>>10771026Since we were talking about art, let me ask you a better question than yesterday's. Nowadays we can look at as many pictures (real artistic pictures of course, not like that one from yesterday) as we want to, thanks to the internet. Do you think that people used to be able to admire just a single one for a longer period of time in the past?
>who's this artist, btw?"
c.cu", it looks like. I know. His art isn't even anything spectacular, it only happened to be just right for me. And I'm not looking for porn. I just like these pictures.
Now I can't really tell whether this is supposed to be a middle aged Tifa or just that woman trying to cosplay as her.
>that's what I've been told to do anywayIs that really what you want? You should do what you feel that you would be happy doing. I know, I know, meme advice. But you might end up feeling regretful that you didn't.
>I think they can do what novels can do better in some waysWell go on, in what ways? A play is just dialog, but they are meant to be experienced at a theatre and not to be just simply read. But it's not like we went to the theatre to see Shakespeare's plays, we just read them. What I'm trying to say is that a play is not just text, but then a graphic novel is not just text either.
>I can't say I've consumed it much as a genreI see what you mean. Maybe I wouldn't look for them either if I hadn't liked them back then. But yeah, the genre itself is a bit cheesy. When it comes to ficton you've got literary fiction and genre fiction. The former comprises many of the classics, these are stories which aren't written conventionally or for success, they were written to create art. The latter comprises most of the stuff you can read, and most romance stories would fall in here. They follow the same conventions, feature the same characters, with some deviations here and there. Unconventionally written romance that falls into the first category, like the aforementioned Snow Country, tends to be better.
