literature vs. films

Def literature. For one thing, you get to keep things from before the 20th century.

are audiobooks and picturebooks allowed as lit? I feel like most of the value in movies is in the audio and visuals, so anyone could do without the motion part.

Neither of those things is film so there's no reason why they would be discarded either way.

But picture books are surely literature. No way could we exclude Alice's Adventures in Wonderland because it has illustrations.

yeah they are allowed/

maybe another interesting question will be a written vs. visual poll...

Oh, I guess if you count them as lit, you'd have to throw them out if you choose "film", nm.

well as you age you lose eyesight so an audiobook and a movie become more and more similar (so it's a no-brainer at that point to choose lit)

well, assuming you CAN see and read, which one would you give up

this is muddied by the conditions of consumption and all sorts of other theoretically inessential stuff, which is to say i refuse to choose because i can't separate either from things which don't belong to them

there are certain points where movies are vastly more valuable than lit, like when you're pre-literate, or learning a language, or when there's a lot of good movies on right now.

Def literature. For one thing, you get to keep things from before the 20th century.

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Sunday, January 20, 2013 1:38 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ridley scott's oscar winning gladiator is set before the 20c, i don't see what the big deal is

Literature but would take TV over either

tv but only for the commercials

weird dichotomy, imo. "films" is very limited category compared to something as inclusive as "literature" (which would seem to comprise the entire oral and written traditions of human civilization minus moving images).

Also missing from poll is "old-time radio"

lit, and i didnt even have to think about it.

i presume things like chick tracts and bazooka joe comics are included under the "literature" umbrella.

"films" is very limited category compared to something as inclusive as "literature" (which would seem to comprise the entire oral and written traditions of human civilization minus moving images).

OTM

it's probably easier for trash to qualify as film than for trash to qualify as lit (re: chick tracts and bazooka joe)

I read books on five or six nights a week. I watch a film one night a week. I'd most definitely keep literature. Films are more immediate and lively, but literature has enriched my life much more deeply than any film I've ever watched. You can more easily pause while reading a book and think for a while. Films do not invite this response.

lit, and i didnt even have to think about it.

― let's go do some crimes (strongo hulkington's ghost dad), Sunday, January 20, 2013 11:55 AM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Literature but would take TV over either

― (panda) (gun) (wrapped gift) (silby), Sunday, January 20, 2013 11:44 AM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

both of these

When I turn on the tv, either there is a game of some sort I know I want to watch, or else I find myself flipping channels for about fifteen or twenty minutes and then turning it off in disgust. So, no tv love lost here.

Seems I'm in the minority -- I picked films, because I don't seem to have the attention span for books anymore.

some books are very short! see Lit, see what your pagecount obsession has wrought.

me too
xp

I don't always have the attention span for many movies, esp 150m+ action flicks and fantasy epics.

Teorema vs Mad Men

In a year of 13 Moons vs Deadwood

etc etc

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Closer than I would have expected tbh.