Ah, but writers also often get trapped by the limits of someone else's vision. I can't count how many bad Lord of the Rings knock offs I've read. Most were technically well crafted, in that the person writing them used proper grammar and punctuation, wrote very descriptively, had good characterization, yet proceeded to produce another LOTRs plotline complete with a multi race quest to save the world from the evil lord of darkness. Some have been quite successful yet hardly original. But I agree. The written word leaves the reader free to form their own imagery, and the imagery of the mind is almost certain to far exceed the imagery of a graphic (except perhaps in rare occasions). I, for one, can paint with my mind much better than I can with my hand (or drawing tablet). Still, pictures are very powerful. So, too, are words. As has oft been said, a picture paints a thousand words, and some situations call for just that. On the other hand, words paint many thousands of pictures each unique to each reader. And of course they are often complimentary of one another. Finally, it seems to me that words - be they a story, a poem, or a novel - are more akin to a movie than a still, in that they flow in a continuum. Like a movie, they have a beginning, a middle, and and end whereas a still is a snapshot in time. Not to say that a good still is of less value or impact, just that writing is more akin to motion imagery than still imagery. They all have their place. I love your father's description of truth. Can I borrow that sometime? jon

 
~jon
My Blog - Mad Utopia Writing in a new era.