My rough movie/online analogy

[Mark Levinson <mark -at- SD -dot- CO -dot- IL>]

> It's also easier to make a book from a movie

Your other points were well taken, but I can't quite understand this one.

** You made that remark privately, but if my analogy was
   unclear to you, doubtless it was unclear to others as well.

   What I meant is that a movie already provides you with a subset of
   what a book can present (action and dialogue) just as online help
   provides you with a subset of what a book can present (chopped-up
   explanations), whereas a book has a lot of complexity that you
   need to rework or discard in order to film or to (ahem) online the book.

   So it's easy to novelize a film or to put online help
   into a binder... but unless the writer puts in some extra effort,
   the results aren't as good as a book that is conceived as a book
   in the first place.

   OK, the analogy is rough.  To anyone tempted to make a comment
   like "Yeah, so how would you novelize the last shot of CITY LIGHTS?
   The zither from THE THIRD MAN?  Lighting?  Angles?  Dissolves?"
   I concede the point, in the interests of sticking to technical writing
   as the focus of discussion.

_________________________________________________________________________
 Mark L. Levinson           | E-mail:   mark -at- sd -dot- co -dot- il
 Summit EDA Technologies    | Voice:    +972-9-507102, ext. 230 (work),
 Box 544                    |           +972-9-552411 (home)
 46105 Herzlia, ISRAEL      | Fax:      +972-9-509118
_________________________________________________________________________
  "Graphics are especially useful for drawing readers into the book."
                                                          - STC Intercom
_________________________________________________________________________