When it's between the covers of a book, content is perceived to have literary substance - or more so that it might otherwise.
Written symbols are even more artificial or conventional than spoken; they cannot be picked up in accidental intercourse with others. In addition, the written form tends to select and record matters which are comparatively foreign to everyday life.
Literature exists inside the language. It's made of words.
Sociological prose is generally written without images in an exact form for an academic audience.
It's not difficult for me to put my feelings into written form. I try to be concise and to go direct to the subject. This is what people like about my work, and what the critics hate.
To put what you see on paper is the same as funneling what you feel through yourself as a performer.
Mediocre prose might be read as an escape, might be spoken on television by actors, or mouthed in movies. But mediocre poetry did not exist at all. If poetry wasn't good, it wasn't poetry. It was that simple.
The thing about stories is that they almost always find their way onto the page, even if it takes a while.
On paper, swearing takes on a different attitude. It can make you sound very angry when you use it a lot.
A book is a book is a book.
I like films to be complete in their written form.
Letters are expectation packaged in an envelope.
Writing chases after the senses, and conveys them in an altered form. When it is done well, the senses come alive in a new and captured form.
If what I write is literature, I guess you'd better emphasize the 'litter.'
The greater the novel, the more it is apt to embody the special, non-replicable properties of the written medium.
