>>24573809>>24573311 (OP)The ultimate illiterate take is to think the interiority of using digital media cannot be somehow represented. Why do you assume that nothing is going on inside of you when you scroll? It may be that the novel is more effective at describing inner states than action, but your assumptions about what generally can and can't be done with it are very superficial, as well as unaware of how many jumps and changes the narrative form underwent. The focus on the narrative representation of interioriy is in itself a fairly recent discovery, and it has been used in very different ways from very different authors. The fact that you are not inventive enough to come up with the right combination of words to describe something that has yet to be described, such as the experience of spending most of your life online, just speaks about your own limitations, not about the limitations of the novel form.
Generally speaking you also seem to have a very poor understanding of how literature and words generally function if you think visual media are more effective in conveying certain things. Once again, this speaks more about your habits and limitations than the about the actual capacity for literature to convey something. A descriptive sentence - and a word in general - if you are used to read, is a syneasthetic clump: it contains multiple sensations from multiple senses at once, without tying you to something specific. Pleasure in imaginative reading usually comes from this. If I say something like "the edge of the ceramic vase", provided that reading is a long standing habit of mine, I see multiple things at once. "Edge" is something that comes together with visual as well as tactile feelings for instance; "ceramic" again engages multiple senses at once if you remember how it looks, how light falls on it, its solidity and fragility, its smoothness, the kind of smell it gives, etc., "vase" gives me a shape, a function, and again comes with a series of potential sensory details that are gathered together - and the combinations of all three establishes a specific focus on the kind of materiality of the object, on a portion of it, etc. Words and sentences potentially contain all these feelings. This freeplay of the imagination is the aesthetic point of literature - and it is less limited than giving the viewer/listener a strong, relatable sensory clue (a real image, a real sound) to hang from and start from, because you take away a fragment of his freedom to conjure these things from within.
If you don't think this is a valuable way of making and enjoying art it sounds very much like your problem. If (good) description feels less efficient than visual storytelling for you, maybe try to engage less with visual media and more with (good) literary descriptions, because you don't seem to have a proper understanding of how literature works.
