact the question you have to ask is why even keep the medium alive at all. Just become a writer-director and do what you want.
This doesn't mean literature as a whole is over. Poetry preceded the novel and will still be here after. There is no medium that could replace it, whereas storytelling has a spectrum of options: novel, stage, screen. Literature will soon be exclusively poetry, and once again the pastime of a literate elite.

 

[Gromit the Claymation Dog]

I think non-linearity works better in writing than anywhere else. It’s very easy in writing to leap from one place and time to another without having it be too disorienting. Since it is just words on a page, there’s no jarring shift in what you’re looking at that movies have when they do this, and the transition is usually much smoother for it. In movies they might even intentionally make it obvious, like flashbacks being black and white, but since writing is majorly past tense, then flashbacks fit right in much better.

 

[PumpkinSpiceBitchMeringue]

Someone mentioned exposition, I'm gonna go with something similar, deception.

I read through the thread and didn't see this mentioned, but I like it when a work of literature tricks me by using my assumption of perception.

Example: The Giver

The twist when Jonah notices something different about his friend's hair could never be faithfully translated into visual media. The 2014 movie tried to give it the The Wizard of Oz treatment, but I reckon the setting would have been better if it took place in the 1920-30s as you'd assume the black and white visual is par for the course of films of that time, only to be surprised that it's not supposed to be like that in the reveal. (But, then again, I think in the novel Jonah's community is kind of technologically advanced, so it wouldn't work. It's been centuries since I've read it, so forgive my wrong recollection)

 

[Super Mario Brothers]

Self insert. You can somewhat do this with video games, but it's limited in some capacity. You can't talk, and if you can it's limited to maybe four text options. If your character does talk for some amount of time, it's almost certainly a cutscene. While books don't really give you choice, you are always the pov character experiencing what is happening.

I'm pretty sure this is why romance and isekais are the most popular books now btw. They are both basically pure self insert power fantasies. I think isekai light novels also have more leverage than their anime adaptions when it comes to this as well + it's why it doesn't translate well if you aren't already into it.

 

[Retrofire]

Sometimes a lighter touch is needed, and while not impossible for film/games, they do tend to err on spectacle/celebrity when they want to play to their strength as a visual medium.

You got me thinking about what "mystery" looks like in a video game.

i feel like Dark Souls did an incredible job of this. Interconnected areas had backdrops of massive ravines, ancient castles, dark abysses', and other horrifying stuff.

 

[Sebben Crudele II]

I think the best example of a book impossible to translate into a movie is Fight Club.

 

[The Ugly One]

Sassy limericks don't work visually.

 

[Squanto Airi]

Cosmic Horror works far far better in literature rather than film or television.

 

[TismFarmer]

really appreciate ancient chinese writers. I can't read it, but studying it is fascinating because they'll only say a couple of words, but they're so well chosen that what they said can explain a rather big idea. But, the brevity leaves room for interpretation.

100% agree with this!

Something else that doesn't really translate into text well is using paranormal powers.
They usually show telepathy as a face that's not speaking with a voice over, but it can't really get the idea across visually.
The same with other powers the results of the powers are hard enough to convey, but the effort/energy required is almost impossible to show visually.

In fact pretty much any kind of exertion/exhaustion, other than physical is pretty much impossible as are subtle emotions, or concepts like being overwhelmed or feeling intrigued, or ambivalent.

 

[souschef]

Those big extensive narrative monologues from the Spawn comic. I really liked them, but there's no way to use these in audiovisual media

 

[Slimy Time]

Regained some love of reading through the Dune novels. Watched the Part 1 of the latest film series. Ok. Then by coincidence watched the old film with Patrick Stewart as Gurney Halleck. Then decided to read the book since I never did. No surprise which one I thought was the best.

The ability to read and understand the thought process of every character, the ability to have Baron Harkonen in a chapter explain his whole plan in one chapter, and then see/read all the main characters have their own incorrect assumptions or interactions, know (both from watching the films and also the chapter) that they have got this wrong. The characterisation and ability to have quotes at the start of the chapters which make Paul out to be this mythical figure, or the songs sung by Gurney which would feel out of place in a film.

You could not do any of this in the film really. Cannot tell people this is the bad guys plot in detail and then watch everyone make wrong assumptions and fuck up, because it’s visual. And I don’t think the literary Gurney translates well into film either, which is why he’s done by Stewart or Brolin the way he is there.

Edit: There is also the obvious issue of current year adaptation where plot points are taken out (Count Fenring is gone in the new ones, Kynes is a woman) the Fremen are a bit more generic/taken out the overt Islamic tone of them.

 

[Irregardless]

Complexity.

Usually when you're watching a show or movie most topics are explained as simply as possible, to not interrupt the narrative flow, and even when something complex is discussed it's usually a central theme or concept and gets an exception to pretty much set up the rest of the story.

On the off chance a show does try to explain complex topics or concepts it runs into the issue where they can't spend the next 15 minutes detailing this one thing, and there's a chance people are going to lose the plot and/or aren't going to be willing to go back and rewatch the scene to understand.

The first example that comes to mind are the sophons in the 3 body problem.

"The creation of the Sophon involves "unfolding" a proton's extra dimensions, turning it into a sheet the width of a planet. Circuits are etched onto the sheet using strong interaction force before the sheet is folded back into a proton (now a quantum computer). Because of its nature as a subatomic particle, it can be accelerated to light-speed and arrive in the Solar System in advance, carrying out its purpose: to sabotage Earth's technological development."

The show does a good job trying to visualize what this process would be, but the reality is it doesn't really do them justice.

Cosmic Horror works far far better in literature rather than film or television.

You're telling me "The color out of space" with Nicholas Cage wasn't a good movie...? So what the new color that had never been seen before was actually just light purple? IT WAS EVIL PURPLE.