Can Anyone Explain Why Animation Is Better Than Books?

[hazelaudrin 0]

Yes, I am aware of their differences, and I don't mean to imply that books are somehow less valuable, but as I was thinking about this, it occurred to me that, unlike books, animation does limit your ability to imagine what a character might look like because you don't have to. The animators, you might say, "impose" the appearance of a character, which implies that they constrain how viewers can imagine their character and force their vision, isn't that right? Is that a mistake?

Additionally, I worry that since books can already describe anything imaginable, they may render animated films like those produced by video animation services companies somewhat pointless because they can cover every aspect of them. There's no need for a show, right? If dialogue, action scenes, and descriptions of the characters and environments can all be found in books, what use is there in animation?

I'm concerned about all of this because I want to devote my life to the animation. I don't want to think of it as books, but rather as shorter works with fewer creative possibilities. I adore the idea of creating incredible movies with fantastical settings and presenting others with my interpretation of a character, but I'm wondering if that's preferable to just let people conjure up their own images of how they appear. Please explain to me how animation can accomplish tasks that books cannot, as well as its advantages over books, even if this post comes across as ridiculous. I'm grateful.