"In my opinion, the only shared quality between literature and cinematograph - those two completely independent forms of art - is the amazing freedom in working with ideas.
Any cinematograph idea is connected with the author's and the viewer's experience. Of course prose also has qualities unique to any form of art in relying on emotional, spiritual and intellectual experience of the reader. But the unique quality of literature is that no matter how detailed the author makes certain pages, the reader "reads out" from them and "sees" only that, that their and only their experience and personality having established personal preferences and a unique taste have made them adapted to. The most naturalistically detailed pieces of prose are as if escaping from writer's control and are still being percieved by the reader subjectively.
Cinematograph however is the only form of art where the author can feel himself as the creator of an indisputable reality, their own world in a literal sense of the word. Tendency for self-affirmation that exists in every person gets realised the most in cinematograph.
Film is a sensual reality and it gets interpreted by the viewer as just that - a second reality.
Literature with the use of words describes an event, the internal and external worlds that the writer wants to convey. A film operates with materials given by the nature itself, directly manifesting in space over the period of time that we can observe and that we live in. In the writer's head a certain view of a world emerges that they later transport on paper in the form of words. But cine-film mechanically captures the characteristics of the definitive world that got into the camera's field of view from which the imaginitive universe is later constructed.
Thus, film direction is literally an ability to «seperate the light from the darkness and the firmanent from the water». This ability of film directing creates an illusion of self-perception of the creator. From that come the massive influential temptations of becoming a film director. In this context, the thought of a huge, specific, almost «criminal» liability of a film director arises. Their experience gets explicitly and directly transmitted with a photographic accuracy to the viewer and the viewer's emotions become akin to a witness', if not author's emotion.
In «Sevastopol Sketches» Leo Tolstoy realistically describes the horrors of a military hospital. But no matter how throughly he described the most horrific parts, the reader can still always recycle and adapt brutally naturalistically recreated scenes in accordance with their own experience, desires and views. The reader interprets any read text selectively, according to the laws of their own imagination.
A book read by a thousand people is a thousand different books. A reader with wild imagination can see a lot more behind brief descriptions than it was even planned by the author (and authors often plan for that). But a reserved, constrained by moral boundaries and restrictions reader will percieve even the most accurate and rigorous details with holes in them due to the moral and esthetic filter that was formed in the past. A peculiar correction for subjective perception takes place. It is at the root of the problem of the relationship between the writer and their readers and is like a trojan horse inside of which the author sneaks into their reader's soul. Here lies an essential quality inspiring the need for readers' co-creation. Because of that there prevails an opinion that reading a book is «much harder» (requires more effort) than watching a film, perception of which is often passive. As they say: «The viewer sits, the mechanic spins the film»...
Do viewers have the freedom of choice in a film?
After all, every single frame, every scene or an episode don't describe, but literally fixate the action, the landscape, the faces of the characters. Because of that certain esthetic norms get imposed in the cinema alongside the unambigious signs of specifity against which the personal experience of the viewer often rises. And yet very often a viewer will critique a film based on the laws of the life itself not noticing that they replace the principles of the author by which the film was made with their own principles that they have acquired in their everyday, regular experience. From that arise the known paradoxes of the viewers' reception."
In this article Tarkovsky compares cinematograph and literature and comes to the conclusion that they're both valid and have their pros and cons. I not only agree with him, but I think that any form of artistic expression is valid and should be viewed just as seriously as the more traditional means of expressing thoughts
In fact, in Russia during the XVIII century it was common practice to gradually print the books chapter by chapter into newspapers to get feedback. This allowed writers to slowly release their works which made the public think and discuss every chapter that would get released as well as make them excited for the next one. With the internet becoming widespread newspapers became obsolete and writers now have to rely on various media outlets to gradually release their works, but who reads books on social media? No one! Social media is not for that and if you want to talk about blogging sites, almost no one releases books there either. While it is a way of advertising and conveying your ideas, it leaves those poor artists with no money other than donations or book purchases if they ever get to that - at least newspapers paid a solid amount of money for attracting customers! Not to say that if such writers exist, they aren't very popular and I can only name a few that I know. Even those aren't very appealing to the latest generation...
Release something accessible to everyone to attract as many people as possible both cultured and unculured ones. This way, you're gaining large sums of money since you become incredibly popular, but you can also finally express your ideas not just for a small group of people who buy your books, but to everyone and with free public access!
How do you do it? Well, "something accessible to anyone" can be a show or a video game or a film or maybe even something else!
This is the new form of art and just as other forms of art, it has its pros and cons. For starters, you either need to be talanted at not just writing, but also painting, animating, modeling, programming, composing, voice acting and God knows how many other things, or have some starting budget to hire people to do part of the work for you. While this can make the work feel unauthentic, some authors (Toby Fox in particular) try hard to control and check that everything is exactly the way they want, plus it encourages collaboration with other artists which is always nice to see. The production time is generally longer though
Now all of that is true to every new form of art, but video games took a step back in definitive view, and instead went even further in immersion and fitting a lot in a short amount of time. Other than that, they are the same and they stay valid
Now this new art has a lot of bad connotations which is why I made this article in the first place, but to anyone saying that there are many video games or shows with no culural value in them, remember that there are just as many if not more worthless books which people only read out of boredom
That is it! This is why the "Literature" section is so diverse!