Author Topic: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY  (Read 47476 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« on: 02-10-2009, 21:55:42 »
dobro, pošto smo se složili da je žanr-književnost drugorazredna, i zapravo vredna samo onda kad je above & beyond genre – ajde da vidimo šta pišu ozbiljni, mejnstrim časopisi na teme koje nećete naći u svom omiljenom fanzinu, a opet se dotiču fantastike (koja nije horor, jer za to imamo topik na adekvatnom mestu – horror seriously).

za početak, prijavljujem:

SVESKE, pančevo, sept. 09,
-II deo eseja o fantastici kod pinčona ('objava br. 49') i kortasara (započet u junskom broju)
-I deo eseja o fantastičnoj prozi m. nastasijevića
-'da li svest supervenira nad fizičkim svojstvima?' – iz knjige philosophy of the mind, moglo bi biti zanimljivo fantastičarima...

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #1 on: 02-10-2009, 21:58:32 »
Ne znam otkad ti zarezuješ Bobana u njegovim procenama. Plus, smireno je pominjao Deksu, te mislim da ga je neko omađijao/isprao mu mozak/hakovao nalog.
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #2 on: 02-10-2009, 22:21:13 »
ne govorim o 'bobanovim' procenama, već o konsenzusu iznesenom u onom prilogu iz sićeva.

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.604
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #3 on: 02-10-2009, 22:40:52 »
ja uvek smireno pominjem dexu, meni je čak pomalo žao tog jadnog čoveka... ponekad se malo zajebavam sa svim ovim, ali zašto ne?
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #4 on: 03-10-2009, 11:52:55 »
o konsenzusu iznesenom u onom prilogu iz sićeva.

"Možda ste vi u pravu, ali se ja sa time ne slažem."™
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.774
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #5 on: 09-10-2009, 20:56:59 »
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/sep/24/science-fiction-adam-roberts-booker?commentpage=1

Why hasn't there been a science fiction Booker winner?, by Adam Roberts
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #6 on: 10-10-2009, 00:36:13 »
http://www.tor.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=blog&id=58032

Michael Chabon: We’re All Amateurs Here

Michael Chabon, the first and only person ever to win both the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction and the Hugo Award for Best Novel...
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #7 on: 26-01-2010, 16:19:34 »
ratko objavio mini-esej o kingsliju ejmisu, mega-zanimljivo:

http://cultofghoul.blogspot.com/2010/01/green-man-kingsley-amis-1969.html

Nimrodel

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 285
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #8 on: 09-03-2010, 13:44:10 »
Heh, dugo me ne beše ovde, doduše, čituckah povremeno sagitaško blagoumlje i blagoglagoljanje, i nekako ništa nemah da dodam, al' eto napokon da me potaknu neka tema da dodam nešto što bi moglo da koristi u Gulovom spektru 'ozbiljno-književno-kritičkih' tekstova koji se bave onim što bi se moglo okarakterisati kao žanrovsko da već nije okarakterisano kao mejnstrim što zbog same pripadnosti autora (odnosno 'odsustva' istog) što zbog mnogo jačih motiva i poruka koji pucaju vrlo često na ono o čemu bi sami nobelovci pisali (političke teme, ontološka pitanja, novi filozofski sistemi, u principu, mi Srbi bi to smatrali sarmom u odnosu na čizburger  ;) ).
Dobar početak može biti zbornik Čudo u Slovenskim kulturama  Dr Dejana Ajdačića, a izdavači su Apis (Novi Sad) i Naučno društvo za slovenske umetnosti i kulture (Beograd).
Potom tu je predivna publikovana doktorska disertacija Ane Radin Motiv vampira u mitu i književnosti u izdanju Prosvete u kojoj se mogu naći tekstovi o danas kritički priznatim pripovedačima ali takođe i o onim skrivenim, zaboravljenim od strane istorije književnosti baš zato što imaju previše žarovske arome u sebi. (U principu, nazovi satanu ili neku drugu karakondžulu metaforom za ovo ili ono i gle čuda, ljudi će u grupnoj klanici videti metaforu sličnu Orvelovoj gde glavna sanđama je politička mašina savremenog društva koja pojedinca jede i siše, negirajući individualnost i posebnost, sve je u opštem i kolektivnom  :lol: )

Ovde se takođe može naći simpatičan tekst o estonijskom sf-u gde se lepo vidi da im je poznat termin 'genre bending' u kome se javlja fenomen onoga što i postmodernisti koriste - poštuju osnovne zakone mejstrim književnosti: http://elm.einst.ee/issue/11/estonian-science-fiction/

I jedna od, po meni, boljih studija (u njoj fokus nije gore navedeni problem, ali autori se usputno veoma uspešno dotiču i onoga što je ovde tema) - pun pdf se može naći ovde: http://www.duke.edu/web/isis/gessler/cv-pubs/03slipstream.pdf a preview, ono čisto da se lizne, proba i vidi je li to istinski Kapri ili tek šugavi Ledenko:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/25486063

E tako, eto pomenuh neke stvari, čisto ono da malo  doprinesem ovoj finoj temi. Za mene pak ovo pitanje danas ima jedan veoma običan i dosadan odgovor, veoma neinspirativan za bilo kakve diskusije.
But then the barking of dogs fills the air and the host of wild souls sweeps down, fire flashing from the eyes of the black hounds and the hooves of the black horses

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.604
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #9 on: 09-03-2010, 14:19:38 »
jao, super... sada ćeš možda i da vidiš sve one mejlove poslate ovih godina...
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

Nimrodel

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 285
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #10 on: 09-03-2010, 14:30:50 »
jao, super... sada ćeš možda i da vidiš sve one mejlove poslate ovih godina...

Do sad se logovala samo kao 'guest', sad kad se ulogovah kao Nim, liiiiiiii... teška teškina, Bobane. (Da ti kažem iskreno, ima mojih gimnazijalaca na ovom sajtu i nekako mi beše aprijatno da laprdam dalje :lol: ). Ali dobri su, dobre mlade nade a bogami, sve se nadam da će me poslušati i napokon poslati svoje priče na konkurse ovde... ne daju im da ih objave u visokoumonom školskom časposiu koji se bavi samo 'visokom' književnošću i ne toleriše eksplicitne sadržaje... bah, ajd' da držimo palčeve pa da i ova mladost iz unutrašnjosti se napokon ohrabri ovde i pokaže koliko su zapravo dobri pogotovo kad govorimo o mudroj manipulaciji žanrovskog da bi se dobilo umetničko delo. I ne ljuti se, barabo! :lol:
But then the barking of dogs fills the air and the host of wild souls sweeps down, fire flashing from the eyes of the black hounds and the hooves of the black horses

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.604
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #11 on: 09-03-2010, 14:33:08 »
Evo, u znak dobre volje, odaberi jedan gimnazijalski rad koji ima veze s fantastikom i prosledi mi za novi ZS, biće objavljen, a eto i tebi podstreka da ih goniš na još veće napore.
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #12 on: 09-03-2010, 14:44:02 »
Heh, dugo me ne beše ovde, doduše, čituckah povremeno sagitaško blagoumlje i blagoglagoljanje, i nekako ništa nemah da dodam, al' eto napokon da me potaknu neka tema da dodam nešto što bi moglo da koristi u Gulovom spektru 'ozbiljno-književno-kritičkih' tekstova koji se bave onim što bi se moglo okarakterisati kao žanrovsko da već nije okarakterisano kao mejnstrim što zbog same pripadnosti autora (odnosno 'odsustva' istog) što zbog mnogo jačih motiva i poruka koji pucaju vrlo često na ono o čemu bi sami nobelovci pisali (političke teme, ontološka pitanja, novi filozofski sistemi, u principu, mi Srbi bi to smatrali sarmom u odnosu na čizburger  ;) ).
Dobar početak može biti zbornik Čudo u Slovenskim kulturama  Dr Dejana Ajdačića, a izdavači su Apis (Novi Sad) i Naučno društvo za slovenske umetnosti i kulture (Beograd).
Potom tu je predivna publikovana doktorska disertacija Ane Radin Motiv vampira u mitu i književnosti u izdanju Prosvete u kojoj se mogu naći tekstovi o danas kritički priznatim pripovedačima ali takođe i o onim skrivenim, zaboravljenim od strane istorije književnosti baš zato što imaju previše žarovske arome u sebi. (U principu, nazovi satanu ili neku drugu karakondžulu metaforom za ovo ili ono i gle čuda, ljudi će u grupnoj klanici videti metaforu sličnu Orvelovoj gde glavna sanđama je politička mašina savremenog društva koja pojedinca jede i siše, negirajući individualnost i posebnost, sve je u opštem i kolektivnom  :lol: )

Ovde se takođe može naći simpatičan tekst o estonijskom sf-u gde se lepo vidi da im je poznat termin 'genre bending' u kome se javlja fenomen onoga što i postmodernisti koriste - poštuju osnovne zakone mejstrim književnosti: http://elm.einst.ee/issue/11/estonian-science-fiction/

I jedna od, po meni, boljih studija (u njoj fokus nije gore navedeni problem, ali autori se usputno veoma uspešno dotiču i onoga što je ovde tema) - pun pdf se može naći ovde: http://www.duke.edu/web/isis/gessler/cv-pubs/03slipstream.pdf a preview, ono čisto da se lizne, proba i vidi je li to istinski Kapri ili tek šugavi Ledenko:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/25486063

E tako, eto pomenuh neke stvari, čisto ono da malo  doprinesem ovoj finoj temi. Za mene pak ovo pitanje danas ima jedan veoma običan i dosadan odgovor, veoma neinspirativan za bilo kakve diskusije.


Velkom bek.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Nimrodel

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 285
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #13 on: 09-03-2010, 14:56:19 »
@Boban: Bogami, šaljem ti još koliko do kraja ove nedelje.
@Nightflier: Thanks, m8.
@Ghoul: Guliša, izvini za ovo nenamerno trolovanje - valjda je uvek tako kad se dobri ljudi posle mnogo vremena opet sastanu. I'll shut up, now.
But then the barking of dogs fills the air and the host of wild souls sweeps down, fire flashing from the eyes of the black hounds and the hooves of the black horses

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.604
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #14 on: 09-03-2010, 15:09:33 »
oftopičarenje, trolovanje i ostale na drugim mestima nepoželjne stvari, ovde su obaveza i stvar lepog vaspitanja.
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #15 on: 09-03-2010, 15:09:57 »
ne, ne, taman posla: baš mi je drago što te je baš moj topik naveo na voskresenije, va imja oca i sjatoga ghoula, amin!
nemoj sad opet da nestaješ, nego priloži šta imaš...

Alex

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 4.597
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #16 on: 09-03-2010, 15:17:13 »
va imja oca i jastoga ghoula, amin!

ispravljeno
Avatar je bezlichna, bezukusna kasha, potpuno prazna, prosechna i neupechatljiva...USM je zhivopisan, zabavan i originalan izdanak americhke pop kulture

Nimrodel

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 285
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #17 on: 10-03-2010, 10:47:00 »
ne, ne, taman posla: baš mi je drago što te je baš moj topik naveo na voskresenije, va imja oca i sjatoga ghoula, amin!
nemoj sad opet da nestaješ, nego priloži šta imaš...

Eo, zbog tebe i zbog toga što sam ti malo umrljala temu nenamerno, potrudih se da prekopam svoje i-mejlove i nađoh ovaj, poslat pre nekih mesec i po dana mom drugu Džejmsu. Čitao neke knjige pa me pitao zašto se ja mrštim kad na Scrolls of Lore forumu ljudi krenu da nagvaždaju o nečemu što je ionako samo dobra zabava i ništa više... te sam mu ja ovo otpisala. Iskreno, mrzi me da se bakćem srpskom verzijom odgovora, nema vajde, ovde svi ionako barataju jengleskim i bolje ponekad od samih Jengleza.

Lo, when you ask me, why Knaak will never be accepeted as serious writer even though he is acclaimed as one of the best selling authors, answer is simple... yes, his novels are interesting, full of twists and turns, fantastic characters and scary things, but... But his stories are shallow, made with purpose to entertain you and support what we could call a game lore. Yes, I can see where you see resemblance between this and Michael Moorcock’s Elric, there are magical swords, fantastic beings, even dark immortal forces that influence and corrupt world of the living ones, but tis not the same. While you read that poor Christie Golden’s spin-off, you’re getting crude story with forced motivations, lame dialogues and sentences that look like sheit loads of words just for ’it sounds serious’ sake. You were laughing the other night with me cause of  that ’at long last, no king rules forever, my son’, claiming, as a person whose mother tongue is English, that we’re dealing with truly poor wording... well, that’s the case with Knaak and all others too. I won’t claim that with Elric we’re dealing with high literature, but at least you can taste something of Cervantes’s Don Quixote... as he laughed to all those novels about wandering knights, so does Moorcock... and you can learn basic mechanisms of epic fantasy at least. Lo, true depth and layers are required for something to become true work of good story telling. Nowadays, with all those instant story plot guides and publishing deadlines before story was even born (I mean true story with proper storyline, motives, characters), you will get more of this crap even though once it had potential to outgrow itself. That’s how it works.

Sometimes, time is needed, new generations and ways of thinking for something that is not critically and historically acclaimed to become appreciated and crossover to what we call mainstream. But it can’t happen to spin-off type of literature. Lemme tell you something, we had such writer and he actually lived for quite some time in UK... even made history of British empire for BBC. Well, he did dare to write nowadays famous Rabies (btw, students are even exploring that novel nowadays at our universities), but when he wrote it, something else was considered as a good literature. And, yes, in his novel you’ll find science experiments, mutations, God’s messengers, prophecies, re-making of humankind, horror, slaughter, I mean everything... he’ll even trick you and show you how great spy, conspiracy novels are made... but in those times no serious critic would consider deeper look into this book, no school program would actually have it as possibility for discussion with students... it was too fantastic and people were too narrowminded and poisoned with political doctrine to actually read it and think about it. It was like comparing Henry James or Charles Dickens type of work with Edgar Allan Poe’s... comparison is not the best one but it’ll serve its purpose - that was the case with Rabies and in those times truly cherished and critically acclaimed writers. But times did change and nowadays Rabies are critically and historically acclaimed novel and we talk about it even in our high schools... you may ask me what happened. Answer is simply, that writer (Borislav Pekic is his name btw) used genre as such just as a cover, but his story was not imprisoned by it, his story was much larger and stronger and it wasn’t told just for tell some story sake. Yes, you will have crazy man Gabriel that resembles so much to archangel Gabriel, but that resemblance won’t be there just to say – oh my, we have forces of Heaven involved, and now bring on holly machine gun and wipe out those devlish arses along with line ’Remember I told u I’ll kill u last – Well, I lied’ and then Arnie or Ron Perlman popping in and killing all with fackin flame thrower. Gabriel will be mockery and hidden miracle in the same time, he’ll be embodiment of so famous ’mad men/weak in mind and body humans’ archetype. And let me tell you something, for centruies that type of people were actually considered as holy among many nations... but that’s another topic, you know – we’re all mad men, etc.
Bottom line is – yes, you can use all futuristic and fantasy and horror sheit, but not for the sake of it if you want recognition – true storytelling skill is required and depth, something that will actually tickle even those unconscious parts of the one that reads or listens. Those that claim that genre determination is guilty for their fail are just setting themselves for even bigger fall... it’s not the genre’s fault, it’s just bad writing, nothing else. So, in all, Knaak is full of bullsheit and he’s Blizz’s biatch, easy as that.
But then the barking of dogs fills the air and the host of wild souls sweeps down, fire flashing from the eyes of the black hounds and the hooves of the black horses

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #18 on: 10-03-2010, 13:36:31 »
Pretpostavljam da je sve ovo glede Vorkrafta, ali Kristi Golden je pisala dobre romane u Rejvenloftu.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Nimrodel

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 285
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #19 on: 10-03-2010, 20:31:52 »
Ovaj, on me jeste pitao za nešto oko spin-off pisaca, etikete bestseler autora a potom je priča otišla na odnos prema sf-u, hororu i ef-u i ovo je deo onoga što sam otpisala i što ima veze s onim o čemu Ghoul govori. Glede Christie Golden, ne znam šta je sve pisala (znam samo za tri naslova, dva pročitala u dokolici), ali ovo poslednje je blah, tuuuga, a i kako da bude dobro?
But then the barking of dogs fills the air and the host of wild souls sweeps down, fire flashing from the eyes of the black hounds and the hooves of the black horses

High Duke

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 52
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #20 on: 10-03-2010, 21:10:18 »
Dobrodosla nazad, Nim :)
Let your blow fall because faith is my shield and valor is my sword

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #21 on: 10-03-2010, 21:19:14 »
Ovaj, on me jeste pitao za nešto oko spin-off pisaca, etikete bestseler autora a potom je priča otišla na odnos prema sf-u, hororu i ef-u i ovo je deo onoga što sam otpisala i što ima veze s onim o čemu Ghoul govori. Glede Christie Golden, ne znam šta je sve pisala (znam samo za tri naslova, dva pročitala u dokolici), ali ovo poslednje je blah, tuuuga, a i kako da bude dobro?

Ima tu jako dobrih pisaca. Stekpol je legenda, recimo. Njegovi Battletech romani su veličanstven SF. A Goldenova je na početku karijere bila dobra. Posle je valjda mrzelo.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Perin

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.702
    • Klub Knjige
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #22 on: 11-03-2010, 21:39:16 »
Meni se od Stekpola svideo Dragon Crown Cycle :)Ako je to on pisao, a čini mi se da jeste :D

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #23 on: 12-03-2010, 00:09:14 »
Jeste. To je jedan od malobrojnih njegovih potpuno originalnih naslova. Jako lepo četvoroknjižje.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #24 on: 21-03-2010, 17:49:48 »
Čitanje odrednice o SF-u u novom Rečniku književnih termina:

http://cultofghoul.blogspot.com/2010/03/mali-korak-za-sf-ali-veliki-za-recnik.html

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #25 on: 21-03-2010, 22:36:02 »
Mda. Već mi je u najavi zasmrdeo taj sajberlelemudonijum.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #26 on: 01-04-2010, 20:23:01 »
Sala je, al' mogla bi i da ne bude...

Tachyon Publications Announces First Annual Make-a-Genre Contest

by C.J. Klempest
— posted @ 4/01/2010 12:01:00 AM PT

Tachyon Publications publisher Jacob Weisman today announced a competition to invent a new subgenre of science fiction and fantasy. "Over the past few years we've published a series of books which group writers who have never heard of one another into tightly-knit literary movements," says Weisman. "Our slipstream, steampunk, post-cyberpunk, and new weird anthologies have done very well for us."

However, since Tachyon's stable of editors has so far failed to come up with any new titles for the 2010-11 publishing season, Weisman has decided to turn to the general public for ideas. "Ideally we'd like a book that has makes the case that Stephen King, Audrey Niffenegger, Michael Crichton, Diana Gabaldon, Robert Jordan, Garrison Keillor, Neil Gaiman, and Nora Roberts have worked in close concert over the years to push speculative fiction to the cutting edge. Of course, the list of contributors is negotiable, depending on the genre you decide to invent. Just hit us with your best shot."

The Make-A-Genre contest is open to all readers and writers over the age of twenty-one. Contestants must submit a table of contents and a persuasive essay to be used as their anthology's introduction. "A catchy name for your genre is a definite plus," adds Bernie Goodman, Tachyon's Vice President of Long Range Planning. First prize is publication in Tachyon's fall list. "We're hoping to debut this book at the World Fantasy Convention in Columbus," says Weisman, "and if we get the response we anticipate, we'll continue the contest on a yearly basis." All entries must be submitted through Tachyon's online submissions system at www.tachyonpublications.com.
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #27 on: 04-04-2010, 17:05:32 »
Čitanje odrednice o SF-u u novom Rečniku književnih termina:

http://cultofghoul.blogspot.com/2010/03/mali-korak-za-sf-ali-veliki-za-recnik.html


Sve je ovo tačno, ni druge odrednice nisu neki biseri, ali zašto se na pola teksta dr Popović pretvara u dr Petrović?

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #28 on: 04-04-2010, 17:11:19 »
Popović, Petrović... sve su one iste.

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #29 on: 04-04-2010, 17:16:48 »
Po tom principu su Džernsbek i Bredburi više nego prihvatljivi...  ;)

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #30 on: 04-04-2010, 17:28:30 »
kad se g-đa/ica popović dovoljno proslavi da njeno ime postane household item, kao što su imena pomenute gospode, e ONDA će biti bruka što se njeno slavno ime ne poznaje dovoljno!
ne pre toga.

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #31 on: 19-02-2011, 02:10:36 »
The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss and The Children of Húrin by J.R.R. Tolkien
Reviewed by Adam Roberts


16 July 2007

Here are two titles for booksellers to shelve under Fantasy. Both follow the adventures of an essentially good though morally (slightly) complicated hero around a medievalised imaginary world. Both embody a sort of under-narrative about revenge, upon which are constructed varied and peripatetic adventures. There is, in both books, Evil to be combated, magic to be performed, and artefacts that have special powers. One (the Rothfuss) is an example of a genre pretty much wholly invented and defined by the other (Tolkien). Nevertheless they are absolutely as different from one another as could be imagined. One of these is, in its way, a great book. The other is a competently constructed time-whileawayer. See if you can guess which description fits which novel.

Rothfuss's tale, or yarn, or tome, or whichever term you prefer, concerns Kvothe—pronounced, we're told, 'nearly the same as "Quothe"'—who is the hero of all and the narrator of most of this sumo-sized volume. Living incognito as a humble tavern-owner in a quiet backwater, he's tracked down by a chap named Chronicler, who wants to write down Kvothe's heroic life story. Chronicler, actually, is attacked on the road by nasty evil-magic ceramic spider beasts (Kvothe rescues him) and whilst he is convalescing he transcribes our hero's story—which, with occasional interjections or requests for clarification from Chronicler, fills up almost all the rest of the book.

It's a varied and eventful tale. We get an account of our hero's childhood in a troupe of travelling players; his growing-up, his achievements and his reverses (he spends a time as a street-rat-kid in a crime-riddled city), and we get his ambition to enrol in a legendary university of magic and learn the true names of all things so that he can control them. His destiny is to become "the greatest magician the world has ever known." But it's not a straightforward path. It wouldn't be much of a story if it were.

Readers with even the most rudimentary experience of the genre will recognise all these elements from other books, and Rothfuss is clearly aware of the danger of staleness. Accordingly he tries to inoculate his book against accusations that it is merely derivative. From one of the sections where Kvothe reflects on his own story:

   'I was wondering why you didn't go looking for Skarpi?' ...
    Kvothe drew a deep breath and sighed. 'The simplest reason is the least satisfying one, I suppose. The truth is this: I wasn't living in a story.'
    'I don't think I'm understanding you, Reshi,' said Bast.
    'Think of all the stories you've heard, Bast. You have a young boy, the hero. His parents are killed. He sets out for vengeance. What happens next?'
    Bast hesitated, his expression puzzled. Chronicler answered the question instead. 'He finds help. A clever talking squirrel. An old drunken swordsman. A mad hermit in the woods. That sort of thing ... he finds the villains and kills them.'
    Kvothe leaned forward. 'If this were some tavern tale, all half-truth and senseless adventure ... but whilst that might make for an entertaining story, it would not be the truth. The truth is this ...'
(pp.304-5)

This is the author patting the reader on her shoulder, saying "fools may be content with the old storytelling clichés, but you and I have more sophisticated tastes ..." Except that it's a lie: not only is Kvothe's tale thoroughly storybook in every particular, even the opposition invoked here between real and "literary" is precisely a device, a storytelling trick used by innumerable writers, not least Tolkien himself in The Lord of the Rings (Sam and Frodo, you'll remember, discuss how the heroic tale of their quest would differ from the actual hardships they are experiencing).

Rothfuss is a skilled writer, with good storytelling instincts and the ability to drop just enough specific detail into his worldbuilding to make his Central Casting characters come alive (or at least half-alive, like Pinnochio dolls), but not so much that it bogs down the narrative or bores the reader. There's nothing wearisome here, except possibly the sheer weight of the book itself in one's hands; overall it's a smooth-rolling reading experience that passes the time, is fairly entertaining, and has a few moments of excitement. But here's the thing: it's a fundamentally cosy book. It flatters the reader. It winks at her, promising her the real thing rather than some sanitised storybook version, at the same time sanitising anything that might genuinely unsettle, or unnerve, or wrongfoot her readerly expectations. It, like many works of contemporary fantasy, panders to a sort of imaginative tourism, a safe entry into an escapist imaginative space defined by its reassuring familiarity. Cosiness is a good quality in sweaters. It is not a merit in books.

I read The Name of the Wind as a bound proof. The cover of this pre-edition is as black as Spinal Tap cover art, save only for a white-printed letter from Elizabeth R. Wollheim, DAW's "President and Publisher." Now, the purpose of this letter is to let booksellers know what a great book The Name of the Wind is:

  
Quote
Dear Bookseller,
    You hold in your hands an Advance Reading Copy of the most brilliant first fantasy novel I have ever read in over thirty years as an editor. After reading the first hundred pages of Patrick Rothfuss' THE NAME OF THE WIND, I knew I had to publish this book.... A tale told in classic high fantasy style, THE NAME OF THE WIND is a masterpiece that carries a fresh and earthy originality all its own. It transports the reader to the interior of a wizard's soul and to the world that helped create him. It is the story of a legendary hero and the truth that lies behind his legend. Kvothe is a genuine hero created to walk alongside the greatest heroes of our imagination.... Join me in welcoming a writer who ranks with Tad Williams, George R R Martin, Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks as a great writer of high fantasy. Exciting and rousing, intimate and personal, THE NAME OF THE WIND doesn't just describe what it is to be heroic, it is heroic.
    Enjoy!
    Elizabeth Wollheim

There's a slight awkwardness in praising the book for its "fresh and earthy originality all its own" and then listing the authors (Williams, Martin, Goodkind, Jordan, Brooks) of whom it is—as she rightly says—very very reminiscent. But we understand that this is a kind of code, and we take it as such. It says "you like Robert Jordan? You'll like this!"—information presumably useful for people who still enjoy Robert Jordan despite having wheeled themselves all the way to the end of his enormous, time-sucking series. I suppose there are such people in the world. That's not the problem I have with this letter. The problem I have with this letter is this part:

   A tale told in classic high fantasy style ...

But no. The Name of the Wind is a tale told in the bourgeois discursive style familiar from the modern realist novel. A passage picked at random:

    I settled onto the stone bench under the pennant pole next to my two friends.
    "So where were you last night?" Simmon asked too casually.
    It was only then that I remembered that the three of us had planned to meet up with Fenton and play corners last night. Seeing Denna had completely driven the plan from my mind. "Oh God, I'm sorry Sim. How long did you wait for me?"
    He gave me a look.
    "I'm sorry," I repeated, hoping I looked as guilty as I felt. "I forgot."
    Sim grinned, shrugging it off. "It's not a big deal."
(p.427)

This could be three pals from any novel set in the 20th or 21st centuryl; and hundreds and hundreds of similar passages serve only to show the author has not entered into the pre-industrial medieval mindset that his medieval pre-industrial world requires—to, for example, understand the crucial point that not guilt ("I looked as guilty as I felt") but shame was the key moral dynamic for the period. But to understand that would involve shifting about the psychological portraiture of the entire project; it would have meant writing characters less like, and therefore less appealing to, a 21st-century readership disinclined to make the effort to encounter the properly strange or unusual.

This speaks to a broader state of affairs in which style—the language and form of the novel—is seen as an unimportant adjunct to the "story." It is not. A bourgeois discursive style constructs a bourgeois world. If it is used to describe a medieval world it necessarily mismatches what it describes, creating a milieu that is only an anachronism, a theme park, or a WoW gaming environment rather than an actual place. This degrades the ability of the book properly to evoke its fictional setting, and therefore denies the book the higher heroic possibilities of its imaginative premise.

The Children of Húrin, on the other hand, does feel real. It's a book by a man who knew intimately not only the facts and paraphernalia but the mindset, values, and inner life of his relevant historical period—more Dark Age than medieval, this time, but assuredly not modern. The most obvious, although certainly not the only, level on which this registers is that of the style, which actually does approach the classic elevation that Wollheim wrongly identifies in Rothfuss. The Children of Húrin's syntax is compact, declarative and unafraid of inversion ("Great was the triumph of Morgoth"). Its vocabulary is almost entirely purged of words not derived from Old English sources: so much so that the occasional Anglo-French term—for instance, the phrase "Petty-dwarf" with its petit-derived qualifier—jars a little. More, it is a prose written with a careful ear for the rhythms of English; a prose with a very satisfying balance of iambic and trochaic pulses, sparingly leavened with unstressed polysyllables (it reads well aloud). It also distils frequently into compact phrases of surprising resonance and power. Here is the seven-year-old Túrin in conversation with the family servant Sador and trying to come to terms with the death (from sickness) of his beloved little sister Lalaith:

    'Then Lalaith will not come back?' said Túrin. 'Where has she gone?'
    'She will not come back,' said Sador. 'But where she has gone no man knows; or I do not.'
    'Has it always been so? Or do we suffer some curse of the wicked King, perhaps, like the Evil Breath?'
    'I do not know. A darkness lies behind us and out of it few tales have come ... it may be that we fled from the fear of the Dark, only to find it here before us, and nowhere else to fly to but the Sea.'
    'We are not afraid any longer,' said Túrin, 'not all of us. My father is not afraid, and I will not be; or at least, as my mother, I will be afraid and not show it.'
    It seemed then to Sador that Túrin's eyes were not the eyes of a child, and he thought: 'Grief is a hone to a hard mind.
' (p.43)

That last eight-word phrase has a poetic feel in part because the unfamiliar formality and alliteration of Tolkien's style provides us with some of the estrangement that poetry does; and partly because its rhythm (two dactyls and a spondee) make it sound like the second half of a Homeric hexameter. It's appropriate, too, encapsulating in little the theme of the novel as a whole; the way a heroic temper such as Túrin's responds to continual hardship and grief by becoming harder and more edged. Which is a roundabout way of saying that Tolkien was a very skilled writer of this sort of prose.

The Children of Húrin is set in Tolkien's First Age, thousands of years before the events of the Third-Age Lord of the Rings. There are no hobbits, wizards, ents, or Tom Bombadils. There are, however, elves, men, and orcs—lots of the latter. Sauron is mentioned in passing, because at this point in Tolkien's imaginary history Sauron is only the lieutenant of a far greater evil: Morgoth, or Melkor, a character who is, essentially, Satan himself. Húrin, a man from Mithrim, takes part in the battle of Nirnaeth Arnoediad, in which elves and men confront Morgoth's hordes. The bad guys win. Captured by Morgoth, Húrin's family is cursed, and then he is tormented by being placed in a magic chair that preserves him from death and compels him to watch as this curse works its malign influence upon his wife, son, and daughter. This takes us up to chapter 3 (of 18). Most of the rest of this book is given over to Húrin's son Túrin, and a little bit to his daughter Niënor.

In the two paragraphs below I outline the story, with many spoilers; but I have fewer qualms about this than I otherwise might because the story will already be familiar to many people. For one thing, it has appeared in print before: Tolkienist Michael Drout (at his blog Wormtalk and Slugspeak) tabulates previous publications:

    1977 in The Silmarillion as "Of Túrin Turambar" (prose)
    1980 in Unfinished Tales as "Narn i Hîn Húrin" (prose)
    1984 in The Book of Lost Tales, Part II as "Turambar and the Foalókë" and "The Nauglafring" (prose)
    1985 in The Lays of Beleriand as "The Lay of the Children of Húrin" (verse in alliterative long-lines)
    1994 in The War of the Jewels as "The Wanderings of Húrin" (prose)

For another, the story itself is an amalgamation of a number of celebrated mythic precedents: one is the story of Kullervo from the Finnish epic Kalevala; the other is Siegfried from the Nibelungen epic. But where the familiarity of Rothfuss's story registers as belatedness and tiredness, the familiarity of Tolkien's gives it the resonance and inevitability of myth.

The book traces the increasingly terrible lives of Húrin's children under the withering curse of Morgoth. Son Túrin is high-minded, noble, taciturn, and darkly charismatic. Daughter Niënor is a much less successful piece of characterisation, little more than a passive beauty (it's almost as if Tolkien can't do women...). Túrin flees his northern home and takes refuge for a time with the elves, who love him; but his haughty manner and his disinclination to speak up for himself leads to him being—unjustly—banished. Armed with a terrible and magical black sword, he takes up with some outlaws, leads men, becomes a prince of the hidden city of Nargothrond, and finally—in some very powerful chapters given added heft by the sheer density and momentum Tolkien's focussed prose accumulates as it goes along—fights and kills the terrible dragon Glaurung.

But Túrin's destiny is consistently infelicitous. His pride contributes to the fall of the city he is sworn to defend; he accidentally kills his best friend; and later he inadvertently marries and impregnates his sister who, when she learns what has happened, drowns herself in a river. At various moments in the narrative Túrin comprehends what he has done, and is driven from his wits; but he recovers them, propelled as he is by the ferocity of his will to revenge. But after this last incestuous transgression has been revealed to him by the dying Glaurung, he finally gives up.

    Then he drew forth his sword, and said: 'Hail, Gurthang, iron of death, you alone now remain! But what lord or loyalty do you know, save the hand that wields you? From no blood will you shrink. Will you take Túrin Turambar? Will you slay me swiftly?'
    And from the blade rang a cold voice in answer: 'Yes, I will drink your blood, that I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir [Túrin's best friend] slain unjustly. I will slay you swiftly.'
    Then Túrin set the hilts upon the ground, and cast himself upon the point of Gurthang, and the black blade took his life.
(p.256)

This is based on Kullervo's suicide, also preceded by a conversation with his magical sword. Moorcock's Elric is only one of many contemporary fantasy variants of this venerable notion.

The Children of Húrin is relatively short; novella length, although published here in a thoroughly gorgeous volume (lovely paper, beautiful typeface generously spaced, a fold-out two-tone map, and eight handsome full-colour illustrations from Alan Lee) that has been plumped-up with a preface, introduction, note on pronunciation, family trees, and a couple of appendices. I knew the story before I picked it up, but I read it nevertheless with enormous and unexpected pleasure. It commanded my full attention and it generated the emotional charge of a much longer novel. It is a tragedy, not in the Aristotelian sense (for there is precious little catharsis here) but in the northern-European sense of humans encountering an overwhelming fate with defiance. And that is at the heart of Tolkien's conception of heroism; precisely not achievement, but a particular and noble-hearted encounter with failure; not how you triumph, but the spirit with which you resist the fate you know to be unavoidable.

The question is whether Tolkien's style here is accessible enough to attract the sort of readership likely to enjoy Rothfuss's more calculated blandness of tone. Or to put it another way: what must a writer of Fantasy do to reach the many Fantasy fans whose potential enjoyment of (say) Njal's Saga or Chrétien de Troyes is blocked by the works' archaic style? How to make a bridge between our modern sensibilities and the medieval matter? Rothfuss's solution, for good and ill, and mostly for ill, is simply to write the pre-modern as if it is modern. In The Silmarillion Tolkien was widely criticised for writing his antique matter in an unadorned antique style ("like the Old Testament," reviewers complained; although actually it is rather unlike the Bible in tone and much more like the northern Sagas). Plenty of ordinary readers couldn't stomach it, although Old English specialists and medievalists, who are used to reading this kind of thing, usually speak of the book in much warmer terms.

The Lord of the Rings was amongst other things one attempt at a solution to this problem, constructed by braiding together modern perspectives (the cosy bourgeois hobbits) and pre-modern (the medieval Gondor, the Old English Rohan), not only in terms of story but style—the hobbit chapters are of course written with a kind of early-20th-century contemporaneity of narratorial voice, where the later sequences inhabit a more antiquated and high-flown idiom, full of inversions, dated vocabulary, invocative and rhetorical stiffness, although at the same time rather splendid and suitably heroic.

But it's surprising how few writers have attempted to imitate Tolkien's stylistic strategy in this, although of course they have stolen plenty of other things from his writing. There are other ways of tackling this problem: for instance, rather than sacrifice a modern style many Fantasy writers have given up the medieval setting: there's clearly no problem with using a 19th-century novelistic voice to describe a basically 19th-century world, as in the work of Ian MacLeod and China Miéville. But though vibrant this remains, I suppose, a minor part of the market for Fantasy; Wollheim pitches her "Dear Bookseller" letter at a climate she knows is still hungry for Heroic Fantasy.

Heroic Fantasy, we know, takes as its setting a pre-industrial world, in which some of the conveniences accorded to modern humanity by machines fall within the purview of magic, whilst others are dispensed with altogether. The former strategy enables escapist fantasy about the empowerment of magical skill; but the latter strategy also enables escapism, by giving the readers access to an earthier, more authentic, more empowered, more physical existence than they have as pale wageslaves snagged in the webs of Civilisation And Its Discontents.

Now, the standard defence of escapism goes something like this: "what's wrong with escapism? Who is it that opposes escape? Jailers!" It's an incomplete logic, although there is a grit of truth in it. If you are a parent, and your teenage child spends eight hours a day upon their bed in heroin-induced lassitude as a strategy for escaping the anomie of modern teenagerdom, you don't need the soul of a jailer to want him, her, to stop. Art is about modes of engagement with the world, not modes of avoiding it. The key thing is that some forms of engagement are liberating, and others enslaving; and simple "distraction" falls under the logic of the latter.

Escapism isn't a very good word, actually, for the positive psychological qualities its defenders want to defend; it's less a question of breaking one's bars and running away (running whither, we might ask?); it's more about keeping alive the facility for imaginative play, that faculty that only a fool would deny is core to any healthy psychological makeup. Kids are good at play, and have an unexamined wisdom about it; adults, sometimes, forget how vital it is. What's wrong with Art that insists too severely on pressing people's faces against the miseries of actual existence is not that we shouldn't have to confront Darfur or Iraq, poverty or oppression; it's that such art rarely gives us the imaginative wiggle room to think of how things might be improved, or challenged, or even accepted. Imaginative wiggle room, on the other hand, is something SF/Fantasy is very good at.

An art that simply depresses is liable to be an ineffective art because it will tend, by putting people off, to disable rather than enable imaginative engagement. But even more depressing than reading Celan on the Holocaust is reading the blithe, upbeat, escapist holocaust-fiction of (say) the Left Behind series. I am not, in this review, saying that Tolkien is simply a better writer than Rothfuss; although, as it happens, I think he is. But Rothfuss is certainly an accomplished storyteller; it's just that he has not thought-through the implications of writing Heroic Fantasy in the way Tolkien did.

The irony is that the readers who read Fantasy because they want the uplift of a heroism with which they can identify—and who believe that heroism has no place in the modern world—are actually reading about precisely modern heroes. Kvothe, an individual who overcomes various life obstacles to triumph has plenty in common with Lance Armstrong or that guy in The Pursuit of Happyness. His is a didactic and a feel-good heroism. Túrin, on the other hand, is an individual who fights against a doom greater than he, despite knowing that he cannot win, simply because defiance in the teeth of an inevitable doom is the strength given to humans. His world—where triumph and glory are localised and temporary, and always give way to subsequent defeat—is in the deepest sense our world. That is what it means to be mortal. We are all going to die; it's demeaning to waste our energy in schemes or fantasies that tell us otherwise. What matters, as with Túrin, is the character with which we face that annihilation. Of the two heroisms presented by these books, his is the greater; and the most relevant.

Copyright © 2007 Adam Roberts
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #32 on: 19-02-2011, 02:20:00 »
Paul Charles Smith
On Moral (Fantasy) Fiction


There is an article causing another uproar in the blogosphere, I’m sure you’ve all read it or heard about it by now, and I’m not going to waste my time responding. I’ll happily talk with anyone the merits of the Gardner/Gass discussion, but we aren’t really talking about the value of nihilistic art, so it is pointless. It did, however, lead to an interesting conversation on twitter this afternoon that got me thinking about how far fantasy has really come since Tolkien, and I wanted to think about it a little out loud, so bear with me.

The charge of nihilism is ridiculous because fantasy, especially epic fantasy (whether high or low), remains essentially moral fiction. Even when the protagonists are violent and self-serving, they are considered anti-heroes, ergo they still exist inside the sphere of morality, they are just on the other end of it than more heroic characters. If these novels were truly nihilistic, like McCarthy’s brilliant Blood Meridian, these sort of moral pronouncements would never come into play. In nihilism there can be no right or wrong because nothing can ever be known, therefore it follows that there can be no heroes or anti-heroes, just characters committing acts that have no value. In McCarthy’s world, we cannot even proclaim the monstrous Judge Holden a villain, because the parameters of the novel do not allow it. These gritty fantasy novels may be as far removed from Tolkien in terms of morality as Lolita is from Jane Eyre, but they still exist in the same moral universe.

What also struck me when discussing it earlier is how they also seem to hold to a belief in the same relationship between aesthetics and morality that Tolkien does, albeit in a different way. As Keats famously wrote in Ode on a Grecian Urn, beauty is  truth, truth beauty, and while there are exceptions, The Lord of the Rings mostly conforms to the idea that that which is beautiful is good, and that which is ugly is evil. The elves, even if their time is passing, possess a beauty that flawed man can never match and remain as a reminder of a golden age, while on the other side, evil is the ugliness of orcs, goblins, Shelob and co. As far back as the Greeks, Aristotle was able to differentiate between the good and beauty, but the two have become entwined to form a trope in fantasy that while can be subverted cleverly, often isn’t. Moorcock subverts it sublimely in Elric with the cruelty of the Melniborneans, which as my friend Jonathan remarked only seem to become more amoral the more beautiful they are. Elric, the best of them in the moral sense, as an albino and sickly is ugly by their standards. Gritty fantasies, on the other hand, aren’t subverting it though, they are embracing it. The uglier characters, the dirty cities, etc. again they are just coming at the same thing from a different angle.   

So while the original article may have been a poorly written lament by a person upset that the genre has moved on from his heroes in a way that he doesn’t like, I still think there is room here to have a serious discussion about whether it really has. No judgement either way, there are good low fantasy novels just as there are bad ones (and I’m sure there are some exceptions to the things I have mentioned), but it seems to me epic fantasy is just as moral as it has always been.
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #33 on: 19-02-2011, 02:20:37 »
On Moral (Fantasy) Fiction II

I still had ideas about morality in fantasy bounding around in my head earlier today when the always erudite Adam Roberts linked to a review he had written back in 2007 contrasting Patrick Rothfuss’ debut, The Name of the Wind against Tolkien’s The Children of Húrin. Some of the points that he makes in the article, as well as some later discussion got me wondering about the genre as a whole, so again I will ask you to bear with me as I think out loud.

The genre is called epic or heroic fantasy, for the most part the two are interchangeable. What this suggests to me, and I would argue, is that there exists a tangible link between this sort of genre fantasy and the classical world. If The Lord of the Rings is the Ur-text of this type of fantasy, it proves the point in that it is impossible to separate Tolkien’s novel from the philological source material that inspired it. While Tolkien was inspired by the sagas and the Eddas, I’m going to instead talk about the heroic age, because I am more comfortable doing so, and I believe that the same points are relevant. It seems to me, and through dialogue I hope to show, that there is one fundamental difference between the classical world and genre fantasy, which in turn unites modern epic fantasy in the same moral sphere.

Yesterday I stated, rather emphatically, that epic fantasy is essentially moral. The literature of the Greeks, however, has a very different causal connection when it comes to the climax of the tale. While, as Roberts points out in his review, epic fantasy rarely engages in catharsis, there still seems to me something quite important here. Aristotle, in the Poetics, talks very briefly about hamartia (ἁμαρτία), the tragic flaw that is the primum movens of the tragedy. The vagueness of Aristotle in this area has lead to a lot of speculation by modern critics, some of whom have tried to assign moral weight to the term so that the flaw is a moral one. The  evidence from the sources proves this is just not so, as Dawe rightly points out in Some Reflections on Ate and Hamartia, of all the tragedies, only Women of Trachis‘ tragedy can be argued to be the result of an error of judgment. We can no more  blame Oedipus for the death of his father in Oedipus Rex than we can blame Philoctetes for becoming ill in Sophocles’ play of the same name. What we can take from this, and what Tolkien does well when he is in his tragic mode, is that the role of fate was very different in the classical world that it is in modern genre fantasy. There is no chosen one, to be subjected to a fate is to be subjected to the whim of fickle gods, who send men to their deaths deserving or undeserving. The gods are just as likely to curse an individual for his hubris as they are for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Recall the double edge sword of the fate offered to Achilles, a short life of glory or a long life of no consequence. These characters are, just as the Greeks saw themselves, essentially pawns of the gods, and certainly did not consider themselves autonomous moral agents. Also important was the relationship between fate and irony, fate was absolute and any attempts to escape it only caused the trap to tighten around its flailing victim. Oedipus too thought himself free from the curse of the house of Thebes, but we all remember that sobering chorus that closes the play, count no mortal happy till he has passed the final limit of his life secure from pain (in the classic Lattimore).   

There are certainly similar occurrences in the Norse myth that inspired Tolkien, Sigurðr’s inadvertent incest, for example, or the inability of the Æsir to escape their own fate, even though it is known to them. As Roberts rightly points out in his review of Children of Húrin, the Norns may have already set your fate, but it is standing in opposition to that fate that is important, not whether you defeat it. Ragnarök may be the end of the gods, but the gods will still fight regardless. When Tolkien is at his best, as he is in Children of Húrin and in parts of The Silmarillion, the fate of men (or elves, or dwarves) remains external from them, but this certainly isn’t the case in The Lord of the Rings, where moral agency shifts onto the individual, making him responsible when measuring himself against an external moral system, in this case Tolkien’s often maligned good and evil. Perhaps the genesis of that problem can be seen in Children of Húrin, in which a reader with some experience with philology wonders why such a cruel fate, usually the whim of fickle gods, can befall Túrin Turambar when Eru Ilúvatar is a benevolent creator.

There is a discrepancy here between Tolkien in the tragic mode and the Tolkien of The Lord of the Rings, just as there is between the classical sources and epic fantasy. It can be seen in the Nietzschean sense as a shift from shame culture to guilt culture. For those unfamiliar with the terms, a shame culture is one like that of the Greeks, where external forces are responsible for misfortune, while a guilt culture is one where the individual is to blame. Just as we see a shift in society between the two, we can see the same shift in Tolkien. The result of this is what Nietzsche refers to in The Genealogy of Morality as slave morality. To quote (Kaufmann translation),

Whereas all noble morality grows out of a triumphant affirmation of oneself, slave morality immediately says No to what comes from outside, to what is different, to what is not oneself: and this No is its creative deed. This reversal of the value-positing glance – this necessary direction outward instead of back to oneself – is the nature of ressentiment: to come  into being, slave morality requires an outside world, a counterworld; physiologically speaking, it requires external stimuli in order to react at all: its action is at bottom always a reaction… imagine “the enemy” as conceived by a man of ressentiment – and here precisely is his dead, his creation: he has conceived “the evil enemy,” “the evil one” – and indeed as the fundamental concept from which he then derives, as an afterimage and counterinstance, a “good one” – himself.   

There is an argument to be made that is certainly worth exploring in that through The Lord of the Rings Tolkien appropriates the classical age in order to see it through the lens of guilt culture, the result of which is slave morality. Nietzsche argues that in slave morality the aim is subversion, not to seek to rise about the master but instead to pull him down to your level. Sauron, in the Nietzschean sense, is a master, as a strong willed individual who refuses to be bound by morality, and one can certainly see that he possesses Der Wille zur Macht, while the fellowship seeks to thwart that, and in turn make him a slave. One could also accuse this worldview of what Nietzsche refers to as Amor fati, the love of fate, in which the individual comes to accept the suffering and loss he or she experiences as necessary. Where Túrin railed against his fate, Frodo, Aragon and co. seem to fall in line under some form of deontology, the journey to Mount Doom will be long and hard, but it has to be done and that is that.

 Despite his other work, The Lord of the Rings remains Tolkien’s most influential, as well as the most influential epic fantasy novel in history,  and perhaps his lasting contribution to the genre is to marry the classical sources to guilt culture, resulting in slave morality. If this is the case, then this is the ethical sphere in which they all operate, far removed from that of the classical sources. Those novels that look to the sagas for inspiration instead of Tolkien, like Anderson’s The Broken Sword and Moorcock’s Elric are very different beasts, as are Tolkien’s works in the tragic mode. What cannot be denied though is that there is definitely a shift in register between the heroes of myth and those of epic fantasy despite their common ties, and I find this quite fascinating myself.
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

analogdigit

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 285
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #34 on: 18-03-2011, 22:29:31 »
Nekako mi se ova tema učinila najpogodnijom za postavljanje ove slike....
Radi se o grafičkom prikazu "Istorije SF-a". Meni je bilo zanimljivo, može svašta da se nađe, pa rekoh da podelim sa ostalima.



Uf, ovako se ništa ne vidi, evo linka:

babilkulesi.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/wardshelley_scifiSmaller.jpg

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #35 on: 18-03-2011, 22:43:35 »
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

analogdigit

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 285
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #36 on: 18-03-2011, 22:49:44 »
 xrotaeye

Bobane, znaš šta ti je činiti! -> xuss

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #37 on: 18-03-2011, 22:50:37 »
Zasto bi te Boban upucao?

"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 44.847
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #38 on: 18-03-2011, 22:52:08 »
...kad je ovde Melkor zadužen za političke atentate.

analogdigit

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 285
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #39 on: 18-03-2011, 22:56:56 »
Zasto bi te Boban upucao?
Ma mislio sam da upuca ovaj post odozgore.... :)

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #40 on: 18-03-2011, 22:58:14 »
Ma jok. Neće se baci.
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #41 on: 18-03-2011, 23:06:46 »
Kad sam ja bio politicki orijentisan, vise sam u Deadpoolovom fazonu :)
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #42 on: 15-10-2011, 23:40:13 »
   By Kelly Faircloth                              Oct 15, 2011  1:00 PM            1,460       4                         
          
Forget why fantasy matters. Why does realism matter?

 Last week, as part of their month-long celebration of Ursula K. LeGuin's Wizard of Earthsea, Manhattan's Center for Fiction gathered four fantasists, including Naomi Novik and Lev Grossman, to explain why fantasy matters.


Despite the panel's name, none of the speakers Lev Grossman (The Magician King), Naomi Novik (the Temeraire series), Kelly Link (Pretty Monsters), and Felix Gilman (The Half-Made World) — at the Center for Fiction's "Why Fantasy Matters" really seemed to feel the genre needed a defense. Instead, the conversation evolved into something more interesting: An examination of the ways fantasy can explore what realism can't.


To get things started, moderator Joan Walsh, tackling the panel's subject matter from a different angle, asked why fantasy might not matter. Lev Grossman cited the resistance he sometimes faced as Time's book critic, as he tried to incorporate more fantasy into the magazine: People often charged that these works are escapism, merely a way for people to avoid reality. His response to that attitude:


"In fact, the fantastical worlds that are depicted in these books are not fantasies in a psychological sense, where you can have whatever you want. These are worlds where the problems are very real and you're encountering problems that are recognizable from the real world in a transfigured form." He added that Westeros, for example, is not a place you'd want to escape into. Here Naomi Novik jumped in to add that, "They can be used to give you distance from where you actually are, from the topic that you want to slip in there for your readers." That distance, Grossman concluded, can give you "traction on real issues and real problems."


As the panel's resident surrealist, Kelly Link pointed to not just the symbolic possibilities, but how the tension between reality and fantasy can create a text that's richer than something that's more straightforward:
 
"One of the things about working with fantasy or surreal or even satirical or super-real material is you are creating a narrative in which there is never just a single reading. There's always another level moving around below the surface. You have these two levels, which are there also in realistic fiction but are not quite as fluid. It's more possible to get a number of different readings into a work in which there are things which may be stand-ins for whatever the reader or the author wants to put in there."
 
In fact, she values the bewilderment that fantasy offers: "I don't like work where I understand everything that's going on, where I think, ‘Yes, this is right, this all maps onto my experience.' I actually want something that makes me think about things in a different way."
Grossman chimed in:
 
"When you're writing fantasy this wonderful thing happens, which is everybody knows about reality. We all know what would really happen. Then your playing with reality. You're breaking its rules. So there's this wonderful sense in which you are harmonizing with reality. Everybody knows the reality and then you're doing a kind of melody line above reality."
 
A conversation about world-building turned into a lively discussion of how the meanings of fantasy tropes have shifted over time. Grossman said:
 
"I think a lot about the fact that, for most of the history of literature that we know about, most literature was fantasy. Up through Shakespeare, it was not looked askance upon to have witches and magic and spirits in your stuff. The more time I spend reading and writing fantasy, the more perverse it seems to me that fiction has to pretend to act like the real world and obey the laws of thermodynamics."
 
Novik, on the other hand, had an immediate counter-point, which is that what we now consider mere folklore was, at the time, taken as literal truth: "At the time, though, they believed witches were real. Right? So you could say Shakespeare was trying to write realistically."
Grossman conceded she was right — but added perhaps the most interesting remark of the whole talk, which is that he finds himself asking, "Why does realism matter?"
Felix Gilman offered another take:
 
"There's something satisfying and emotionally valuable about something which is deliberately not rational, not fully understood. Which doesn't necessarily have to fit into the tropes of the fantasy genre, but the fantasy genre is a form of sticking a finger up at completely rational view of the world."
 
Ultimately, Novik brought the panel full circle, explaining why she reads almost exclusively fantasy at this point and suggesting that fantasy's not-realness makes, quite simply, for a more engaging story:
 
"The key for me is a sense of wonder, a sense something that I don't expect might happen at any moment, a sense that I haven't been told all the rules of the universe that I'm in and I'm getting to discover them and that allows me to engage with the text."
 
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #43 on: 18-10-2011, 13:45:42 »
 What the Booker prize really excludes China Miéville has conjured a new way of construing the over-familiar SF vs literary fiction debate
   
  • Sarah Crown
  • guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 October 2011 17.56 BST 
  • Article history
  •   China Miéville height=276 Estranger … China Miéville. Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian 
  • I was up in Cheltenham this weekend at the Literature festival, where I chaired several events – including one with SF legend Brian Aldiss, still going strong at 86, and calling to mind in voice and appearance a benign, left-wing John Cleese. When asked by an audience member why he'd tackled the subject of state-endorsed torture in his 2007 novel, Harm, he explained the novel's political charge on the grounds that "I really do believe that the people in charge at the minute are  - well, shits". Amen to that.
    Anyway, my final event on Saturday was with SF-legend-in-the-making China Miéville, to discuss his latest novel, Embassytown. We talked about the novel for about half an hour (read it: it's excellent) before the conversation veered onto the evergreen territory of the Booker prize's wilful neglect of science fiction. It's a  well-rehearsed argument (I went to an event at Cheltenham last year in which  Miéville and John Mullan squared off entertainingly over it), but we ran down the familiar points: SF novels are generally sold not on their literary credentials but on the ideas they explore; the Booker is a genre (litfic) award itself, but just doesn't admit it; SF novels DO make it onto Booker shortlists (Never Let Me Go, Oryx and Crake) but once shortlisted they're not called science fiction any more (cf Kingsley Amis's oft-quoted distich: "'SF's no good!' they bellow till we're deaf./ 'But this looks good … ' 'Well, then, it's not SF!'").
    It's an endlessly fascinating subject, and the conversation was particularly timely, given the widely-acknowledged paucity of this year's Booker shortlist - but we didn't really break new ground until a few minutes before the end of the event, when Miéville made a point that I found so interesting I wanted to disseminate it further. The real schism, he suggested, lies not between "litfic" and fantasy/SF, but between "the literature of recognition versus that of estrangement". The Booker, he said,

    and the tradition of, if you like, 'mainstream literary fiction' of which it's the most celebrated local jamboree, has tended strongly to celebrate the former over the latter. There's an obvious relation with realist versus non-realist work (thinking on these lines might help map links between the pulpiest SF and more celebrated Surrealist and avant-garde work), though the distinction maps only imperfectly across the generic divide. All fiction contains elements of both drives (to different degrees, and variably skilfully). That very fact might be one way of getting at the drab disappointment of, on the one hand, the cliches of some fantasy and the twee and clunking allegories of middlebrow 'literary' magic realism (faux estrangement, none-more-mollycoddling recognition), and on the other at those utterly fascinating texts which contain not a single impossible element, and yet which read as if they were, somehow, fantastic (Jane Eyre, Moby-Dick, etc).  Great stuff can doubtless be written from both perspectives. But I won't duck the fact that at its best, I think there is something more powerful, ambitious, intriguing and radical about the road recently less feted. I'd rather be estranged than recognise.
    It's a fascinating distinction, and one that also has the neat effect of moving the debate on from the contentious territory of the SF/litfic turfwar into that of value-neutral literary theory. As Miéville says, there is nothing inherently superior about recognition or estrangement, but given that the literature which the Booker traditionally rewards tends to be of the "ah, yes!" variety rather than what we might term the "oh, my" sort, does it not seem reasonable that we give long-overdue space to the latter?
     
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #44 on: 18-10-2011, 14:39:09 »
Jesi čitao Atvudovu u Gardianu?
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #45 on: 18-10-2011, 14:54:21 »
Naravno. Usul je otvorio i posebni topik, mada bi mogli i to ovamo da prebacimo.

tapa...tapa...talk
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #46 on: 18-10-2011, 15:11:25 »
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/oct/14/margaret-atwood-road-to-ustopia

Iskreno, nisam izdržao da iščitam preko trenutka kad uvede Ustopiju
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #47 on: 18-10-2011, 15:18:43 »
Zato treba procitati i onaj komentar koji sam linkocao :-)

tapa...tapa...talk
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #48 on: 20-10-2011, 23:02:02 »

  • and the tradition of, if you like, 'mainstream literary fiction' of which it's the most celebrated local jamboree, has tended strongly to celebrate the former over the latter. There's an obvious relation with realist versus non-realist work (thinking on these lines might help map links between the pulpiest SF and more celebrated Surrealist and avant-garde work), though the distinction maps only imperfectly across the generic divide. All fiction contains elements of both drives (to different degrees, and variably skilfully). That very fact might be one way of getting at the drab disappointment of, on the one hand, the cliches of some fantasy and the twee and clunking allegories of middlebrow 'literary' magic realism (faux estrangement, none-more-mollycoddling recognition), and on the other at those utterly fascinating texts which contain not a single impossible element, and yet which read as if they were, somehow, fantastic (Jane Eyre, Moby-Dick, etc).  Great stuff can doubtless be written from both perspectives. But I won't duck the fact that at its best, I think there is something more powerful, ambitious, intriguing and radical about the road recently less feted. I'd rather be estranged than recognis
    e[/l][/l]

 The Booker Prize, “Fantasy,” and “Mainstream” 
   
   
  • Jeff VanderMeer • October 19th, 2011
  • An interesting discussion here, based on this quote from China Mieville. I understand why this is a new concept to the interviewer—referencing “those utterly fascinating texts which contain not a single impossible element, and yet which read as if they were, somehow, fantastic”—but it’s not a new concept in the larger scheme of things (nor do I think China’s presenting it as such).
    As I commented:
    “It’s an important point China is making, but while it may be new to the interviewer, it’s not a new concept. It’s an argument I’ve been making, along with several other writers, for decades. It’s also something John Clute has explored to some extent in his criticism, and I think literary journals like Conjunctions have also explored it. The fact is, there are fantasy novelists who read like realists and supposedly mimetic novelists whose world view and approach make them read like fabulists. The importance of stressing this similarity/difference is that it gets us away from using the terminology of commodificaition of fiction and what are often just marketing terms that reflect “accidents of birth.” If you’re a Kafkaesque writer from Eastern Europe, you’re likely to be published in the mainstream. If you’re a US writer like Michael Cisco, you’re likely to be published through genre imprints. These arbitrary issues and contexts don’t really tell us much about the works themselves, or their complexities and contradictions…which is why “genre” vs “mainstream” is so pointless.”
    I recognize I may be riffing off of only part of China’s quote, but it’s the part that most interests me and is most irritating in terms of how people tend to compartmentalize literature.
    I was just revisiting this, taking a piece of the fantasy lecture I’ve been delivering since the late 1990s, and expanding on it for the Inspiration chapter in the writing book I’m working on for Abrams Image:
    “But, conversely, does it really matter if the imaginative impulse results in the  ‘fantastical’ in the sense of ‘containing an explicit fantastical event?’ Is it something a writer should worry about definitionally or practically? No. For a certain kind of writer a sense of fantastical play will always exist on the page. This is often what we really mean by the voice of the writer. Talking bears have moved in next door. Does the reality of whether they actually have matter more than the quality of the metaphor? Perhaps not. Consider Mark Helprin’s A Winter’s Tale and his World War I novel A Soldier of the Great War. A Winter’s Tale includes a winged horse and other fantastical flourishes. A Soldier of the Great War contains no fantastical elements, and yet in its descriptions, its voice, Helprin’s animating imagination behind the story, this novel also reads as invested in the fantastical. The writer Rikki Ducornet can write as lyrically phantasmagorical a novel as Phosphor in Dreamland and an as intense yet fiercely realistic story collection as The Word Desire…and yet they exist in the same country, perhaps even come from the same area of that country. This is the power of one type of unusual imagination.”
    The writing book is still in rough draft form, but it’s forcing me to close in on more precise terminology and an expansion of the idea, so we’ll see where it ends up in a couple of months…
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #49 on: 21-10-2011, 18:50:51 »
Adam Roberts
On Awards   
:1:
 So the 2011 Awards season is almost over. ‘Hello adam,’ commented the almost-certainly-not-a-spambot “goals” yesterday: ‘some words about the booker prize?’ What was it Hamlet said? Words, words, words. There's no shortage of them.  In sooth, to switch plays, I know not why I am so unmoved by the Man Booker this year. Most years I read the entire shortlist.  This year – not a one. Couldn’t muster the interest. I suppose I will read Barnes’s winning title, Sense of an N-Dubz, at some point. At the moment, having sat in one of those comfy chairs in a bookshop for half an hour browsing a copy, I can say: it looks slight, not merely in terms of length: well-written but essayistic. Maybe it is the single best novel published this year. Maybe not. More likely, I think, is that this award represents recognition for Barnes’s whole career, a sort of long service medal. The Booker has form for this: nobody would nowadays place 1998’s Amsterdam amongst McEwan’s best or even better books; it certainly wasn’t the best novel published in 1998. Similarly, by all accounts (and by ‘by all accounts’ I mean: according to something I read when I used to teach a course on the prize, but which I can’t locate at the moment) the judges were upfront that giving the prize to 2000’s The Blind Assassin, one of Margaret Atwood’s stodgier books, had more to do with her larger reputation than the novel itself. And giving last year’s prize to Howard Jacobson for the actively bad The Finkler Question (the worst book on that year’s shortlist, never mind questions of larger merit) was surely motivated by a sense of: ‘it’s about time we gave some formal recognition to Jacobson’ than anything else. It may look, from inside the judges’ eyrie, a safer bet: at least nobody can deny that Barnes and Atwood are writers of stature.  In those years when the prize has tried to live by the good-wine-needs-no-bush mantra it as often as not goes embarrassingly wrong, rewarding lightweight, mediocre novels by newcomers like The White Tiger or Vernon God Little (this latter surely the most meager work of fiction ever to win a major prize). Still, it’s a letdown when weak novels win prizes, whatever the reason.
 
 I'm more interested, personally, in SFF award-dom; which, this year, has been all a-kerfuffle.  The 2011 British Fantasy Award collapsed in ignominy and recrimination, and is now being painstakingly rebuilt from the ground up. In another part of the forest, the 2011 Hugo went to two Connie Willis books that (taken together or separately) were, or are, not especially good. This wasn’t a catastrophic award—like the year the Campbell went to Ben Bova’s exercrable Titan (again, I presume, for reasons of long service to SF: it would be more than sane mind could cope with the thought that the prize was awarded for the merits of the novel itself). Having just read the Willis (I was sent it to review) I'd say it’s certainly not actively bad, in that way; but it is flabby and ill-disciplined, a bit tedious and a bit self-indulgent.  And, really, it isn't the best non-realist novel in the world.
 
 I’ll come back to the Hugos in a minute, but I want to pause for a moment to say something about prizes more generally. The on-going British Fantasy Society kerfuffling is largely centred on reforming the voting protocols. It’s clear why that's so, and it’s a commendable thing; but it’s not, I think, at the heart of what went wrong. Similarly, when people criticize the Hugo awards, they are sometimes accused of criticizing the people who voted for the Hugo awards—the logic seems clear, there, but it’s misleading. When an award-winning novel is greeted with anything other than unanimous rapture, the canard is brought out of its canard sheath and waved about: taste is subjective. If I say that Ben Bova’s Titan is a bad book and somebody else thinks it was the best novel published in 2007, then perhaps our dissonant opinions represent a Lyotardian differend that can never be reconciled.  Live and let live.  Bollocks to that.
 
 Now, aesthetic judgment is not an exact science, and sometimes the toss can genuinely be argued. But here’s the elephant in the room: the most contentious decisions, award-wise, are usually the ones where the wrong book is given the prize. As to what the ‘right’ book is, in any given situation: well, there will be a number of possibles. But too often the book that is chosen is not one of these.
 
 This very rarely (if at all) happens, I think, for reasons of corruption or delinquency, certainly in SFF, where fans really do care about their genre. But it does happen nonetheless, and for a number of reasons. Fandom tends to distort distinterested objective judgment: when an author of whom one is a fan puts out a sub-par book, the fact that one is a fan of that author can lead one to an inflated assessment of the book’s merits. Tribal allegiance makes this worse, bedded-in by the mild siege mentality that is (we can be honest) precisely one of the appeals of being a genre fan—for when the ‘mainstream literary culture’ flies over us like the Luftwaffe, we inside the urbs of Truefandom can generate a really excellent Blitz spirit, as many a jolly con attests.
 
 Let me put it another way. Giving a prize to a novel is, in effect, trying to second-guess posterity. If I say ‘this book is great’ I may be talking about my idiosyncratic taste. If I say 'Dune is a classic of postwar American SF' I'm not. Indeed, if we look at the result of the 1966 Hugo -- joint winners Frank Herbert's Dune and Roger Zelazny's ...And Call Me Conrad, it is no disparagement of Zelazny (a very interesting writer, who has written several enduring novels) to say: one of those books has been endorsed by posterity in a way that the other hasn't. And this is the nub of my point: what matters about an award is not how it arrives at its decision.  What matters is the extent to which its decision is posterity-proof.
 
 And actually, I'd say SFF has proven itself pretty sound when judged by that criterion. We might, I suppose, look back and think ‘well, broadly speaking I’d say Phil Dick (say) should probably have won more awards, and Robert J Sawyer (say) fewer’, but scrolling down the lists of Hugo, Nebula and Clarke winners from the last century—far enough ago for us to begin to get a sense of how posterity is settling with respect to the books’ longer term reputations—is to encounter a list of, mostly, actual classics.
 
 Two further things occur to me. One is that, as far as making one’s decision posterity proof goes, you’re generally better selecting a book by a newbie—because then the people making the decision, not having the reputation of the author to fall back on, are more likely to be guided by the actual merit of the book. China Miéville was a relative unknown ten years ago; yet his 2001 Clarke Award for Perdido Street Station was clearly the right call; and now we'd all agree it's a modern genre classic. It’s far too early to say whether posterity will endorse Lauren Beukes’ 2011 Clarke award—though I’d say there’s a good chance—but I’d much rather see the judges going with a newer writer on the merits of the novel than give the prize to one of the genre old guard on the grounds that ‘it’s about time so-and-so won a prize'. The other thing that occurs to me is this: I wonder if popular votes, rather than juried awards, actually have a slightly better posterity-convergence than juried awards. It’s hard to demonstrate this, statistically; although the wisdom of crowds—assuming one believes in such a thing—might lead one to expect it. In the 80s the Clarke went to books like George Turner’s The Sea and the Summer and Rachel Pollack’s Unquenchable Fire--good books, both, but, really, without the staying power in terms of long-term reputation of some of the BSFA Best Novel awards from the same decade (I’m thinking of Aldiss’s Helliconia books, Gene Wolfe’s Shadow of the Torturer or Holdstock’s Mythago Wood). Still, this is starting to get mushily subjective, so I’ll come back to my main point. Which is this: really, and in the longer term, ‘the process by which you arrive at your decision’ matters much less than whether or not you pick the right novel. The path by which the BFS arrived at their best novel award this year was dodgy, and that’s regrettable; but a bigger deal is putting the weight of fandom behind the idea that Demon Dance is the best non-realist novel published this year. One need not think it a bad novel to say: it’s not that.
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #50 on: 21-10-2011, 18:51:41 »
:2:
 When I was a whippersnapper, snapping my whippers and hoovering up SF, a Hugo award for best novel or best short story really did work as a bellwether.  It meant I would seek out the text in question and read it. But it's been a long time since the prize has influenced my reading like that. For some years after that I was barely even aware of the shortlists and winners. Then, in 2009 I read a sizeable portion of the Hugo shortlists. I did this because I was booked to appear on a panel about the prize, at Swecon in, er, Sweden, and wanted to be minimally prepared for the discussion. I was underwhelmed by what I read, largely speaking. Indeed, I blogged the lowness of my general whelm; a post to which some people added comments deploring what I said, and some others added comments of the 'very useful info and great post. I like it so much because it's a unique article and easy to remember for me' type. Sadly for me, the latter comments were generally from such knowledgeable and dedicated SF fans as 'penisenlargement4men' and 'Freearcadegames'. Still; who’s to say that, after the robot revolution, those won't be the blog-commentators that really count? Anyway, John Scalzi, whose followers number in the millions, responded to my post. He was classy enough to refrain from slagging me off personally (despite the fact I called his Hugo-shortlisted novel 'mediocre'), although he did don the Jeremiah mantle to assure me that criticising those fans who voted for the Hugo was biting the hand that fed me and would result in the short-order death of my career as a writer of SF. Something that has, of course, subsequently come to pass. There's more than a difference in writerly temperament at work here, I think; however much (and with what undeniable success) Scalzi has filtered his genuine wit and charm through a Mr Rogers 'I want to be your friend' idiom; and however much I have sacrificed my dignity and sales to the idol of being Johnny Rotten at the Winterland Ballroom, San Francisco, jeering at the crowd 'you ever get the feeling you've been cheated?' We all have our crazy Fitzcarraldo-type dreams, after all; and nobody is going to deny that Scalzi is a much more successful writer than I am. Indeed, after I posted that 'Hugos 2009' piece several people emailed me saying in effect 'you realise, don't you, that by posting that you've completely scuppered your chances of ever winning a Hugo yourself?' These messages surprised me very much: for this thought had literally never occurred to me -- not because I assumed Hugo voters would have saint-like powers of forgiveness, or that I have ever forgotten the truth of Auden's lines about those to whom evil is done and what they do in return. But for a more fundamental reason: because it had never occurred to me that I ever could have won a Hugo. I can go further, actually, and state without fear of contradiction: I never was going to win a Hugo. Posting negative thoughts about the prize made no difference to that. I could have posted a whole string of positive blog essays, I could have praised both Hugos winners and Hugo-voters to that place in the skies where the air goes indigo, and it would have made absolutely no difference to my chances of winning a Hugo. There are many reasons for this; and many writers (some of them far better than I) of whom it is true. Certainly I have a very low US profile; I am not (those two quantities that tip the balance in the voters' minds) well-known and well-liked amongst typical Worldcon attendees. I suppose it was a little naive assuming that this, which seemed so obvious to me, would also be obvious to people reading my post. Some accused me of being motivated by sour grapes. I can promise you; my Hugo grapes are entirely free of sour. I no more fret about my chances of winning a Hugo than I fret about my chances of winning a 2012 Olympic gold medal in the womens’ shot-put.
 
 Anyway, this year there was a lot of reaction to the Hugo announcement (Strange Horizons links to a few of these here). Some people were happy, and rather more were disappointed. My sense of it is that, broadly speaking, this year’s winners are not of a very high standard. That may strike you as a terribly condescending thing to say. John Scalzi thinks it is -- or rather, thinks that suchlike sentiments, generally speaking, are:
 
Post-Hugo Kvetching: Meh. There’s always post-Hugo kvetching, for the same reason there’s pre-Hugo kvetching, which is, people like to kvetch, and/or they have a hard time internalizing that their own tastes are not in fact an objective standard of quality. I do think there’s a core of commenters whose problem internalizing that other people have other tastes is overlaid with a more-than-mild contempt for fandom, i.e., “Oh, fandom. You’ve shown again why you can’t be trusted to pick awards, you smelly, chunky people of common tastes, you.” Fandom does what fandom does with folks like that: it ignores them, which I think is generally the correct response to such wholly unwarranted condescension. But if people want to gripe, however they want to gripe, it’s their call. Point is, yes, people are bitching about the Hugo results. When do they not?
When do they not? I didn't, last year. Actually I thought last year's Hugo results were pretty good, the tied best novel award to Mièville and Bacigalupi in particular (and I said so, in The Guardian; a venue with a rather larger readership than my blog). But that didn't register, and I'm not surprised. Negative criticism touches us in ways positive doesn't. Nevertheless, to Scalzi's two reasons for kvetching about the Hugos, 'people like to kvetch' and 'people have a hard time internalizing that their own tastes are not in fact an objective standard of quality', we are, I think, entitled to add a third: people kvetch when the books and stories winning a prize that describes them as the best in the world aren't very good. Putting such a case is neither unwarranted (on the contrary: the health of the genre depends upon it); nor is it condescending. Aesthetic criticism includes grounds for judgment that go beyond 'I like this, you like that, there's nothing more that can be said'. Damien Walter challenged Scalzi on the 'condescending' line, in a post which seems to me worth reading, not least for a comment by Jonathan McAlmont (you probably know him best from his performing days as part of 'McAlmont and Butler') which is, I think, very well put:
 
SF Fandom is an affinity group and many of its institutions were created at a time when the realities of technology, culture and geography meant that if you wanted to talk to people about written SF then you went to places like Worldcon and if you wanted to write SF you joined the SFWA. Because of this, the Hugo and Nebula awards carry a good deal of cachet.
 
 Fast forward forty years and we live in a world where it is easy to talk to other people with an interest in SF: All you need to do is set up a twitter account or a blog and away you go. Because talking about SF no longer requires these big centralising institutions, the field has fragmented into dozens of more-or-less interconnected tribes. Many of whom have never been to a Worldcon.
 
 Despite the fundamental structure of the field having changed, the concentrations of social capital in the older sections of the fan community mean that venerable awards like the Hugos and the Nebulas still carry a good deal of cachet. Cachet completely disconnected from their capacity to represent a more and more disjointed and multicultural field.
 
 The sound that Scalzi is hearing is the tiny groan emitted by every science fiction fan who looks at the Hugos and sees no connection to their experience of either the genre or the field.
 When challenged on the increasing self-marginalisation of the Hugos, defenders (such as Scalzi) speak of bitterness, condescension and jealousy but the truth is far simpler: The Hugos have made no effect to keep up with changes in the field and so they are becoming increasingly irrelevant with every passing year.
 
 The tragedy of this is that the Hugos are a social institution created before many of us were born. They were nurtured by a generation of fans and passed along to those who came after them as an act of trust. Great institutions are never owned by the generation that controls them, they are simply held in trust. By failing to update the awards, retreating behind bureaucratic barriers and shouting down anyone who complains, the current generation have done their best to destroy something that should have been held in trust for the fans of tomorrow.
 I am neither condescending nor disappointed. I am disgusted.
My gust isn't quite as dis as that. But it seems to me that there are a couple of structural pitfalls where awards are concerned. One is the move from 'eligible titles' to shortlist to winner. It's probably a necessary thing, that; it spreads the recognition around a little, and more importantly it breaks the difficult task of 'picking one novel from hundreds' into more manageable chunks. But it contains its own difficulties: for once the shortlist is decided we stop thinking 'I'm choosing the best book published this year' and start thinking 'I'm choosing the best book out of these six titles'. With that comes a relaxation, which in turn makes it easier to justify to oneself the elision that results in Julian Barnes winning the fucking Man Booker prize for a fine-brush bone-china elegant squib of a novelette -- because, I suppose, it's easier to say to oneself 'Barnes deserves it; maybe the other shortlisted titles are better, but they have at least the satisfaction of having been shortlisted so no great injustice is perpetrated by overlooking them' and 'all six shortlisted titles are great books, so there's no harm in going for any one rather than any other' and so on. You forget, in other words, that telling the world 'The Sense of an Ending is the best book published this year' is also, tacitly, telling Alan Hollinghurst, or China Miéville, or whomsoever 'comparatively speaking your book sucks'. And if you're going to do that, you'd better be sure you have a good case. My gut: both The Strangers Child and Embassytown will still be current in ten years time (who can say whether The Sense of an Annoying "Ding!" will? When I've read it, I'll report back).
 
 So, what am I saying? I'm saying that award judges, or voters, need to believe, or at least to suspend their disbelief, that it is meaningful to talk of the best book of the year -- to think not that you are making purely subjective and arbitrary decisions but on the contrary are making a worthwhile and a possible attempt at getting the drop on posterity. It can be done. And that's quite enough of the auld kvetching from me for now, I think.
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.774
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #51 on: 22-10-2011, 12:58:13 »
Dobar intervju sa Kolsonom Vajthedom:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/10/colson-whitehead-on-zombies-zone-one-and-his-love-of-the-vcr/246855/


Između ostalog veli:

Quote
What do "literary" fiction and "genre" fiction mean to you? Are these terms helpful to you as a writer, or are they just methods of bookstore organization?
 They don't mean anything to me. They're useful for bookstores, obviously. They're useful for fans. You can figure out what's coming out in the same style of other books you like. But as a writer they have no use for me in my day-to-day work experience.
 I was inspired to become a writer by horror movies and science fiction. The fantastic effects of magic realism, Garcia Marquez, the crazy, absurd landscapes of Beckett—to me, they're just variations on the fantasy books I grew up on. Waiting for Godot takes place on a weird asteroid heading towards the sun, that's how I see it. It's not a real place—it's a fantastic place. So what makes it different from a small planet in outer space? What makes it different from a post-apocalyptic landscape? Not much in my mind.



   
  But I can imagine a time—say, during the heyday of Raymond Carver—when literary writers might have been afraid to touch material with fantastical, or supernatural, or science-fictional, or post-apocalyptic elements. When so-called realism was the literary currency of the day. Have you ever felt pressure to write "realistic" books?
 I would say no. My books are weird, so if I had any anxiety about that, I had to work it out decades ago. The Intuitionist takes place in a kind of alternative reality; Sag Harbor is a deeply realistic novel. These strategies have different uses. They're different kinds of books, and you have to pick the tools for the job.
 I can't speak for the generation who grew up 20 years ago during the heyday of Carver. I know that people like Gary Shteyngart, Jonathan Lethem, Michael Chabon who are close to my generation don't necessarily have those anxieties. I know that Chabon and Lethem love Marvel comics too, and have saluted the fantastic in various books.
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #52 on: 29-10-2011, 21:27:29 »
David Brin je smislio How to Define Science Fiction.
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #53 on: 30-10-2011, 20:07:36 »
Ima na YT-u ceo ovaj OutspokenAuthorsSpeakOut razgovor između Kim Stanley-ja Robinsona, Garry-ja Phillipsa i Terry-ja Bissona, ako nekoga zanima.

Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #54 on: 30-10-2011, 21:26:31 »

World Fantasy Convention 2010 Epic Fantasy Panel - David Drake, John Fultz, Blake Charlton, David B. Coe, Freda Warrington





Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #55 on: 30-10-2011, 21:27:45 »




Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #56 on: 01-11-2011, 12:47:02 »
N. K. Jemisin, Ellen Kushner, Michael Swanwick, John Vray i David G. Hartwell o Ursuli.



Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #57 on: 01-11-2011, 14:13:38 »
K. W. Jeter, James Blaylock, John Berlyne, Tim Powers i stimpank.



Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #58 on: 01-11-2011, 21:17:13 »
uuu ovo će biti korisno za sledeću tribinu, tnx ;)
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #59 on: 02-11-2011, 15:33:03 »
Stimpank u Oksfordu.

Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #60 on: 02-11-2011, 17:59:23 »

Justine Larbalestier, Cassandra Clare, Holly Black, Chris Moriarty, Delia Sherman o uticaju Potera na (autore, izdavače, čitaoce) YA.
(tako nekako)


Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #61 on: 04-11-2011, 08:53:17 »
Iz 2009. (ima jos 6 delova). Nece se baci.

"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #62 on: 04-11-2011, 20:34:36 »
Outsiders in/of Science Fiction and the Fantastic


Carlos Hernandez, Andrea Hairston, Samuel R. Delany, Steve Berman, Alaya Dawn Johnson i Ellen Kushner.







Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #63 on: 04-11-2011, 21:33:23 »
Da li je ovo Mijevilovo izlaganje na KU izdato u formi eseja?
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #64 on: 04-11-2011, 21:36:40 »
Ne znam. Ja cak i ne slusam ove klipove ako imaju preko minut i po  :cry:
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #65 on: 27-11-2011, 19:01:10 »
The Flavors of Science in SF: A Taxonomy
 For several years now I've been working casually on just that: a classification of the types of science in sf that would be more detailed than the obvious correct vs. incorrect vs. gray area / fudged.

This first version was prepared for a panel at Arisia on the science in sf films and hence draws all its examples from them, but I think it works just as well for sf literature, as well.  I full intend to expand it with examples from the literature and submit it to NYRSF.

I'm quite pleased with this: I think there a couple of fresh insights and I like some of the terminology (category 5 took the full two years and half a dozen attempts to get right).  I'd love to get some feedback, so if you think this is interesting, feel free to pass a link on to others who might not be reading this blog.

Science in SF: A Taxonomy

1. Best Science. This is the first type of Actual Science, in which the laws of science as we know them are obeyed and form the basis for a believable speculation or extrapolation whose details are either given or easily inferred.  In Best Science, the story explores the likeliest extrapolation or implications of the known science. The quintessential example in film is Gattaca.  The space sequences in 2001: A Space Odyssey (up until the encounter with the monolith stargate) are Best Science.

2. Also Science. A variety of Actual Science in which the extrapolation or interpretation of scientific law is not likely, but is still possible, and is chosen for story or thematic reasons.  If we were extrapolating the likeliest outcome of android technology, we would never give them three-year lifespans, but that bit of Also Science is probably justifiable and is absolutely central to the story of Blade Runner.  In 2001, the notion that aliens may have interfered benevolently with our evolution is Also Science. (Originally, Best and Also Science were called True and Unlikely Science, respectively.)

3. Speculative Science. Science itself is incomplete and evolving. In Speculative Science, either missing science is invented (e.g., some currently unknown aspect of neuroscience, especially the nature of consciousness), or a plausible revision of current science is proposed.  As with Actual Science, the details are given, the dots connected.  It’s very common in written sf but hard to do in film, because it requires so much exposition.  The best recent example of Speculative Science in film is the invention in Primer

4. Magic Science. While no laws of current science are broken, there is an explanatory gap that is filled in by essentially evoking Clarke’s law that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from you-know-what.  Magic Science usually implies the discovery of new science or technology, but unlike Speculative Science, it doesn’t specify what it might be, let alone give us the nuts and bolts to chew on.  Klaatu’s ability to make “the Earth stand still” is Magic Science, as is the Krell machine in Forbidden Planet. That the monoliths in 2001 are capable of remotely affecting the minds (and perhaps even the DNA) of the man-apes is Magic Science. 

5. Better Than Science. This is Magic Science with a crucial difference: the current laws of science are actually broken, whereas Magic Science simply exploits the fact that they are incomplete.  Anti-gravity, FTL travel, and time travel—all these classic sf tropes that violate physics as we know it, but not a plausible revision of same, are usually treated as Better Than Science.  The stargate in 2001 is Better Than Science, as are warp drives in Star Wars and Star Trek and jumpgates in Babylon 5.

6. Fake Science. This is a very broad category (subject to further division) that includes almost any idea that is presented to us as science but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny: not only are the laws of science as we know them violated, there is no possible revision of those laws that will make the science work.  Mutations caused by radiation, and almost all the science in comic-book adaptations are Fake Science, but so (upon close scrutiny) is the global sterility in Children of Men.  Like Magic Science and Better than Science,  Fake Science may be offered without explanation, or it may be accompanied by hand-waving or fundamentally meaningless jargon. 

7. Never Mind the Science. This is an important sibling to Fake Science; the difference is that the gross violation of scientific law is not presented to us as a scientific idea, but it is instead a (usually fundamental) story aspect whose impossibility is ignored by convention.  That exposure to gamma rays could turn Bruce Banner into The Hulk is Fake Science, but that the Hulk is absurdly stronger than allowed by the laws of physics is Never Mind the Science.  All movie monsters that are so large that their bones could never support their mass, such as Gojira, are Never Mind the Science.  Explosions in space are a ubiquitous and fairly trivial example.

8. Wrong Science. Scientific laws are violated for no story purpose whatsoever, apparently because the screenwriters simply didn’t know better.  Almost everything in the Armageddon trailer (which convinced me to not bother with the actual movie) is Wrong Science. 

There are three modifiers that can apply to many or most of the above categories.

Super Science. This is a violation not of the content of science but of its form and practice.  We are shown a scientific breakthrough or invention that in the real world could never be accomplished by these people, and/or that quickly, and/or with those resources and/or  budget.  Tony Stark’s construction of the first Iron Man suit is Super Science (the suit itself has a Better Than Science power source and is otherwise a mixture of Magic and Fake Science).  Like well-done Fake Science, we are used to accepting Super Science by convention.

Anachronistic Science. Tomorrow’s science is portrayed as happening in the present, or current or future science happens in the past.  All steampunk is Anachronistic Science.  The memory-erasing machine in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is Anachronistic  Science with Best and Speculative elements (although the movie demonstrates why we’ll probably never bother implementing such technology even once it becomes feasible).

And finally, the all important …

Bad Science. An attempt is made at one of the above categories, and although the science isn’t demonstrably Wrong, it still doesn’t work for you; it takes you out of the story and makes you wince at its stupidity.  That’s Bad Science.  Whether Speculative Science strikes you as Bad usually depends on your scientific knowledge.  With the other varieties, Bad Science seems ultimately a matter of taste.  That the alien mothership in Independence Day apparently runs the Mac OS is Fake Science, but for many it’s Bad Fake Science.  Botching the hand-waving explanation is a classic form of Bad Science; The Force in the original Star Wars trilogy was (like almost all psi powers in sf) simply Magic Science, but the introduction of midichlorians in the prequel trilogy struck many as a turn to the Bad Side, in that the explanation added nothing.  In fact, a good criterion for identifying Bad Science is that fixing it would improve the story—if Jeff Goldblum’s character had to struggle to interface with the alien OS, that could have been exciting and funny and needn’t have taken more than twenty seconds of screen time. 

Some Other Examples:

Minority Report. It argues that there is a predetermined future which can nevertheless be altered by free will, and I think that’s excellent Speculative Science, but someone with a different favorite interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (e.g., Everett rather than Bohm) might think it Bad.  Either way, however, that there might be precogs who could see that determined future is pure Magic Science.

The Prestige.  Tesla’s machine is Anachronistic Super Better Than Science.

Star Trek. The reason why Red Matter stands out is that it’s Fake Science used where Magic Science or Better Than Science was expected.  Which is to say that there’s probably an infinite number of more credible ways of blowing up an entire planet, but they went for Cool and Dumb.

Avatar. A key scientific idea is that a planet or moon with an extraordinary strong magnetic field might produce an ore that is a natural room-temperature superconductor, but with a composition so complex that it still defied artificial manufacture.  You have to know more about the physics of superconductivity than I do to decide whether that’s Speculative or Better Than Science, but (at least in the theatrical cut) the movie actually omits all that detail and presents it as Magic Science.
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #66 on: 28-11-2011, 18:37:44 »
A ko je ovo napisao, Melkore?

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #67 on: 28-11-2011, 18:41:58 »
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #68 on: 28-11-2011, 18:44:38 »
Sorry, mislio sam da ce iskopirati i link.
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #69 on: 28-11-2011, 19:16:37 »
Htedoh time reći da nemam blagog pojma ko je ericmvan.

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #70 on: 28-11-2011, 19:19:12 »
Ah :)

Eric M. Van was a World Fantasy Award finalist (Special Award, Non-Professional) in 2010 for his work as co-C.E.O. and longtime Program Chair of this very convention.  Many years previously, he was database manager for the Philip K. Dick Society; his observations on PKD have appeared in the New York Review of Science Fiction. The outline (really a skeleton draft) for his novel Imaginary is approaching 80,000 words in length.  A former Baseball Operations consultant for the Boston Red Sox, he hopes to have found a new sabermetrics job by the time this appears.  He has an interview in the hardcover edition of Interviews from Red Sox Nation (ed. David Laurilia), is a co-author of The Red Sox Fan Handbook (ed. Leigh Grossman), has contributed to The Boston Globe and still contributes to Red Sox message board the Sons of Sam Horn. A former rock critic for local 'zines and the semi-official historian of reunited Boston rock legends Mission of Burma, he now does more film and TV criticism (mostly for his blog). At the turn of the millennium he spent four years at Harvard University, as a Special Student affiliated with the Graduate Department of Psychology.  He has just begun work on Feeling the Future: Where Feelings Come From and What They Mean, the first of at least three planned books presenting his paradigmatic neuroscience ideas. He lives (and sleeps erratically) in Watertown, Massachusetts.
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #71 on: 28-11-2011, 19:24:17 »
A. Pa dobro, to bar objašnjava reference klasifikacije.  :roll:


PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #72 on: 11-12-2011, 07:00:35 »

A Private Letter from Genre to Literature




I saw you tonight. You were walking with your cabal from the university to the little bar across the street where the professors and graduate students fraternize. You were in the dark, plain clothes that you think of as elegant. I have always thought they made you look pale. I was at the newsstand. I think that you saw me, but pretended not to. I want to say it didn't sting.
Please, please, darling let us stop this. This artificial separation between us is painful, it is undignified, and it fools no one. In company, we sneer at each other and make those cold, cutting remarks. And why? You laugh at me for telling the same stories again and again. I call you boring and joyless. Is it wrong, my dear, that I hope the cruel things I say of you cut as deeply as the ones you say of me?
Our friends nod as they offer condolences and sympathetic condemnation. How many times have I heard voices that meant to be kind saying that you have descended into sophistication for sophistication's sake? And, love, would you believe that I deny them? I point to Harper Lee and Robertson Davies. The Picture of Dorian Gray and the dirty jokes in Shakespeare. I tell them how good Pride and Prejudice is, and The Name of the Wind and The Life of Pi. They smile. Worse, they smirk. I defend you to my defenders, and they see right through me.
But allow me this, dear: what you do is crueler. You take the best of me, my most glorious moments - Ursula LeGuin and Dashiell Hammet, Mary Shelly and Philip Dick - and you claim them for your own. You say that they "transcend genre". There are no more heartless words than those. You disarm me. You know, I think, that if we were to compare our projects honestly -- my best to yours, my mediocrities to yours, our failures lumped together -- this division between us would vanish, and so you skim away my cream and mock me for being only milk.
I forgive you. I weep and I resent and I say how little I care what your opinions are. And, let me be honest, dear, I take comfort in the fact that I make more money than you. That my audience is larger. Outside the narrow halls of the academy, my star is brighter. I go to the movies, and I am on every marquee. A television is practically my mirror. My house is larger and warmer, and the people there laugh and weep more loudly. Not all of them are sophisticates. Many of them find comfort and solace in things you consider beneath you. But they are my people, and I love them as they love me.
So I forgive you and I long for you. I do. The beauty and depth and sophistication that you aspire to, I aspire to as well. You lay claim to a deep love of language, but I have Kelly Link and Carole Emshwiller. You say that your work plumbs the depths of the human experience, but I have Maureen McHugh. You are concerned with the deep questions of religion and philosophy. So is Gene Wolfe. Look at them, my dear, but not too closely. I don't want to lose them to you, and each of them is good enough to be "literature." The things you want, I want too.
What do our friends make of our assignations, do you think? Those nights when you come to me and we find ourselves in each other's arms must seem comic to them, given how much we rail against each other in the day. And don't tell me that no one knows. Cormac McCarthy took the Pulitzer for a post-apocalyptic horror novel. Junot Díaz won his joking about Gorilla Grodd and describing violence in terms of hit points. Wuthering Heights is as much romance as ghost story. Roth's The Plot Against America was alternate history. Ishiguro wrote Remains of the Day and also Never Let Me Go. Faber wrote Under the Skin. Whitehead, Zone One. Don't let's start on Atwood. Everyone can see that you want me as much as I want you. And more than that. I have begun to suspect you need me, my dear.
I read through the collections of your most honored short stories, and what do I see? Fantasy, mystery, ghost stories, romance. How often you refresh yourself at my springs. I wonder whether your contempt might hide something deeper. Fear perhaps, that you might be less without me as I am less without you. Are you vulnerable, love? You can be. I will not turn you away.
I am sometimes loud. I am often gaudy. I am sentimental, and I embarrass you in public. I apologize for none of it. You are respected, sophisticated, more passionate than I give you credit for, and sometimes even wise. I would no more ask you to become me than I would suffer remaking myself in your image, but we belong together. The proof of it is in the thrill you take from me and the comfort I draw from you. And so let us end this. Let us stand by one another as we should have all along. Let us take pleasure in each other. Where could the harm possibly be? Whose good opinion could we lose, and why should they matter?
Come to me, my love. Come tome tonight. I will meet you at midnight in the garden outside my bedroom. I will wear those bright, lurid, exciting things that are my signature. You bring those pretentions that are your best and worst aspect, and - can I hope? - the willingness to shed them.




Posted by Daniel Abraham
at Friday December 09, 2011 at 12:29 AM

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #73 on: 11-12-2011, 12:24:34 »
Dobro, ovo jeste duhovito ali meni se po ko zna koji put čini da je u pitanju zamena teza na više planova istovremeno, da se Vlasi ne dosete. Recimo, razlika između mejnstrima i žanra u poslednje vreme postulira se kao da je mejnstrim samo ono što nema nikakve žanrovske elemente, bez ikakvih posebnih odrednica, što je nezgodno i u suštini blesavo jer (skoro) svako beletrističko delo mora imati nekakvu tematiku kojom se bavi. Sa čisto tematske tačke, Rat i mir je istorijski roman, baš kao Tri musketara ili nešto od Filipe Gregori, ali  takva klasifikacija se intuitivno doživljava kao besmislena.
Važnija podela jeste zapravo ona koja se tiče zahtevnosti teksta, a Abraham to ovde lukavo i potcenjivački naziva "sofisticiranošću" uz pogrdan prizvuk. I potpuno ignoriše činjenicu da npr. postoji vrlo popularan segment mejnstrima koji ne spada u žanr (krimi, SF, ljubić), ali je po literarnim kvalitetima prilično jadan i elitistički deo mejnstrima ga prezire više nego bilo koji SF - prvi mi na pamet pada Paulo Koeljo koji svakako zarađuje više od ogromne većine žanrovskih pisaca, a potom laka kategorija u stilu Tonija Parsonsa i Nika Hornbija. Takvi autori niti su sofisticirani, niti zatvoreni u akademske krugove, naprotiv, zarađuju vrlo pristojno i uživaju znatnu popularnost međ narodom.
Dakle, lakše može da se uspostavi korelacija između npr. Dilejnija i Žana Ženea (lupam) s jedne i Parsonsa i Edingsa s druge, nego da se ti autori povežu po žanrovskoj pripadnosti, i to je kriterijum koji jedino priznajem, a ovo ostalo sam sve sklonija da prepustim dokonijima.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #74 on: 11-12-2011, 13:32:11 »
Ma, mene čudi što neko i dalje pati od tog kompleksa. Hajde da razumem što fantasti u Srbiji žele da ih glavni tok prihvati i da im legitimitet - ali šta će to ovima u SAD? Ako se pogleda šta su najprodavaniji romani u Americi - pola je fantastika, a pola su trileri. Veliki savremeni pisci jedva da prodaju 20k primeraka.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.604
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #75 on: 11-12-2011, 13:55:28 »
Ali nije prodavanost jedini kriterijum uspešnosti.
Ljudi žele da budu priznati kao pisci od strane stručnjaka a ne histerične mase tinejdžera, pisci žude za Nobelovom nagradom ili za objavljivanjem u kakvom prestižnom literarnom časopisu sa tiražom od jedva 500 primeraka.
Nekima je unutrašnje ispunjenje masovnost, a nekima nije.
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #76 on: 11-12-2011, 14:00:34 »
Ili to samo sebi pričaju oni koji niko ne čita.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #77 on: 11-12-2011, 14:13:18 »
A nepristojni se pitaju da li je to tako.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #78 on: 11-12-2011, 14:22:40 »
Ma nije nego, Skalope. I ne pitam se. Nisam primetio da Stiven King žali za Nobelovom nagradom, a bogami ni Dž. K. Rouling. A ako se držimo žanrovskih voda, nisam primetio ni da Martin kuka zbog toga što nije dobio nijednog Huga ni Nebula za ASOIaF.

Edit: BTW, ako si mislio da je ono bilo na Bobanov račun - nije. Koliko znam, on je među najtiražnijim domaćim piscima fantastike, a do skora je verovatno bio i najtiražniji, makar samo zbog "Crnog cveta".
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #79 on: 11-12-2011, 14:24:53 »
Ma, pitaj njih. Ti bar imaš veze sa tim piscima.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #80 on: 11-12-2011, 14:29:57 »
Sa kojim, onima čiji se romani prodaju, ili onima čiji se ne prodaju? I pitao sam ih. Uglavnom ne mogu da žive od svog pisanja i imaju day jobs od kojih žive, a pišu na uštrb vremena koje bi provodili sa porodicom, ako je imaju. Ako i žive od pisanja, zarađuju tako što su "pisci u najam", koji rade za Star Wars ili Forgotten Realms, ili pišu taj-inove za filmove ili video igre. Devedeset odsto pisaca fantastike proda manje od 10k primeraka, od ovih preostalih velika većina proda do 30k. Tek veoma mali broj pisaca fantastike može da živi samo od pisanja, a još manje njih ima milionske tiraže.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #81 on: 11-12-2011, 14:34:10 »
Jasno mi je da nije najrelevantnije, ali je 1998. u Village Voice-u izašao članak Jonathana Lethema - The Squandered Promise of Science Fiction - na ovu temu.

Njegovi stavovi su, u dovoljnoj meri, uzburkali neke vode, da se taj esej i nekoliko eseja nastalih kao odgovor na Lethemov (a i neki koji nisu, ali su manje-više na tu temu) pojavilo i u Nebula Awards Showcase 2000, pod zajedničkim naslovom Genre and Genesis: A Discussion of Science Fiction's Literary Role (a koji skup eseja čine: predgovor (urednika, ako se ne varam); Why Can't We All Just Live Together? A Vision of Genre Paradise Lost, Jonathan Lethem; Respectability, Gordon Van Gelder; Gatekeepers and Literary Bigots, George Zebrowski; Good News About SF in Bad Publishing Times..., David G. Hartwell; The Truth About Sci-Fi Movies, Revealed at Last, Bill Warren).

Eseji razmatraju tematiku iz više uglova, pa ko (bi da pročita nešto o tome) voli, nek' izvoli...
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #82 on: 11-12-2011, 14:48:15 »
Dobro, ovo jeste duhovito ali meni se po ko zna koji put čini da je u pitanju zamena teza na više planova istovremeno, da se Vlasi ne dosete. Recimo, razlika između mejnstrima i žanra u poslednje vreme postulira se kao da je mejnstrim samo ono što nema nikakve žanrovske elemente, bez ikakvih posebnih odrednica, što je nezgodno i u suštini blesavo jer (skoro) svako beletrističko delo mora imati nekakvu tematiku kojom se bavi. Sa čisto tematske tačke, Rat i mir je istorijski roman, baš kao Tri musketara ili nešto od Filipe Gregori, ali  takva klasifikacija se intuitivno doživljava kao besmislena.

Važnija podela jeste zapravo ona koja se tiče zahtevnosti teksta, a Abraham to ovde lukavo i potcenjivački naziva "sofisticiranošću" uz pogrdan prizvuk. I potpuno ignoriše činjenicu da npr. postoji vrlo popularan segment mejnstrima koji ne spada u žanr (krimi, SF, ljubić), ali je po literarnim kvalitetima prilično jadan i elitistički deo mejnstrima ga prezire više nego bilo koji SF - prvi mi na pamet pada Paulo Koeljo koji svakako zarađuje više od ogromne većine žanrovskih pisaca, a potom laka kategorija u stilu Tonija Parsonsa i Nika Hornbija. Takvi autori niti su sofisticirani, niti zatvoreni u akademske krugove, naprotiv, zarađuju vrlo pristojno i uživaju znatnu popularnost međ narodom.

Dakle, lakše može da se uspostavi korelacija između npr. Dilejnija i Žana Ženea (lupam) s jedne i Parsonsa i Edingsa s druge, nego da se ti autori povežu po žanrovskoj pripadnosti, i to je kriterijum koji jedino priznajem, a ovo ostalo sam sve sklonija da prepustim dokonijima.


pa... svakako priznajem slobodu tumačenja teksta, ali rekla bih da nam se ovde tumačenja ič ne poklapaju.  :evil:


U mom tumačenju, Abraham ne postulira da je mejnstrim samo ono što nema žanrovske elemnete, naprotiv... Abraham postulira da mejnstrim često i drsko krade očigledno žanrovske elemente, a onda ih intenzivno debilizira da bi postali "mejnstrim prihvatljivi". Išiguro je tu striktno pomenut a moglo je još imena da se pomene, i, deep down, znam ja, složila bi se ti, makar ne ovde javno...  xfrog 


Isto tako, ne mogu da ti pariram na referencama koje Abraham ne pominje (jel ti stvarno misliš da sam ja ikad čitala Koelja??? :cry: xuss  ) ali u okviru referenci koje Abraham pominje, volela bih da mi kažeš gde je to omašio. Kod Atvudove, možda?  :mrgreen:

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #83 on: 11-12-2011, 14:53:54 »
Vidi, Gaff, mogu ja da napišem sve te eseje na srpskom, jer je priča uvek ista. Decenijama živim sa tom pričom. Sada me samo malo živcira Nightflier, jer tupi priču koja nema nikakvu osnovu, osim u činjenici da je literatura, kao i sve drugo, potonulo u marketinški napor da se nešto proda, a ne da bude dobro napisano. Kad neko počne da vrednuje literaturu prema tiražima, on o literarnim vrednostima pojma nema. I dobitnici Gonkura steknu tiraž tek kad ga dobiju. Tako je i sa svim drugim prestižnim nagradama. Nažalost, one su postale samo argument za potonji marketing, vrednost njihovog pisanja je za prodaju nevažna. Zbog toga, tvrdim da bi i oni sa milionskim tiražima dupe dali za neku od nagrada, kao što bi neki domaći pisci pljunuli na sve pohvale koje im organizuje izdavač za jedno dobro kritičarsko dranje. A to ni izdavači, ni mediji ne ljube mnogo, jer može pisac da im se pokondiri i poveruje da ipak vredi on, a ne onaj koji mu "udeli" knjigu.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #84 on: 11-12-2011, 15:07:39 »


pa... svakako priznajem slobodu tumačenja teksta, ali rekla bih da nam se ovde tumačenja ič ne poklapaju.  :evil:


U mom tumačenju, Abraham ne postulira da je mejnstrim samo ono što nema žanrovske elemnete, naprotiv... Abraham postulira da mejnstrim često i drsko krade očigledno žanrovske elemente, a onda ih intenzivno debilizira da bi postali "mejnstrim prihvatljivi". Išiguro je tu striktno pomenut a moglo je još imena da se pomene, i, deep down, znam ja, složila bi se ti, makar ne ovde javno...  xfrog 


Isto tako, ne mogu da ti pariram na referencama koje Abraham ne pominje (jel ti stvarno misliš da sam ja ikad čitala Koelja??? :cry: xuss  ) ali u okviru referenci koje Abraham pominje, volela bih da mi kažeš gde je to omašio. Kod Atvudove, možda?  :mrgreen:

Ne kažem ja da je omašio uopšte, niti sporim plodno spajanje žanra sa "visokom" literaturom, samo naglašavam kako postoji ogromno polje literature koja je mejnstrim a nema nikakve, ali nikakve pretenzije na uzvišenost i prefinjenost i akademsku dubinsku kritiku i priznanje. U tom "akademskom" smislu Rej Bredberi danas ima mnogo bolju prođu nego, npr, mejnstrimaški A.Dž. Kronin, ako ga se neko ovde seća.

angel011

  • PsychoKitty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.050
  • meow
    • Hronika mačjeg škrabala
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #85 on: 11-12-2011, 15:12:37 »
Ja čitala ponešto od Kronina. I dopalo mi se, bar u to vreme.
We're all mad here.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #86 on: 11-12-2011, 15:19:11 »


pa... svakako priznajem slobodu tumačenja teksta, ali rekla bih da nam se ovde tumačenja ič ne poklapaju.  :evil:


U mom tumačenju, Abraham ne postulira da je mejnstrim samo ono što nema žanrovske elemnete, naprotiv... Abraham postulira da mejnstrim često i drsko krade očigledno žanrovske elemente, a onda ih intenzivno debilizira da bi postali "mejnstrim prihvatljivi". Išiguro je tu striktno pomenut a moglo je još imena da se pomene, i, deep down, znam ja, složila bi se ti, makar ne ovde javno...  xfrog 


Isto tako, ne mogu da ti pariram na referencama koje Abraham ne pominje (jel ti stvarno misliš da sam ja ikad čitala Koelja??? :cry: xuss  ) ali u okviru referenci koje Abraham pominje, volela bih da mi kažeš gde je to omašio. Kod Atvudove, možda?  :mrgreen:

Ne kažem ja da je omašio uopšte, niti sporim plodno spajanje žanra sa "visokom" literaturom, samo naglašavam kako postoji ogromno polje literature koja je mejnstrim a nema nikakve, ali nikakve pretenzije na uzvišenost i prefinjenost i akademsku dubinsku kritiku i priznanje. U tom "akademskom" smislu Rej Bredberi danas ima mnogo bolju prođu nego, npr, mejnstrimaški A.Dž. Kronin, ako ga se neko ovde seća.


Pa valjda je očigledno da se Abraham osvrće na one koji su najviše keširali u takvom drpanju,  nemoj sad da argumentuješ stav sa kojekakvim kukavcima čija piskaranja nisu preživela ni deceniju, koga briga šta su takvi drpali i plagirali i odakle... govorimo o bajama čiji se naslovi još mogu kupiti i iza kojih stoje barem donekle normalni izdavači.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #87 on: 11-12-2011, 15:28:02 »
@Skalop

Ne bih baš rekao da "tupim priču bez osnove". Ili je možda reč o tome da svako žudi za onim što nema: nagrađivani pisci žude za tiražima, a tiražni za nagradama. Da, jeste - žanrovi su danas marketinška kategorija, o tome smo se odavno saglasili. Ali hiljadu puta ponovljena laž postaje istina, pa tako i te veštački stvorene kategorije postaju realnost i nešto na šta se mora računati.

Ja nisam pisac - ja sam pesnik, ako sam nešto, a tek je poezija skrajnuta i nema nikakav ugled niti prodaju. A ni perspektivu. Zato ja ne živim od poezije, već od prevođenja. A prevođenje je zapravo jedna od najgorih stvari koja može da zadesi pasioniranog čitaoca.

Elem, Boban mi je jednom rekao da se "Crni cvet" prodao u najmanje deset hiljada primeraka, kada se saberu svi izdavači i svi tiraži. Iz jednog od mojih pređašnjih postova vidi se da je to poštovanja dostojan tiraž, čak i kada se pogleda najveće tržište fantastike na svetu. Preko one velike bare ima veoma poznatih i aktivnih pisaca fantastike koji prodaju tek desetak primeraka svojih knjiga mesečno. Eno ga Majl Stekpul kao primer. Dakle, poredeći SAD i Srbiju, dolazi se do zaključka da su naši pisci fantastike jednako uspešni, ako ne i uspešniji od američkih, premda se takav zaključak ne bi izveo na prvi pogled.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.604
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #88 on: 11-12-2011, 16:03:06 »
Boban nikada nije rekao "10000", već 4500 za koje znam i neznani deo tiraža na engleskom, jer već 4 godine nemam nikakvu povratnu informaciju.
Recimo, CC se godinama nudi u Indiji kao print demand, a to može da znači svašta; da nije otišlo više od nekoliko primeraka, a možda je i megahit sa ko zna koliko preuzetih komada.
Indija je, primera radi, zemlja sa najviše mobilnih telefona na svetu... tamo vladaju neka sasvim drugačija pravila (Bolivud i sl...)
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #89 on: 11-12-2011, 16:12:09 »
Boban nikada nije rekao "10000", već 4500 za koje znam i neznani deo tiraža na engleskom, jer već 4 godine nemam nikakvu povratnu informaciju.
Recimo, CC se godinama nudi u Indiji kao print demand, a to može da znači svašta; da nije otišlo više od nekoliko primeraka, a možda je i megahit sa ko zna koliko preuzetih komada.
Indija je, primera radi, zemlja sa najviše mobilnih telefona na svetu... tamo vladaju neka sasvim drugačija pravila (Bolivud i sl...)

Onda se izvinjavam zbog prenošenja pogrešne informacije. Doduše, taj razgovor smo vodili kada smo radili onu "Istoriju Srba" i bilo je veoma kasno, pa ko zna šta sam ja čuo. Bilo kako bilo, to je za srpske uslove svejedno tiraž dostojan poštovanja. Možda se neki pisci danas bolje prodaju, ali oni nisu isključivo žanrovski definisani. Koliko mi je pošlo za rukom da ispratim, Laguna nije ni "Raskršće" ni "Teslu" prodavala kao žanrovske romane. Tu dolazimo do onoga što veoma cenim kod tebe - ti nisi pokušao da "Fantastičnu biblioteku" predstaviš kao "savremenu srpsku prozu", već si igrao otvoreno. To je za rispekt.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #90 on: 11-12-2011, 16:13:42 »
Bilo kakva ideja da se  tvoj izdavač na engleskom masno obogatio na tvom rukopisu spada u domen lou fentezija.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #91 on: 11-12-2011, 16:19:02 »
Bilo kakva ideja da se  tvoj izdavač na engleskom masno obogatio na tvom rukopisu spada u domen lou fentezija.

Mislim da Boban to nije ni pokušavao da kaže.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #92 on: 11-12-2011, 16:28:05 »
Misliti i jagode brati nije isto.


Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #93 on: 11-12-2011, 17:14:24 »

Pa valjda je očigledno da se Abraham osvrće na one koji su najviše keširali u takvom drpanju,  nemoj sad da argumentuješ stav sa kojekakvim kukavcima čija piskaranja nisu preživela ni deceniju, koga briga šta su takvi drpali i plagirali i odakle... govorimo o bajama čiji se naslovi još mogu kupiti i iza kojih stoje barem donekle normalni izdavači.

Pa sad mi je već očigledno da govorimo o različitim stvarima, jer ja nisam govorila o drpanju već o kvalitetu onog što je sa drpljenim urađeno, pošto mi se čini da je Abraham o tome pisao. Međutim. Ako je neophodno da se raskusuravaju mejnstrim i žanr na tom nivou, onda bi se SF-u moglo prebaciti masovno drpanje postupaka od glavnog toka, počev od toka svesti, cut-upa pa do intertekstualnih igrarija, ali i krađa i prekrađa od drugih žanrova, jer niko neće valjda sporiti da je većina Asimovljevih romana o detektivu Bejliju čist krimi žanr u SF ruhu, niti da postoji niz knjiga koje su tek SF/F/H oblanda za tradicijom osveštane žanrove ljubića i pornića. (nastavak sledi)

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #94 on: 11-12-2011, 17:48:33 »
Pa sad mi je već očigledno da govorimo o različitim stvarima, jer ja nisam govorila o drpanju već o kvalitetu onog što je sa drpljenim urađeno, pošto mi se čini da je Abraham o tome pisao.


Pa dobro, ali to su procene koje ovise o referentnom sistemu, a sigurno ti nije novost da mejnstrim i žanr imaju podosta različite referentne sisteme. Primera radi, Išigurov Never let me go se slabo kotira po žanrovskim parametrima ali je odlično prošao po mejnstrim parametrima, a to važi i za skoro sve mejnstrim autore koji su iz žanra "pozajmili" motive ali ne i logiku. I naravno da ne mislim kako je to kažnjivo ili nefer ili štatijaznam, ali fakt ostaje da, u širem kontekstu, obrada žanrovske fantastike nežanrovskim alatom poglavito benefituje mejnstrim, a ne žanr. I pusti ti sad politički orjentisane žanrovske nagrade koje se trude da takve romane makar počasnim nagradama vrate u okrilje žanra, fakt ostaje da takva obrada po pravilu najčešće ide protiv žanrovskih kanona, a sam žanr retko kad od toga ima ikakve koristi. Istina, govorim uglavnom o SFu, ali i u globalu, znaš li ikoji primer u kom je mejnstrimaško "pozajmljivanje"žanrovskim motiva, pod strikno mejnstrimaškim pravilima, proizvelo ikakav impakt?

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #95 on: 11-12-2011, 17:52:52 »
Drugo: treba razlikovati načine na koji (da kažemo) mejnstrim uzima od žanra. Kad mejnstrim hoće da svesno mazne od žanra a da to bude glavni tok i "mnogo bolje" - uglavnom omane, kao Etvudova u Koscu i antilopi. Kad uzima neke žanrovske aspekte kao ukrase, parodira ih ili na drugi način inkorporira u telo nežanrovskog štiva - to može da bude odlično do osrednje, kao Etvudova u Slepom ubici. A nekad, jebi ga, nekad, mejnstrim uzme žanr i transcendira ga, napravi nešto, da prostiš, mnogo bolje i što u žanru nikad ne bi bilo objavljeno u tom vidu zbog rizika neprihvatanja, i onda dobijemo Sluškinjinu priču, i Abraham može da se ubriše što se mene tiče.

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #96 on: 11-12-2011, 18:09:09 »
Istina, govorim uglavnom o SFu, ali i u globalu, znaš li ikoji primer u kom je mejnstrimaško "pozajmljivanje"žanrovskim motiva, pod strikno mejnstrimaškim pravilima, proizvelo ikakav impakt?

uh... Kurt Vonegat? Tomas Pinčon, koji je onda povratno uticao na Gibsona i Dilejnija? Umberto Eko? Italo Kalvino? Balard?

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #97 on: 11-12-2011, 19:02:49 »
Čoveče... jel tebi ikad iko rekao da si kvarna ko gerijatričan umnjak?  :cry:


Kao prvo, intertekstualnost i uticaji nisu jedno te isto, a kao drugo, ja ne govorim o fer pozajmljivanju žanrovskog asortimana od strane vrhunskih i već dokazanih mejnstrim pisaca, jer Orvel i Vidal su više dali žanru nego 99% šonja koji nose hjuge i nebule. Kao treće, uticaji na pisce koje pominješ su do te mere široki da je besmisleno i nabrajati ih, pa kiberpank je direktan potomak bitnika i taj fakt možeš da koristiš kako te volja, ali to ne menja činjenicu da tu ne govorimo o direktnim ripofima, nego o filtriranju uticaja kakvom je podložna svaka jedinka na planeti. I ti si nekakva suma sumarum književnih uticaja koje si filtrirala tokom godina, što svesno, što podsvesno, ali to nije isto što i blatantni ripof prepoznatljivog žanrovskog koncepta. I o kakvim transcendencijama mi ovde pričamo kad je svakom sa dva grama mozga jasno da je Sluškinjina priča ne nudi ama baš ništa što žanrovski hardkor palp nije odavno već ponudio, samo nije bio u stanju da tu ponudu servira upravo onoj mejnstrim raji koji je Sluškinja dosegla? U kom ti to konkretno motivu Sluškinje vidiš transcedenciju? Reci mi, pa da ti kažem gde si mogla da ga nađeš najmanje deceniju a ako ne i dve ranije? 



Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #98 on: 11-12-2011, 19:13:01 »
Čoveče... jel tebi ikad iko rekao da si kvarna ko gerijatričan umnjak?  :cry:   
Nije... te ću se sada čisto obradovati tvojoj kvalifikaciji.  :lol:
 
U kom ti to konkretno motivu Sluškinje vidiš transcedenciju? Reci mi, pa da ti kažem gde si mogla da ga nađeš najmanje deceniju a ako ne i dve ranije?
ma ne motivu, ko je motive pominjao? U literarnom kvalitetu, to toliko. Uglačan stil, dvoznačni živi likovi, fenomenalan tempo pripovedanja, lukavi narativni izbori, lajtmotivi, tako to.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #99 on: 11-12-2011, 19:34:51 »

U kom ti to konkretno motivu Sluškinje vidiš transcedenciju? Reci mi, pa da ti kažem gde si mogla da ga nađeš najmanje deceniju a ako ne i dve ranije?
ma ne motivu, ko je motive pominjao? U literarnom kvalitetu, to toliko. Uglačan stil, dvoznačni živi likovi, fenomenalan tempo pripovedanja, lukavi narativni izbori, lajtmotivi, tako to.


Ah, pa naravno, uvek zaboravljam da si ti meni ono što je oreo niggah harlemskoj crnčugi... ti 'oćeš literarni kvalitet u žanru. wow. znaš, to te limituje na dvocifren broj pisaca unutar celog veka moderne žanrovske književnosti. Ne da će ti išta fali, da se razumemo... can't miss what you never had.  :)


 
 




 

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.774
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #100 on: 11-12-2011, 19:40:26 »
A, ovaj... čisto ovako retorički ili hipotetički... zašto bi iko ako bira između literarnog kvaliteta i odsustva istog izabrao potonje?
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

angel011

  • PsychoKitty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.050
  • meow
    • Hronika mačjeg škrabala
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #101 on: 11-12-2011, 19:45:11 »
Zato što postoji nešto u ovom potonjem zbog čega si voljan da mu posvetiš vreme, ili se bar nadaš da postoji.
We're all mad here.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #102 on: 11-12-2011, 19:58:48 »
A, ovaj... čisto ovako retorički ili hipotetički... zašto bi iko ako bira između literarnog kvaliteta i odsustva istog izabrao potonje?


Pretpostavljala sam da će biti jasno: staviti reč u italik je skoro pa isto (albeit znatno blaže) što i staviti je u navodnike.


ja se, stoga, tamo referišem na akademsku procenu literarne vrednosti, pošto je upravo toj varijanti moja draga Jevtra do te mere sklona da danas ne prepoznaje šund ni kad je za butkicu grize.  :mrgreen: 


A u odgovor tvog retoričko-hipotetičkog pitanja: žanr na koji se referišem je nastao i odrastao u domenu ondašnjeg magazinskog izdavaštva koje je zvanično spadalo pod populističku književnost namenjenu omladini. U tom kontekstu - a taj kontekst je geto, da se razumemo -  akademska definicija literarne vrednosti je bila više hendikep negoli vrlina, složićeš se. Rana garnitura mejnstrim pisaca koji su svrnuli u taj geto su imali na umu prvenstveno izbegavanje cenzure koja upravo na trivijalnu književnost geta nije obraćala isuviše pažnje, a kasnija garnitura oportunista je u geto ulazila zbog već definisane ciljne grupe koju su, tokom niza godina, odgojili pisci geta i prva mejnstrimaška garnitura. 




Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #103 on: 11-12-2011, 20:21:59 »
A, ovaj... čisto ovako retorički ili hipotetički... zašto bi iko ako bira između literarnog kvaliteta i odsustva istog izabrao potonje?

Zato što tražimo jeftin eskapizam i zabavu, na nivou pronića i video igara, a volemo da tepamo sebi kako smo intelektualci a ne proles koji gleda Grand, pa zahtevamo da se naša pronjava lepo upakuje u svih sedam padeža, ili već anglosaksonski ekvivalent.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #104 on: 11-12-2011, 21:36:08 »
ja se, stoga, tamo referišem na akademsku procenu literarne vrednosti, pošto je upravo toj varijanti moja draga Jevtra do te mere sklona da danas ne prepoznaje šund ni kad je za butkicu grize.  :mrgreen:   

Pa, u najmanju ruku si me naterala da nađem značenje oreo keksa u crnačkom slengu... i šta da kažem sem da bi me razni akademski orijentisani pojedinci takođe rado nazvali oreom, ali u malko drugačijem i manje dobrohotnom (verujem) kontekstu od tebe.
A što se tiče prepoznavanja šunda/umetnosti, tja. Postoje razni literarni kvaliteti od kojih su neki estetski, a neki nisu; ja sam, eto, ovim prvima više sklona, ali ih od ovih drugih strogo i neizostavno razlučujem samo kad moram i kad me npr. ti nateraš, jer obe vrste kvaliteta učestvuju u stvaranju čitalačkog ugođaja...

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #105 on: 12-12-2011, 11:38:22 »
Auć. Ako ikad ozbiljno dovedeš u pitanje moju dobrohotnost, javi mi pa da se besim.  :cry: :(  ali dobro, point taken, obuzdaću malo intimizaciju.


Inače, oreo fenomen je generalna boljka i van akademskog hendikepiranja, veruj mi, znam  :oops: , i kao takva je ponekad korisna, ponekad štetna... šta da se radi, sve je to za ljude. Samo u izuzetnim situacijama kao što je, recimo, ova, oreo percepcija je štetna. I naravno, štetna je kod one najbitnije situacije prolaska u raj kroz iglene uši.  xwink2  ako je za utehu, neki tvoji stavovi su uticali na moje u meri znatno većoj nego što bi ti isprva palo na pamet. po ovom konkretno pitanju, merila estetskih kvaliteta retko kad prežive kompromise, bar one od očigledno pramatične vrste.

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #106 on: 12-12-2011, 12:22:37 »
Auć. Ako ikad ozbiljno dovedeš u pitanje moju dobrohotnost, javi mi pa da se besim.  :cry: :(  ali dobro, point taken, obuzdaću malo intimizaciju.


Libe, ne uzbuđuj se, rekla sam samo da su neki drugi manje dobrohotni od tebe. xpft  Lepa je intimizacija i kad batinu nosi!
 
A što se raja tiče, od njega sam odustala još davnim-davno... preferiram sagledavanje obe strane, što neumitno dovodi do onog Tako, budući mlak, i nisi ni studen ni vruć, izbljuvaću te iz usta svojih.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #107 on: 12-12-2011, 12:35:52 »
Jah, bogami, nema meni spasa van Biblije.  :)  ali naravno, treba biti opak disident da bi se to shvatilo.  :mrgreen:

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #108 on: 15-02-2012, 18:36:44 »
The Academic Side of Speculative Fiction with Karen Burnham
by John DeNardo on February 15, 2012 |

 It may surprise you to know that people see science fiction and fantasy literature as more than mere vehicles of entertainment. In addition to enjoying the fiction side if things, there is gratification in knowing about the history and culture behind it. But what exactly is speculative fiction academics? And what does it teach us about the field?

To answer these questions I turned to Karen Burnham.

Burnham is a longtime speculative fiction fan whose love for genre prompted her to learn more about it. Since then, she has become a vital part of the science speculative fiction community. In addition to running her blog Spiral Galaxy Reviewing Laboratory, Burnham is also the editor of the Locus Roundtable Blog portion of Locus Online, the online version of Locus magazine, which is the premier magazine of the science fiction and fantasy field. Her latest project is writing a book about the work of science fiction author Greg Egan, coming soon from University of Illinois Press.

How would you explain the field of speculative fiction academics to someone who knows nothing about it?

Speculative fiction academics is pretty much like any other academic endeavor. You can look at any art form and ask what it tells us about culture, about humanity, about its time, and about our time—and people are looking at science fiction and fantasy that way too, now.
Scholars tackle sf in all its different forms—literature, graphic novels, TV, movies, plays and even fan fiction—from a variety of perspectives. Any tool, approach or theory that you can apply to literature or other pop culture field can be applied to sf as well.

What prompted you to learn more about the speculative fiction field beyond reading the fiction itself?

It all came about once I started reviewing. I had decided to write about what I read to keep myself honest—I felt like I’d been skimming too much and not really getting much out of my reading.
Writing about a story really makes me focus on it. Well, once I started doing that, I wanted to do it better. I looked at the people I really admire in the sf reviewing field, and that list started with Gary K. Wolfe, senior reviewer at Locus magazine. He’s an academic himself, with a position at Roosevelt University in Chicago. I started reading some of his nonfiction books, specifically The Known and the Unknown: The Iconography of Science Fiction, and branched out from there.

What can we learn about modern-day speculative fiction by studying the speculative fiction of the past?

There’s so much! I’m afraid I started as a very naive reader. From my personal experience, I had the impression that science fiction started with Asimov/Clarke/Heinlein, and fantasy started with Tolkien.
When I worked up a reading list of influential books from different eras, I was amazed to find out just how much sf existed before those famous folks. Some writers today reach back to an older tradition than the Golden Age—I’m thinking especially of Neil Gaiman and Kelly Link, both of whom have more in common with pre-World War II authors such as Lord Dunsany and Hope Mirlees than with Tolkien.

Has exploring the field of sf changed the way you read and/or enjoy fiction?

Yes, absolutely! I find I get a lot more enjoyment out of what I read by being able to see each piece as part of a larger whole. Whether I’m reading something old and classic or new and untested, you can see how all these stories have connections with other parts of the field.
Now, there’s a problem with being a reviewer in that you can become jaded—when you read a book that’s perfectly fine but not doing anything particularly new or interesting, it’s hard to find something to say about it, and it makes it harder to enjoy. But looking at it from a scholarly viewpoint can help that—it’s not a book that lacks interesting features, it’s one more piece of a broader story about the field.

Your quest to learn more about science fiction led you to your latest project, an analysis of the work of Greg Egan. How did you prepare for this and what can readers expect?

I started writing about Egan almost as soon as I began writing about literature. One of my first reviews for Strange Horizons was of Schild’s Ladder, and my first paper for the International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts was on portrayals of post-human gender in Egan’s Schild’s Ladder and Charles Stross’ Glasshouse.
I’ve always found his work interesting to read and write about. Once I was given the opportunity to focus on his work for this book project [part of a larger project by the University of Illinois Press], I set about reading all his books and stories in publication order [10 novels and 60 short stories or so], so that I’d have a sense of how his work evolved over time. I also looked up all his interviews and as many reviews of his work as I could find.
Then I started writing...but I quickly realized that I needed to bring in other perspectives in order to have a more complete view of the subject. So I’ve been reading up on subjects as diverse as information theory and critiques of transhumanism.
Luckily it’s all been fascinating. I hope that when all is said and done, readers will get a feel for the breadth and depth that Egan’s fiction covers. He tends to get placed so firmly in the “hardest of hard math- and physics-based sf” camp that it’s easy to forget that he also writes passionately about things like bioethics. I hope that people will also find more information about some of Egan’s themes, such as becoming posthuman, the scientific method, general relativity, neural networks and brain uploading to be of interest.

Who are some of the key figures in science fiction and fantasy academics?

There’s a spectrum of people that shade from well-read fans through to ivory tower academics. Before science fiction was accepted as a legitimate subject for study by academics, there was a lot of fan scholarship and criticism, and more than most fields that is still welcomed—thank goodness, or else my degrees in physics and electrical engineering wouldn’t let me anywhere *near* the University of Illinois Press.
Still, many of the people of the “pure academic” side of the spectrum have written very accessible works on the field. Gary K. Wolfe is still one of the best, combining as he does the month-to-month new releases beat of a reviewer with the perspective of an academic with over 30 years experience reading the field. Farah Mendlesohn in the UK has done great excellent work and has also teamed up with Edward James on some excellent surveys. Rob Latham at the University of Riverside brings genre into the literary discussions that go on there, and at the new Los Angeles Review of Books. Graham Sleight edits the excellent journal Foundation in the UK. David Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer produce the monthly New York Review of Science Fiction which has interesting critical articles as well as reviews.
Frankly, some of the most important critics of the field are authors themselves, and everyone should seek out the critical writings of Samuel R. Delany, Ursula K. LeGuin, and the late James Blish and Joanna Russ.

For those who might be interested in the academics side of speculative fiction and want to read more, what are some good books to start with?

Luckily this part of the field has been getting better and better over just the last few years. There are a bunch of different kinds of critical works. A good place to start is probably with the broad surveys, either wholly nonfiction such as the Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction [Farah Mendlesohn and Edward James] or a definitive short fiction anthology such as the Norton Book of Science Fiction [Ursula K. LeGuin and Brian Attebery].
There are also good essay collections that are quite painless and illuminating, such as Gary K. Wolfe’s Evaporating Genres, Paul Kincaid’s What it is We Do When We Read Science Fiction, Joanna Russ’ The Country You Have Never Seen, and Samuel Delany’s Starboard Wine. I found Delany’s About Writing to be extremely enlightening when I was starting out. Then there are books that have a sustained argument to make about the genre, such as Mendlesohn’s Rhetorics of Fantasy, Istvan Csicsery-Ronay Jr.’s The Seven Beauties of Science Fiction or Wolfe’s The Known and the Unknown. Plus there are review collections, such as John Clute’s recent Pardon This Intrusion.

What are some good online resources where folks can learn more?

Hands down, the online Science Fiction Encyclopedia is the best single reference site for science fiction. After that, things get a little scattered. I wouldn’t say that there’s any single online portal for this kind of work. The International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts has information about their conference, and you can connect with other interested persons through their e-mail list. There’s also The Center for the Study of Science Fiction, hosted by the University of Kansas. James Gunn has been crucial in getting academic attention for the field, and he’s starting a new publication, James Gunn’s Ad Astra which may prove interesting.


 John DeNardo is the editor of SF Signal, a group science-fiction and fantasy blog featuring news, reviews and interviews.
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #109 on: 20-02-2012, 14:10:20 »
During the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt, the USA’s official attitude toward Latin America was characterized as the “Good Neighbor Policy.”  A high-minded and friendly manifesto, the policy of course did little to stop self-serving American interventions in the affairs of the region for the next several decades.  It did, however, incidentally give us the Disney film Three Caballeros, with its sublimely stereotyped avian cartoon icons, José Carioca representing Brazil and Panchito Pistoles standing in for Mexico.  (Donald Duck, naturally, spoke for the USA.)Lately, Wesleyan University Press seems to be embarked on its own, much wiser and more productive “Good Neighbor” program for science fiction studies.  Nearly nine years ago, they published the first-ever anthology devoted wholly to Latin American SF rendered into English.  Cosmos Latinos, edited by Andrea L. Bell and Yolanda Molina-Gavilan, provided an invaluable introduction to that hitherto underpublicized portion of the global fantastika family. 
Now from Wesleyan again comes this book-length study, something of a companion volume, that will open even more eyes in those English-speaking countries unfortunately separated from their SF cousins by language barriers.  In crisp, clear prose, with immense scholarly depth, Ferreira establishes both the differences and consanguinities between Northern SF and its southern partners.  She evokes a plethora of old seminal works with the vividness and relevance of someone reviewing the latest bestseller, while still establishing, explicating and honoring their historical contexts. 
After delineating her terminology and game plan—overhyped magical realism is out the window as a subject—Ferriera denominates her remit:  she will discuss SF created in Mexico, Argentina and Brazil, during the years 1850 to 1920.  Further, she will approach the works thematically, tackling such core tropes as utopias, Social Darwinism and the creation of artificial beings in separate chapters.
Ferreira’s method is to devote distinct subsections to individual authors and their works, under each topical umbrella, and then to offer some observations and insights across the board.  Consider as an example the section on Godofredo Barnsley and his novel São Paulo in the Year 2000.  First, we get an enticing portrait of the man himself, a hybrid figure (son of Confederate exiles to Brazil) whose life reads like a steampunk adventure.  Then come twelve or so pages of close attention to the text and the cultural, political and technological environment from which it arose.  By the end of this examination, the reader will feel almost a first-hand acquaintance with this forgotten novel.
When you extend this treatment across a score of authors and their works, you’ll get a sense of the heft of this study.
Ferreira tells us, “At last count there are over ninety works of Latin American science fiction, from eleven different countries, published before 1920.”  Given this relatively extensive corpus, she makes a point of choosing those books and short stories which have the most power to illuminate her thesis:  that Lat-Am SF was a home-grown phenomenon to deal with the religious, political, and post-colonial issues of concern to the natives, while at the same time exhibiting intellectual “bonds of kinship” with, and sophisticated awareness of, northern forms of the literature.
Perhaps the clearest example of this is her discussion of Horacio Quiroga’s The Artificial Man.  “Quiroga is a key figure in the transition of Latin American science fiction from the elite, scientific form of the nineteenth century to the more popular, technology-driven genre of the twentieth…  As for the nascent science fiction genre, at the same time the Gernsback years were on the horizon in the United States, we find Quiroga at the juncture where the science fictional was becoming science fiction.”  Thus are intimate and revealing parallels between the two spheres continuously established.  Her suspenseful synopsis of the novel (with some illos reproduced too!) bears out this book’s importance.
Most of these writers will be totally unknown to even the savviest SF aficionado.  One exception might be Leopoldo Lugones, once championed by Borges and with a volume of his stories from Oxford University Press currently in print.  Certainly one of the more fascinating figures is a lone woman, Juana Manuela Gorriti, a true rebel and individualist with “a propensity for all that was strange, exotic and supernatural.”  As with Barnsley, the portrait of her life provided by Ferreira could fuel a steampunk novel.
Free of academic cant and jargon, sure to appeal to any reader with a cosmopolitan bent, this book restores a collateral branch of the global SF family to its North American and European relatives, engineering a reunion that can only benefit everyone, north and south, east and west.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #110 on: 26-02-2012, 08:09:44 »






Na Torque Control, povodom SF by women 2001 - 2010:


Enough people thought Le Guin’s Lavinia was science fiction that it was shortlisted for the BSFA best novel award, and  placed in last year’s poll of the best sf novels by women of the previous decade.
But why is it science fiction? Is it science fiction because that’s what Le Guin writes, and therefore this must be too? Is it science fiction between there’s a time traveler in the story, albeit one who makes a limited number of appearances, and those through extended vision sequences? Is it science fiction because, as I have proposedelsewhere, history is a form of science, and this story plays around with historiography in a science fictional way?
Jo Walton and Niall Harrison assert that it’s fantasy, as opposed to science fiction. Others clearly saw no distinction between science fiction and fantasy for the purposes of these particular two samplers – the BSFA Award is specifically open to fantasy, after all, despite the name of the organisation. And Niall didn’t define “science fiction” for the purpose of last year’s best-of poll, so its presence there doesn’t preclude it being only fantasy.
And yet, Niall observed that some people voted for Lavinia for the best-of poll in the same email as they said they wished they could vote for Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, but couldn’t because that was fantasy. Clearly, some people were consciously thinking of Lavinia as being science fiction as opposed to fantasy.
Personally, I don’t believe that one categorisation precludes the other. Above all, Lavinia is historical fiction, with a focus on the practical intricacies of daily life, and the mechanics of legend. It has one minor possible moment of mythic magic, when a group of household lares are mysteriously transported from one place to another. It has a time-traveling poet on his death bed, whose transtemporal dialogues can be interpreted as science fictional time travel, or as fantastical vision.
It also has a self-aware narrator, whose story is suffused with her consciousness of contingency. Her existence depends upon her being recounted. I’d never thought of post-modern as a mythic mode, but her self-consciousness is thoroughly both in this tale, as is the literalness embodied in her final transformation. Looked at from a different angle again, she feels a keen sense of wonder at the very fact of her own existence, under the circumstances. Perhaps her historiographic analytic self-consciousness is enough of a psychological experiment to justify Lavinia being thought of science fiction.

angel011

  • PsychoKitty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.050
  • meow
    • Hronika mačjeg škrabala
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #111 on: 28-02-2012, 21:13:33 »
PayPal ne da indie izdavačima da objavljuju fantastiku u kojoj ima njima neprihvatljive erotike, ili će da im ugasi naloge:


http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/paypal-strong-arms-indie-ebook-publishers-over-erotic-content/1097
We're all mad here.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #112 on: 28-02-2012, 21:38:34 »
PayPal ne da indie izdavačima da objavljuju fantastiku u kojoj ima njima neprihvatljive erotike, ili će da im ugasi naloge:

ovo je zaista dno.

vrlo je deprimirajuć i zabrinjavajuć početak ove godine.
možda je bolje da stvarno nastupi smak sveta, jer je svakim danom ovaj svet sve gnusnije i za življenje bezvrednije mesto!

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #113 on: 28-02-2012, 21:57:25 »
Jel ovo ozbiljno?
...
...
Budalaština...
...
...
I zašto ne pokušaju odmah da to sprovedu sa velikim izdavačima, a po mogućstvu sa piscima "iz lektire"? Ili piscima trenutnih bestselera? Ideja bi u startu bila osuđena na propast.

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #114 on: 28-02-2012, 22:19:05 »
Goveda.  :-x
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

angel011

  • PsychoKitty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.050
  • meow
    • Hronika mačjeg škrabala
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #115 on: 28-02-2012, 22:46:47 »

I zašto ne pokušaju odmah da to sprovedu sa velikim izdavačima, a po mogućstvu sa piscima "iz lektire"? Ili piscima trenutnih bestselera? Ideja bi u startu bila osuđena na propast.


Zato što veliki izdavači mogu da kažu da ih zabole za PayPal.


Ima indie izdavača koji pisce isplaćuju isključivo preko PayPala.
We're all mad here.

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #116 on: 28-02-2012, 23:17:41 »
Ne znam zašto se paypal uopšte smara sa tim, oni samo posreduju pri naplati i uzimaju svoj procenat, šta ih boli uvo ko šta prodaje ako je to što se prodaje legalno.



Isto i ovo vidim danas:

http://www.good.is/post/overrated-bully-s-r-rating-should-mean-the-end-of-the-mpaa2/

Quote
The new documentary Bully takes on the issue of harassment in American high schools, depicting real scenes of school bus torture, schoolyard violence, administrative indifference, and the tragic fallout in explicit detail. Now, the Motion Picture Association of America has made sure that most American high school students won't be able to see the film: It's slapped the doc with an R rating.
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #117 on: 04-03-2012, 09:19:25 »
One of the great obsessions in the literary field of fantastika is the discussion of what, exactly, we are reading/writing/identifying with/talking about when we use that term or one of the many others people invoke to represent their notion of the field. This is not old news; in fact, one could argue that this combination of definitional controversy and genre elasticity has been argued about since someone had the audacity to create a label for such literature. The debates have ranged from those dealing with the genre’s (however you categorize it) uniqueness to the idea that the genre is really part of the “mainstream.” Writers dispute the label for their fiction while others in the field dismiss genre labels as marketing categories. What unites all of these conversations is not just the subject of the debate, but the idea that definition is significant (even if wrong-headed or too narrow/broad/specific/imprecise) and requires constant discussion.

What fascinates me is the ongoing need to struggle over definitions and designations. The fact that these debates do not go away, and appear to invigorate engagement with the literature and create a social nexus around it, tells me that they have both utility and affect for those who participate in the literary field. Reading the literature is just one aspect of participation in the field; just as important is talking about it, writing about it, performing it, considering how it seeps into our imagination. Discussing the literature, and not just in terms of what a given reader likes and dislikes, is consequential because it is through that process of communication that the social effects are generated; ones that, rather than relating right back to the broader socio-cultural milieu, instead create a discrete sociality that some participants in the field take on as identity, custom, and vocabulary. This element is what makes fantastika distinctive as much as literary conventions or tropic connections within and between texts.

What I am here to grumble about is not the debate, because the discourse that results, while sometimes rote or idiosyncratic, is a vital part of the literary field. The problem is not that there is a discourse, but that it often focuses on creating boundaries or narrating trends, rather than examining stories from different angles. In essence, a lot of the discussion is about a theory of fantastika as a discrete category, rather than the active pursuit of theory to assess the literature. And here I mean theory in the sense that Jonathan Culler articulates in the quotation above, the probing of “common-sense” understandings and the dissection of our reception, interpretation, and reproduction of the texts. We don’t need new theories of fantastika; we need to think about those “basic premises and assumptions,” how they are created and perpetuated, and what other understandings and insights are possible.
We can argue about codifying the literature, about what texts belong in the canon or on a certain shelf, but these arguments become circular very quickly. As starting points for deeper discussion they can be useful, but we soon lose sight of the stories themselves and their effects. We stop considering what they mean, what they can mean, what we each see in them, and fall into a rut. Seeing designations such as genre labels as frameworks, as points of entry into texts, can break our readings out of those ruts. Viewing genres as perspectives, as vantage points for engaging stories, and arguing from those points rather than just about them, has the potential to create more active, fluid discussions.
Trying to create a “theory of science fiction/fantasy/fantastika/etc.” is a losing proposition if you are trying to create definitive borders around a group of textual objects. Any effort to state categorically what one of these designations “is” quickly becomes more of an exercise in revealing one’s reading proclivities & biases. Such efforts say more about the creator of the theory than about the literature itself. In our attempts to solidify boundaries or demarcate discrete categories we discover more about our own preferences, intentions and anxieties than we do about the literature.

Take, for example, my own efforts to discuss “the mainstream” in this very column. The idea of “mainstream literature” is, as commenters have noted, problematic, and I agree with this assertion. When I have tried to deal with this idea in the past, however, the “mainstream” emerges as a vague, hollow signifier (which, to be fair, the idea IS to some extent). In my efforts to discuss something that fantastika does distinctively, I have contrasted it with something that I believe does not do the same things, but the category I compare it to is one with fuzzy boundaries. The result is that my discussion becomes hazy because I have shifted my gaze from the literature and the field of production to a juxtaposition that does not illuminate the text. It becomes a return to the rather tired discussion of what each genre “is,” rather than an investigation of the narratives or texts that I am trying to understand. I end up comparing two genres, neither of which have satisfactory purlieus for genuinely illuminating analysis.
Personally, I want to discuss fantastika with more aggressive inquiry, more critical discernment, and with more soberness. It is very easy to get caught up in passions that the allied genres stir in our minds and, often, in our hearts. The trick, I think, is to channel that passion into keen and refreshing readings of the stories that we love, that challenge and nurture and inspire us. Instead of arguing for the relevance or popularity or inherent awesomeness of the genre, we need to argue more from the stories themselves, argue with the stories, sometimes even argue against them. The focus becomes one of looking at fantastic literature from angles that allow us to articulate something restorative or provocative about the work(s) in question. Instead of asserting that a text is not mundane, we need to open up our interpretations of the text to show the peculiar and extraordinary qualities that shout at us from the texts.
On Twitter today Paolo Bacigalupi wrote “Open up your mouth and scream, and then keep screaming. I wish more literature did that.” That is what I look for in literature, whether fantastic, mundane, surreal, or utterly mimetic. I don’t love fantastika because the stories are based in fairy tales or scientific innovation or psychological archetypes or other peoples’ dreamworlds. I love them because the stories that scream at me mostly come from this realm of story. Fantastic literature is where I found the screaming that woke me up, knocked me out of my rut (multiple times), pushed me to write and think and dream with sharper eyes and quicker wits. I don’t need to define it; I need to sit with it, turn it over in my hands, listen to it, figure it out, and see what new things it tells me when I try to fathom it using new ideas. The power of fantastika does not come from what it is, what it supposedly contains; it comes from what we do with it, what we take into our skulls and what happens in them when we take it apart, let it flower in the light of our imaginations and breathe in the fresh air that it generates for our spirits.

Filed under: The Bellowing Ogre


aenimax

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 68
  • Freeze? I'm a robot. I'm not a refrigerator.
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #118 on: 18-03-2012, 21:11:50 »
dobro, pošto smo se složili da je žanr-književnost drugorazredna, i zapravo vredna samo onda kad je above & beyond genre – ajde da vidimo šta pišu ozbiljni, mejnstrim časopisi na teme koje nećete naći u svom omiljenom fanzinu, a opet se dotiču fantastike (koja nije horor, jer za to imamo topik na adekvatnom mestu – horror seriously).

za početak, prijavljujem:

SVESKE, pančevo, sept. 09,
-II deo eseja o fantastici kod pinčona ('objava br. 49') i kortasara (započet u junskom broju)
-I deo eseja o fantastičnoj prozi m. nastasijevića
-'da li svest supervenira nad fizičkim svojstvima?' – iz knjige philosophy of the mind, moglo bi biti zanimljivo fantastičarima...


Evo još nekih radova:

1. Filolog br. 4 (časopis filološkog fakulteta u B. Luci http://filolog.yolasite.com/%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3-4.php) - "Elementi kiberpanka u Pinčonovim romanima V., Objava broja 49 i Duga gravitacije" http://filolog.yolasite.com/resources/casopisi/FILOLOG%204.pdf
2. Zbornik za jezike i književnosti Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu #1 - "Alternativne stvarnosti Filipa K. Dika" http://epub.digitalnabiblioteka.tk/index.php/zjik/index
Don't wake me for the end of the world unless it has very good special effects

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Credible science fiction needs arts and sciences collaboration...
« Reply #119 on: 27-04-2012, 16:39:37 »











A group of six major British science fiction authors including Alastair Reynolds, Ken MacLeod and Geoff Ryman are calling urgently for closer collaboration between the arts and the sciences.

In a letter today to the Manchester Review, also signed by the authors Justina Robson, Simon Ings and Paul McAuley, they say Britain is "falling behind the United States", where the National Academy of Sciences'Science and Entertainment Exchange was set up in 2009 matching scientists with creative projects needing advice.

"In Britain, scientists and people in arts, TV, movie and literary worlds do not work together as they should. This is a major problem: we all desperately need to understand each other's constraints to create works that are entertaining, enlightening and scientifically authentic," they write. "As British
science fiction writers, we are continually forced to balance scientific practice, current knowledge and future developments with the demands of fine storytelling. Getting that balance right is hard, but worthwhile, because credibility is so important both to audiences and the scientific community."

The authors are taking part in
a symposium at the University of Manchester this week, where scientists and artists will gather to discuss how to guarantee the scientific credibility of fiction, as well as to hammer out the first steps in establishing a UK body similar to America's Science and Entertainment Exchange. "More support will be needed to make this dream a reality, so we call on scientists and the creative community to back us. A new body dedicated to this task must surely benefit the millions of people around the world who value and enjoy British fiction, film, television and the other arts," the authors say.

"I work with a lot of scientists and one of the frustrating things they find is that all this fascinating stuff is being done which doesn't find its way into science fiction. They say look at the science fact pages – they're so much more imaginative than science fiction," said Ryman, winner for his novels of a British Science Fiction Association award, a World Fantasy award and an Arthur C Clarke award, and a creative writing lecturer at the University of Manchester. "It's my experience that scientists can find it difficult to understand the needs of scriptwriters or storytellers. There is a way of working that ensures that scientific authenticity can be maintained [and] a gripping story gets told. There is a kind of process that can be followed.  But both sides need to be aware of it."

Ryman pointed to help he received on one of his own stories from Dr Manolis Pantos of the
Daresbury laboratory. "He was using new techniques to date cultural artefacts. In my story, small patterned cylinders had been found on Mars, and particle bombardment was helping to date them. How, on Mars, could we produce such particles? Oh, offered Dr Pantos, they will probably have portable synchrotrons by then. Portable synchronised particle accelerators on Mars? My mind at least boggled," he wrote in an article for the Manchester Review.

The author is working with his Manchester colleague Dr David Kirby, senior lecturer in science communication studies, on the collaboration project. "The key is to help these communities understand how best to work together," said Kirby. "Our workshop will be attended by major figures in the creative and scientific communities and is a first step to creating a body in the UK which brings together both sides."[/font]
[/size]

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
An Optical Illusion that Explains the Origins of Imaginary Monsters
 
It seems that the brain, in specific situations, literally gets bored and starts scaring you. The easiest way to prove this is to perform the simple experiment of looking steadily into a mirror, for a few minutes at a time. Soon, you're very likely to see a monster. That monster is a combination of your face and your brain. Does that make it better or worse?
There are a lot of creepy situations that start happening when you look in the mirror. Low light and a fearful mood certainly help, but the primary reason why people have so many mirror related freak-outs, and why it's become such a big game at slumber parties, is straight biology. The brain doesn't have the energy or the processing power to notice everything all the time. Sitting at your computer now, you're probably unaware of the feel of the seat under you, your clothes against your skin, and any lingering smells you might have noticed (no judgement) when you walked into the room. Your mind mostly tunes them out. But the sense that most of us rely on almost all the time, sight, has also been narrowed down. You are probably unaware of anything outside of the range of the computer screen, and you probably haven't noticed minor changes to that. That is why most updates on computers come with a sound or a blinking light.
The brain, when faced with a lot of stimulation, only some of which is considered relevant, will tune out the non-relevant parts, filling in what it can from the general area. It's a little like how the blind spot works, except this is a dynamic process. The brain will zoom in on a desired area, and the rest of the space will fade away. This is called the Troxler Effect, or Troxler Fading. It was discovered way back in 1804 by Ignaz Troxler, a physician and philosopher. Take a look at the circle to the left. Focus on the red dot at the middle. After less than thirty seconds, the circle should just fade away. The mind then fills in the area where the circle used to be with the white that surrounds it. It's worth doing an image search on Troxler Effect, since there are a ton of illusions with it on the internet. There are whole paintings that fade away. There are moving objects that disappear with enough focus. You can spend a happy twenty minutes observing your brain erase the world.
A less happy ten minutes would be spent staring in a mirror. A paper in Perception outlines an experiment in which people were asked to stare into a mirror, in low light, for ten minutes. They do not sound like a fun ten minutes, according to the report.

angel011

  • PsychoKitty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.050
  • meow
    • Hronika mačjeg škrabala
We're all mad here.

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #122 on: 17-05-2012, 00:15:45 »
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #123 on: 17-05-2012, 16:42:56 »
ACA FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY:

Александар Б. Недељковић

Руси у српској причи „Исток “ Илије Љ. Бакића и у филму Терминал Стивена Спилберга: исти менталитет, две визије

http://cultofghoul.blogspot.com/2012/05/b-nedeljkovic-rusi-i-spilberg.html

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #124 on: 17-05-2012, 17:33:31 »
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #125 on: 17-05-2012, 19:35:00 »

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
12 Excogitations on the Reading of Fantastika
« Reply #126 on: 18-05-2012, 09:04:30 »
The Bellowing Ogre: 12 Excogitations on the Reading of Fantastika   
 
 
               By John H. Stevens |     Thursday, May 17th, 2012     at     10:00 am   
                                                 
 
“All writing depends on the generosity of the reader.” – Alberto Manguel

 
I have a lot of ideas rattling around in my head this week, so I thought that I would write them down, still-forming and tentative, and see what I can make of them. And I ask you, the reader, to let me know which of these notions make sense, and which seem counter-intuitive.  A few of them are intentionally excessive in their speculations — little thought-exercises to stimulate debate and reflection. My goal here is to articulate my conjectures and then start taking them apart to find out which ones are most useful and evocative for examining the reading experience and process.
 

 

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Diversion and Immersion: Escapism and the Reading of Fantastika
« Reply #127 on: 01-06-2012, 09:20:39 »
http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2012/05/diversion-and-immersion-escapism-and-the-reading-of-fantastika/#more-56102
 
 
escapist: In literary criticism, it describes anything that allows audiences to immerse themselves in a fictional world, and ‘escape’ from reality. Popular entertainment (such as Hollywood movies) is often described and derided as escapist; in contrast, literature confronts truth and reality head-on. Most cultural critics would find this distinction simplistic…”
 
 
“ESCAPISM: The desire to retreat into imaginative entertainment rather than deal with the stress, tedium, and daily problems of the mundane world.”
- (via Dr. L. Kip Wheeler’s website)

 
 
“I have claimed that Escape is one of the main functions of fairy-stories, and since I do not disapprove of them, it is plain that I do not accept the tone of scorn or pity with which ‘Escape’ is now so often used: a tone for which the uses of the word outside literary criticism give no warrant at all. In what the misusers are fond of calling Real Life, Escape is evidently as a rule very practical, and may even be heroic. In real life it is difficult to blame it, unless it fails; in criticism it would seem to be the worse the better it succeeds. Evidently we are faced by a misuse of words, and also by a confusion of thought.”
- J.R.R. Tolkien, “On Fairy-Stories”

 
 
“Perhaps there is no way of escaping in art from one’s society, as any social product will of necessity embody the society’s values and pressures, and the less these values or pressures are confronted and examined in the work, the more in force they will be.”

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #128 on: 01-06-2012, 10:32:42 »
Quote
When we talk about escapism we are talking about the use of the human imagination to create a sense of dislocation and/or diversion from our immediate surroundings. This can happen with any work of fiction.

Živa istina. U tom pogledu su vrlo poučne priče o robijaškoj lektiri.  :mrgreen:
 
I sve ovo što je čovek napisao stoji, ali on pri tome mudro zaobilazi jednu činjenicu koja pada u oči već kad uporedimo citate Tolkina i Džoane Ras: naime, eskapizam jeste pre svega stav čitaoca, ali i pisac može pisanje koristiti kao eskapističku delatnost, što se, jel'te, tiče samo njega lično, ali-ali autor može i da se svesno opredeli da udovoljava tuđoj potrebi za bekstvom iz stvarnosti tako što će isporučivati stvari krojene po pretpostavljenoj meri tuđe fantazije, i onda možemo govoriti o eskapističkoj literaturi per se - a ona može, mada nikako ne mora, biti i fantastična.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #129 on: 01-06-2012, 11:54:09 »
Ovo je više (u neku ruku) (auto)biografija nego intervju. U svakom slučaju, veoma je interesantno (jeste dugačko).

http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6089/the-art-of-fiction-no-211-william-gibson


Quote

INTERVIEWER

You wrote your first story for a class, didn’t you?




GIBSON

A woman named Susan Wood had come to UBC as an assistant professor. We were the same age, and I met her while reconnoitering the local science-fiction culture. In my final year she was teaching a science-fiction course. I had become really lazy and thought, I won’t have to read anything if I take her course. No matter what she assigns, I’ve read all the stuff. I’ll just turn up and bullshit brilliantly, and she’ll give me a mark just for doing that. But when I said, “Well, you know, we know one another. Do I really have to write you a paper for this class?” She said, “No, but I think you should write a short story and give me that instead.” I think she probably saw through whatever cover I had erected over my secret plan to become a science-fiction writer.
I went ahead and did it, but it was incredibly painful. It was the hardest thing I did in my senior year, writing this little short story. She said, “That’s good. You should sell it now.” And I said, “No.” And she said, “Yeah, you should sell it.” I went and found the most obscure magazine that paid the least amount of money. It was called Unearth. I submitted it to them, and they bought it and gave me twenty-seven dollars. I felt an enormous sense of relief. At least nobody will ever see it, I thought. That was “Fragments of a Hologram Rose.”

Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #130 on: 01-06-2012, 12:09:19 »
Ponekad me ovakvi redovi podsećaju kako se život, zapravo, dešava. Te, neke nevoljne i nevoljene stvari se izmetnu u ključne događaje.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #131 on: 01-06-2012, 12:45:54 »
Evo još malo interesantnoća (a ima ih dosta):

Quote

INTERVIEWER

The world of the Sprawl is often called dystopian.



GIBSON

Well, maybe if you’re some middle-class person from the Midwest. But if you’re living in most places in Africa, you’d jump on a plane to the Sprawl in two seconds. Many people in Rio have worse lives than the inhabitants of the Sprawl.
I’ve always been taken aback by the assumption that my vision is fundamentally dystopian. I suspect that the people who say I’m dystopian must be living completely sheltered and fortunate lives. The world is filled with much nastier places than my inventions, places that the denizens of the Sprawl would find it punishment to be relocated to, and a lot of those places seem to be steadily getting worse.






INTERVIEWER

There’s a famous story about your being unable to sit through Blade Runner while writing Neuromancer.



GIBSON

I was afraid to watch Blade Runner in the theater because I was afraid the movie would be better than what I myself had been able to imagine. In a way, I was right to be afraid, because even the first few minutes were better. Later, I noticed that it was a total box-office flop, in first theatrical release. That worried me, too. I thought, Uh-oh. He got it right and ­nobody cares! Over a few years, though, I started to see that in some weird way it was the most influential film of my lifetime, up to that point. It affected the way people dressed, it affected the way people decorated nightclubs. Architects started building office buildings that you could tell they had seen in Blade Runner. It had had an astonishingly broad aesthetic impact on the world.
I met Ridley Scott years later, maybe a decade or more after Blade Runner was released. I told him what Neuromancer was made of, and he had basically the same list of ingredients for Blade Runner. One of the most powerful ingredients was French adult comic books and their particular brand of Orientalia—the sort of thing that Heavy Metal magazine began translating in the United States.
But the simplest and most radical thing that Ridley Scott did in Blade Runner was to put urban archaeology in every frame. It hadn’t been obvious to mainstream American science fiction that cities are like compost heaps—just layers and layers of stuff. In cities, the past and the present and the future can all be totally adjacent. In Europe, that’s just life—it’s not science fiction, it’s not fantasy. But in American science fiction, the city in the future was always brand-new, every square inch of it.
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #132 on: 02-06-2012, 09:40:17 »
Quote
When we talk about escapism we are talking about the use of the human imagination to create a sense of dislocation and/or diversion from our immediate surroundings. This can happen with any work of fiction.

Živa istina. U tom pogledu su vrlo poučne priče o robijaškoj lektiri.  :mrgreen:
 
I sve ovo što je čovek napisao stoji, ali on pri tome mudro zaobilazi jednu činjenicu koja pada u oči već kad uporedimo citate Tolkina i Džoane Ras: naime, eskapizam jeste pre svega stav čitaoca, ali i pisac može pisanje koristiti kao eskapističku delatnost, što se, jel'te, tiče samo njega lično, ali-ali autor može i da se svesno opredeli da udovoljava tuđoj potrebi za bekstvom iz stvarnosti tako što će isporučivati stvari krojene po pretpostavljenoj meri tuđe fantazije, i onda možemo govoriti o eskapističkoj literaturi per se - a ona može, mada nikako ne mora, biti i fantastična.


paaaa... sve je to istina što zboriš, ali nema tu ničeg sinister, to je prost rezultat balansa ponude i potražnje, a taj mehanizam je odvajkada bio na snazi i biće, ne samo za literaturu: pisci isporučuju eskapizam jer znaju da ima publike kojoj eskapizam treba, a neretko su i sami deo te publike, pa se ono što percipiraš kao "kroj po meri pretpostavljene tuđe fantazije" često svede na kroj po meri sopstvene.  :wink:  Broj fantazija ni izbliza nije tako obilan kao broj varijacija na iste. Pravo pitanje bi tu onda trebalo da bude "zašto postoji potreba za eskapizmom", a ova serija kirkusovih diskusija prilično zadovoljavajuće čeprka po tom pitanju.


E sad, to što kažeš u zaključku je daleko više na metu. Čaak štaviše, rekla bih da najbolje prolazi (i uvek je najbolje prolazio) realistički eskapizam, znači, onaj posve lišen fantastike u njenim tradicionalnim motivima, znači - ljubići, krimići i teorije vaskolikih ovozemaljskih zavera.  :mrgreen:  Fantastički literarni populizam tu ubedljivo kaska za njima, gledano tiražno i adervajz, ali pošto je upečatljiv i praktičan po pitanju nekih drugih merila, nekako uvek zgrabi više spotlajta nego što mu po pravdi boga pripada. Ali otom - potom. *


Kad smo već kod fenomena populističke literature, evo nešto malo relevantnog istorijskog kurioziteta: 


Krajem 1740-te, izašao je roman u dve sveščice pod nazivom Pamela, Or Virtue Rewarded. Naizgled ništa oko tog romana nije bilo revolucionarno, od jeftine štampe pa do klasično formalnog (za ondašnje pojmove, narvno) stila: "jeftinoća" je tu bila svedefinišući pojam, primenjiv kako na izgled tako i na sadržaj izdanja. A sadržaj je bio... pa, recimo banalan: mlada devojka dobija zaposlenje kao služavka u imućnijoj kući i revnosno održava prepisku sa roditeljima, koja služi i kao dnevnik zbivanja u, inače prilično mundanom, životu neudate a privlačne dobro odgojene devojke niskog staleža. Ali uskoro se otkriva da njen poslodavac ima nečasne namere i, ne lezi vraže, tenzija puna erotike biva lansirana od prve strane prve sveščice pa sve do zadnje strane druge.  :lol:


E sad, ta Pamela je prvi lako prepoznatljiv populistički bestseler i, naravno, biološka mati žanra ljubića. Naravno, pri tom je plodna Pamela imala još dece, ali alas, ona su odavno usvojena i nose zvučne patronime, pa ih danas retko ko povezuje sa biloškom majkom niskog staleža. No, koga ne mrzi da sledi krvnu liniju po majci (a jedino tu valja i slediti, jer majčinstvo je daleko manje dubiozno pri dokazivanju od očinstva :evil: ), lako može da ustanovi pedigre. **


Dakle, te daleke 1740te populus je mogao da čita (a i čitao je) fascinantnu literaturu tipa Don Kihota i Robinsona Krusoa, u sve tako prelepom pikarskom formatu fantastičnih putovanja i kvalitetnog literarnog izraza, pa ipak, isti taj populus je daleko darežljivije reagovao na Pamelu, pisanu skromnim naporom još skromnije obrazovanog talenta. Zašto? Pa, možda zato što je Pamela govorila o relevantnijim zbivanjima, i nudila eskapizam lakše dohvatljiv, bar onima kojima je bila namenjena, a to je bila niža i srednja građanska klasa, mahom žene: dakle, populus sa obiljem slobodnog vremena, sa obrazovanjem koje je pokrivalo abecedu ali ne i dublje literarne prohteve, i sa kupovnom moći koja je mogla da podnese jeftine sveščice, ali ne i kožom uvijene tomove dekadentne aristokracije. Takvim ljudima eskapizam je sveden na vrlo preciznu meru, jer gladan čovek ne sanjari o kraljevskom bogastvu nego o obilno pretrpanom tanjiru, pa se tako i eskapizam formira po potrebama čitaoca, a ne obratno. Populus koji je Pamelu napravio bestselerom žudeo je za eskapizmom koji ih ne bi odveo na pusta ostrva i izgubljene civilizacije, nego tek u malo bolju ulicu ili stalež. Populus nije pohlepan koliko mu se pripisuje, to treba razumeti čak i u kontekstu književnih žanrova.


Autor Pamele je bio izvesni Samuel Richardson, star 50 godina i - ovo je važno - vlasnik male štamparije koju mu je obezbedio supružni miraz. Naravno da mu ta štamparija nije donela bogatstvo niti danonoćno poslovanje, pa se čovek, u trenucima dokolice, latio pera, pišući ono što je i sam voleo da čita. I naravno da je znao ko će to još voleti da čita, pa je troškov opreme sveo na minimum, pozicionirajući se tako u našem sistemu vrednosti kao otac roto-romana, ili žute štampe, ili palpa u nekom generalnom značenju tog termina.


Svega godinu dana kasnije, fama oko Pamele raširila se od Londona do Evrope. Na njegovo veliko iznenađenje, Ričardson je slavljen u vascelom populusu kao veliki moralni reformator i jedinstven književni genije. Lansirane su brojne parodije i još brojnija kopiket drpanja (Shamela, najverovatnije Henry Fielding, a kasnije i njegov zvanični Joseph Andrews), i Ričardson se tu zatekao kao prvi bestseler pisac koji je na tržište izbacio taman pravu formulu realističnog seksa, erotike i moraliziranja. Svi su bili opsednuti Pamelom, ponajviše oni koji su bili anti-Pamela. Ričardson je bio prvi veliki populistički hipster, bez i mrve namere.


A onda.


Onda se koncept destilizovao u sledeća dela, koja su svoju slavu i tiraže stekla zahvaljujući prvenstveno ciljnoj grupi koju je Pamla odgajila: (kažem prvenstveno, a ne isključivo, molim da se to uvaži! :twisted: ) Tom Jones, Roderick Random, Peregrine Pickle, Tristram Shandy; Julie, or the New Heloise, The Sorrows of Young Werther, The Robbers, Madame Bovary i tako dalje i tako bliže, sa sve imenima koja su nam rezonantna jer su klasična.


A sve to zbog Pamele.  :)  Populistička književnost je, stoga, avangarda čiju sirovost i nebrušenost koristi tzv. "visoka" književnost, bahato joj oduzimajući prava pedigrea, uz licemerno zataškavanje sopstvenog porekla u tako niščem staležu, pežorativno žigosanom kao "populistička literatura".


A za fantastiKa fenomen priča je duža, naravno, i direktno se oslanja na * , ** i kirkusovu ongoing debatu.   




Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #133 on: 02-06-2012, 09:57:23 »
Libe, da znaš samo kako si me sa Pamelom ubola u sentimentalno vaspitanje!  :-|
Naime, ja sam Pamelu čitala tamo negde u gimnaziji jer mi nije bilo jasno zašto sve tete u mojoj stalnoj biblioteci (Đorđe Jovanović, tada ispod Etnografskog muzeja) unapred rezervišu roman iz XVIII veka i to u dve debele knjige i to po drugi, treći... n-ti put. Onda mi se sve razjasnilo.  :lol: :lol: :lol: A onda smo na faksu počeli da radimo Ričardsona, ali pre svega Klarisu (koja mu je druga od ukupno tri knjige) i ja izmolim od fakultetske bibliotekarke da mi da Klarisu preko letnjeg raspusta tj. na mesec i po dana.
E sad, ovo su relevantni podaci za Klarisu:
  • Paperback: 1534 pages
  • Publisher: Penguin Classics (February 4, 1986)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0140432159
  • ISBN-13: 978-0140432152
  • Product Dimensions: 5.8 x 2.3 x 9.2 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 2.8 pounds

  • I ja sve to pročitam od korica do korica... :-|
    Eh, mladosti, mladosti! Šta mi je to trebalo? Pa, ništa. Ni za ispit, ni za duvakanje nije koristilo, samo za urnebesno prepričavanje najsmešnijih delova (i onda on izađe iz ormana! U kućnom mantilu! Da je siluje! A ona padne u nesvest! I on se uplaši da mu ne umre! Pa je ne siluje! Trijes strana!) ali mi je nekako toplo oko srca kad se setim koliko sam bila dokona i volela knjige. A nije ni ovaj post nešto pametan doprinos, ali da, takva literatura ima dragoceno mesto u mom životu, priznajem. :lol:

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #134 on: 02-06-2012, 10:49:09 »
Ovo je više (u neku ruku) (auto)biografija nego intervju. U svakom slučaju, veoma je interesantno (jeste dugačko).


http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6088/the-art-of-fiction-no-210-samuel-r-delany




Quote

INTERVIEWER

 How did your dyslexia manifest itself?




DELANY

I had, and have, no visual ability to remember how words are put together. I can recognize them when I see them. But unless they’re in front of me, I can’t recall the vowels they contain. I have no command over whether they contain single or double letters. The closest metaphor I can come up with is that it’s like being able to recognize hundreds of different faces but being incapable of producing any sort of likeness of any of them with a pencil and paper. I know all the rules—“i before e, except after c, or when sounded as ay as in neighbor or weigh”—and still cannot put down the words correctly. At the same time, I read omnivorously.
When I was thirteen, I read War and Peace—the first two hundred pages over two or three days, then I stayed up for thirty-six hours straight to read the rest, with my father coming in every few hours during the night to tell me to put the light out and go to sleep. Interruptions aside, it was a wonderful experience—though I slept all Sunday. That’s the point I decided novels were where it was at.
I read whatever books were lying around—Freddy the Pig and William Faulkner, Raintree County and Mandingo and Frank Yerby and Studs Lonigan and God’s Little Acre and the Alexandria Quartet. I tackled Dylan Thomas and The Waste Land before I left the eighth grade and probably every popular-science book George Gamow published. My downstairs neighbor, who was a writer of young-adult novels, in a moment of who-knows-what excitement, enthused to me one afternoon about Colette’s Chéri and The Last of Chéri and Chester Himes, whom he had known personally. By then, I had a library card, so I read them.
The novels that made me want to write them were Huckleberry Finn—my father read it to me one winter, a couple of chapters a night, after I was in bed, one of few truly pleasant memories I have of the man—and A High Wind in Jamaica and Great Expectations. And Pale Fire, a novel that re­inspired me to want to make more such books in the world. The Song of the Lark, My Ántonia, and My Mortal Enemy, along with all of Cather’s stories and nonfiction writing. La Princesse de Clèves, Madame de La Fayette’s wonder­ful seventeenth-century psychological study on which Radiguet modeled his Count d’Orgel, or Sentimental Education, or Lost Illusions, or Mrs. Dalloway or The Waves or The Years. They are all books that have made me—and, oh yes, others—want to write still other books.
The dyslexia didn’t much hamper my reading. What it affected was my writing. I couldn’t spell anything! In an early short story I wrote, a woman who works in a five-and-ten at one point exclaims, “Customers! Customers! Customers!” All three were spelled differently—and all three wrong. I could not spell the word paper three times right in a row!

INTERVIEWER

But you were already serious about writing?

DELANY

I don’t think I was ever any more serious about writing than I was when I was twelve and thirteen. Of course I wanted to do lots of other things besides. I wanted to be a musician—that is, I wanted to be a composer. I played the violin back then. I wrote a violin concerto, from unrequited love for a young violinist, a prodigy my age who was playing solo concerts, whom I had met at a kids’ party up in Croton-on-Hudson. I choreographed dances, wrote stories, directed plays. It was all terribly serious. At seventeen, for a winter, I took ballet lessons. But, one after another, probably because I had a sense of the seriousness of each, I realized you can’t do it all. Finally, writing more or less drifted to the top.

I had already tried to write a novel, something called Lost Stars. It was about a very lonely young man named Erik Torrent who wandered around the city, looking at things. I started it when I was thirteen and finished it when I was fourteen. It had about everything wrong with it such a narrative could have. People were very nice about not telling me that. I suspect they were just impressed I’d filled out that many pages with words.
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #135 on: 03-06-2012, 09:56:27 »
Gaffe, Diljelni je hodajući kulturni šok. A ne bi se reklo po skorašnjim fotkama, na njima izgleda tek kao bucmasti i bradati čičica, sve se nedužno sa partnerom za ručicu drži, ali proza brate, proza... zadnji put su me ovako prodrmale jedino Mejpltorpove fotke. :oops: 

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #136 on: 03-06-2012, 10:18:30 »
Gaffe, Diljelni je hodajući kulturni šok. A ne bi se reklo po skorašnjim fotkama, na njima izgleda tek kao bucmasti i bradati čičica, sve se nedužno sa partnerom za ručicu drži, ali proza brate, proza... zadnji put su me ovako prodrmale jedino Mejpltorpove fotke. :oops: 

A nikako da nađem onaj dokumentarac koji se pominje na početku teksta. GD!

(kakav je Through the Valley of the Nest of Spiders?)
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #137 on: 03-06-2012, 10:23:12 »
Jevtro, ti si to čitala u prevodu?? Bože moj, kako li je samo fascinantna bila ta zemlja u kojoj smo rođene, a?  xrotaeye  Elem, ja sam na Ričardsona naišla tek u prošloj deceniji, pa Klarisa nije mogla da se dočepa liste za čitanje ni kako kuriozitet. (Nego, kad smo već kod sentimentalnog vaspitanja, moram ovde da ubacim malko digresije, jer ću garant kasnije da zaboravim: ima dosta romana kojima se ne sećam niti naslova niti autora, ali se itekako sećam da su me do koske potresli, pa ako možeš da mi pomogneš u prisećanju, bila bih stvarno zahvalna. Najvažniji mi je roman o mladom konskriptu na nemačkoj podmornici u WW2, roman opisuje gotovo ceo njegov ratni staž, da tako kažem, i taman kad pomisliš da će nekako izvuče živu glavu, podmornica naleti na podvodnu minu i celoj posadi eksplozija utera kosti potkolenice uz kost butine i stopala im dođu na mesto kolena i na kraju im tako bespomoćnima galebi iskljucaju oči... nemaš pojma kakve mi je noćne more poklonio taj roman, valjda sam zato i izbrisala autora i naslov iz sećanja, ali volela bih da ga ponovo overim, čisto terapije radi.  :mrgreen: )


A za one asterikse po pitanju eskapizma: sve nekako očekujem i sve se nekako nadam da će se kirkusova diskusija dotaći i jedne malko zapostavljene žanrovske struje mišljenja po pitanju eskapizma, struje koja stidljivo i u pola glasa mrmlja sebi u bradu kako je kapitalizacija na kontrakulturnoj energiji bitnika hajdžakovala SF za društveno-političke angažmane (koji možda i jesu doprineli da sam žanr "odraste" i postane respektabilan u književno-teorijskim okvirima, ali je ujedno i pamfletizmom utepala eskapizam kao takav). Mislim, tu je utepan bar onaj za žanr originalni eskapizam Zlatnog doba, kud već ne generalni. Nije da nema argumenata za to, ali vidim da se malo ko time bavi, iako se vazda nadam da će se nekome to makar omakne...  :lol:   

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #138 on: 03-06-2012, 10:25:37 »
(kakav je Through the Valley of the Nest of Spiders?)


 :oops: :cry: xfoht


bukvalno nemam reči, osim da temeljito redefiniše pojmove devijantne seksualnosti i normalnosti jednako.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #139 on: 03-06-2012, 11:30:18 »
(kakav je Through the Valley of the Nest of Spiders?)


 :oops: :cry: xfoht


bukvalno nemam reči, osim da temeljito redefiniše pojmove devijantne seksualnosti i normalnosti jednako.


Ajd' da vidim i to...


Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #140 on: 03-06-2012, 22:05:11 »
Jevtro, ti si to čitala u prevodu?? Bože moj, kako li je samo fascinantna bila ta zemlja u kojoj smo rođene, a?  xrotaeye  Elem, ja sam na Ričardsona naišla tek u prošloj deceniji, pa Klarisa nije mogla da se dočepa liste za čitanje ni kako kuriozitet. (Nego, kad smo već kod sentimentalnog vaspitanja, moram ovde da ubacim malko digresije, jer ću garant kasnije da zaboravim: ima dosta romana kojima se ne sećam niti naslova niti autora, ali se itekako sećam da su me do koske potresli, pa ako možeš da mi pomogneš u prisećanju, bila bih stvarno zahvalna. Najvažniji mi je roman o mladom konskriptu na nemačkoj podmornici u WW2, roman opisuje gotovo ceo njegov ratni staž, da tako kažem, i taman kad pomisliš da će nekako izvuče živu glavu, podmornica naleti na podvodnu minu i celoj posadi eksplozija utera kosti potkolenice uz kost butine i stopala im dođu na mesto kolena i na kraju im tako bespomoćnima galebi iskljucaju oči... nemaš pojma kakve mi je noćne more poklonio taj roman, valjda sam zato i izbrisala autora i naslov iz sećanja, ali volela bih da ga ponovo overim, čisto terapije radi.  :mrgreen: )
 

Pamela je prevedena u to zlatno doba, 1970, ali Klarisa se ni tada nije probila. Nema hepiend, pa to ti je :)
Što se tiče ovog romana koji pominješ: pojma nemam, najjači kandidat bi bio verovatno Podmornica, autor  Lothar-Günther Buchheim,  po njemu je snimljen i onaj film Das Boot; ali: Podmornica je prevedena samo na slovenački, 1975, koliko sam mogla da nađem; ako čitaš i na slovenačkom, na to bih prvo tipovala.
Pošto su Švabe Švabe, našla sam bar dva sajta sa spiskovima nemačkih knjiga o podmornicama u II svetskom ratu (!) Možda će ti neki naslov ili ime zazvučati poznato:
http://www.kbismarck.com/u-boot/ubuecher.htm
http://www.fallschirmjaegerbuch.de/mar.htm

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #141 on: 03-06-2012, 23:02:11 »
(kakav je Through the Valley of the Nest of Spiders?)


 :oops: :cry: xfoht


bukvalno nemam reči, osim da temeljito redefiniše pojmove devijantne seksualnosti i normalnosti jednako.

Eno na io9u Tor-u se zgražavaju ali čitaju

( jedu i plaču, gospodine, jedu i plaču  :!: )
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #142 on: 04-06-2012, 09:09:21 »
( jedu i plaču, gospodine, jedu i plaču  :!: )

... ali, jedu STA?  :cry: :oops: :oops: :evil:
 
ajme. ali upravo jeste tako, zgrazavam se itekako ali bogami i dalje citam.  :lol:
"your kink is ok"  :!:

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #143 on: 04-06-2012, 10:49:45 »
Pa u tom prostom i nimalo perverznom vicu, miši jedu biber. A ja malo prelistao Hogg:  :-P .
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #144 on: 04-06-2012, 11:40:59 »
Ovo je više (u neku ruku) (auto)biografija nego intervju. U svakom slučaju, veoma je interesantno (jeste dugačko).


http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6088/the-art-of-fiction-no-210-samuel-r-delany




Odličan je tekst. A posebno me je zakačio ovaj deo o nagoveštajima koji su nekad bili vrlo razgovetni a danas ih ljudi ne prepoznaju. Nije da mi se nije dešavalo. :cry:
 
Quote

INTERVIEWER
Did you intentionally want to make something the reader could only speculate about, rather than be certain of?
DELANY
Certainly as far as the incest goes. Suggestion is a literary strategy. But when, in 1968, works like Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer and Black Spring and Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover were legal to publish and sell in this country, the age of innuendo and the coyly placed line of white space, as the hero envelops the heroine in his arms, ended. Fifteen years later, aids rendered them permanently obsolete.
Today, I watch seminar rooms full of graduate students misread both Bester and Conrad, because they no longer have to wonder about the possibility of such illegal elements occurring in the story and the compensating possibility of suggestion as a writerly strategy for representing both sex and violence. In Tiger! Tiger! the demonic antihero, Gully Foyle, invades Robin’s exploded apartment and stalks across her living room to where she cowers away from him on the couch. There is a line of white space ...
At fifteen I knew perfectly well Gully went on to rape her. Many of my students, however, miss it. As readers who’ve learned to read with texts written largely after 1968, they’re unfamiliar with that order of narrative suggestion. Writers aren’t constrained by law to use it today and many young readers, under thirty-five, have forgotten how to read it.
My students reach the climax of Heart of Darkness, when the pilgrims stand at the steamer’s rail, firing their rifles at the natives on the shore, fifteen or twenty feet away, “for some sport,” while an appalled Marlow blows the boat’s horn to frighten the Africans off. Some of the natives throw themselves on the ground, but among them stands Kurtz’s black mistress, her arms raised toward the boat that carries Kurtz away. From his bed in the wheelhouse, sickly Kurtz watches through the window—which Conrad has made clear has been left open. At the boat rail, the white men go on firing, and with a line of white space, the scene ends ...
Year after year, more than half my students fail to realize that the white men have just killed the black woman Kurtz has been sleeping with for several years. Or that Kurtz, too weak to intervene, has had to lie there and watch them do it.
When you ask, later, the significance of Kurtz’s final words, as he looks out through this same window, “The horror! The horror!,” it never occurs to them that it might refer to the fact that he has watched his fellow Europeans murder in cold blood the woman he has lived with. Suggestion for them is not an option. Earlier generations of readers, however, did not have these interpretive problems.
“If he raped her, why didn’t the writer say so?” “If they shot her, why didn’t Conrad show her fall dead?” my graduate students ask. It makes me wonder what other techniques for conveying the unspoken and the ­unspeakable we have forgotten how to read over four or five thousand years of “literacy.”

Ali kad čitam ove komentare na tor.com prosto se pitam: kako to da se osećam iskusno i prosvećeno u odnosu na većinu komentatora kad je to inače redak slučaj? xrotaeye 

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #145 on: 04-06-2012, 12:14:39 »
I sam sam se zamislio o ovome kada sam stigao do ovog dela. I, moram priznati, veoma sam se začudio, jer... nije da se i meni nije dešavalo da ih ne primetim, ali da ti studenti uopšte i ne shvataju - ako ne i sam koncept "neizrečenog" onda, barem - da je to sasvim legitiman "literarni trik"?! Zar je to, stvarno, moguće?

Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Mme Chauchat

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 4.761
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #146 on: 04-06-2012, 12:41:05 »
Mislim da jeste, bar za jednu određenu vrstu čitalaca, odnosno za one koji vole da im se sve nacrta jasno i nedvosmisleno. Naravno, takvi čitaoci ne postoje tek od juče nego oduvek, nije u pitanju samo generacijski jaz nego i jaz između različitih koncepcija književnosti i očekivanja od nje, ali činjenica je da je danas nekako lakše nego juče da se dogura do Dilejnijevih univerzitetskih predavanja o književnosti bez sledeće dve stvari:
a) veštine da se popunjavaju praznine u pripovedanju ili makar svesti da te praznine postoje;
b) nekih osnovnih kulturno-istorijskih podataka koji su neophodni da se određeni tekst ispravno razume.

A onda na sve treba dodati faktor da je ovde u pitanju škola i da za mnoge studente škola=besmisao i da je to dovoljno da u čitanje ne ulože ni onoliko truda koliko bi inače odvojili, a da legitimne literarne trikove za čitalačko uživanje proglase profesorskim perverzijama.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #147 on: 04-06-2012, 13:20:07 »
Raspravljali smo već o nenapisanom a podrazumevanom. Valjda se to negde uči, a mi laici smo otkrivali eklipsu sami. To nije uvek deo o zabranjenom već i nešto što čitaocu ne treba napisati s prstom u oko da bi razumeo. Nažalost, čitalac to nigde ne uči, a sve manje je zainteresovan da sam otkrije. Ipak, kad Dilejni o tome govori, čini mi se da ne govori o studentima književnosti nego o studentima kojima je fantastična književnost fakultativni predmet nekih drugih studija, tako da je reč o običnim čitaocima. Bar u moje vreme u SAD je na oko 700 univerziteta SF književnost predavana fakultativno na tehničkim fakultetima.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

ALEKSIJE D.

  • 3
  • Posts: 1.803
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #148 on: 04-06-2012, 13:25:54 »
Ushahidi wa sayansi ya uongo katika India inaweza kupatikana mbali nyuma kama BC 1500 katika maandiko ya kale Vedic. Katika maandiko haya, kuna maelezo mengi ya vitu wasiojulikana flying inajulikana kama haya "viminas" inaweza kuwa ya aina mbili "vimanas.": "Manmade ufundi wanaofanana kama ndege na kuruka kwa msaada wa mbawa birdlike au miundo un-harmoniserad warukao kwa namna ya ajabu na kwa ujumla si vinatengenezwa na binadamu "(1). Hata hivyo, pamoja na haya mapema sayansi images tamthiliya, mvuto wa hii Ghana juu ya fasihi ya Hindi na utamaduni ni mwanzo tu kuonekana.baba wa uongo wa fasihi ya Hindi sayansi ni kuchukuliwa kuwa Acharya Chatursen. Aliandika vitabu zaidi ya 400 wakati wa maisha yake, ambapo wengi walikuwa riwaya kwa kuzingatia matukio ya kihistoria, Mythology, au masuala ya kijamii. Hata hivyo ya vitabu 400, yeye tu aliandika riwaya tatu sayansi ya uongo: Khagras (patwa Moon) , Neelmani (Sapphire) , naAdbhut Manav (Man Amazing) .Vile vile, kufuatia nyayo Chatursen la, mwandishi Guru Dutt aliandika karibu idadi sawa ya riwaya ya kijamii na ya kihistoria, bado tu alikuwa mmoja sayansi ya uongo riwaya yenye jina la Sangarsh (mapambano) . Hii riwaya kushughulikiwa na matatizo ya kijamii kuletwa kutoka geriatrics na chemchemi ya vijana kwa kuzingatia kuzaliwa upya mkononi (2).Hata katika sinema ya Hindi, ambayo churns nje sinema hadi 950 miaka, ushawishi wa sayansi ya uongo ni mwanzo tu kwa kuwa waliona. kwanza ya Hindi sayansi filamu fiction,Kaadu (Jungle) , ilitengenezwa mwaka 1952. Tamil-American ushirikiano uzalishaji, filamu hii ilivyokuwa safari ya kutafuta kwa nini wanyama katika eneo moja walikuwa tabia ya ajabu.Kama aligeuka, sababu ya tabia hii isiyo ya kawaida ilikuwa uvamizi wa mammoths wooly (3).Hata hivyo, msingi wa sayansi ya uongo katika filamu hiyo si kuweka mpaka wa miaka 35 baadaye. Mwaka 1987, Shekhar Kapur ya Mheshimiwa India kuletwa wazo la sayansi ya uongo kwa raia wa India. hadithi ya vijana wa kiume ya Hindi ambao iko katika kutoonekana kifaa baba yake na vita jaribio mwendawazimu wa kutawala dunia kubadili uso wa India sinema milele. Hata hivyo, kama awali kama hadithi inaonekana idadi ya Hindi, kuna ushawishi mkubwa wa utamaduni wa Marekani, na sifa ya fasihi ya zama massa uongo wa Marekani sayansi na dash ya Steven Spielberg ya Hindi Jones .Hivi karibuni, wazo la extraterrestrial zisizo za binadamu aliletwa kwenye uso wa India sinema. mchanganyiko wa Spielberg ET-Extra-miili ya duniani na Daniel Keyes ya Maua kwa Algernon , Rakesh Roshan wa Koi Mil Gaya (nimeona mtu) inahusika na kupanda na kufariki wa mwisho wa mtu kiakili-changamoto kama urafiki na kiumbe mgeni.Ujenzi Imetajwa(1) "Vimanas ya India ya Kale." UFO Ushahidi. Ilitumika mwisho Desemba 8, 2004(2) Gupta, Cyril. Sayansi ya Kubuniwa nchini India. Ilitumika mwisho 8 Februari 2005(3) Leeper, Mark. "India ya Mkono Takeaway." SF Crowsnest. 2003. Mwisho Ilitumika

Ibrahimu, Jugu J. ". Juvenile na watu wazima Sayansi Film Fiction" Indian Journal wa Marekani Mafunzo ya 25.2 (1995): 95-98.

Bhargava, Pushpa M., na Chandana Chakrabarti. ". Ya India, Wahindi, na Sayansi" Daedalus 118.4 (1989): 353-368.

Chambers, Claire. "Postcolonial Sayansi ya Kubuniwa: Amitav Ghosh ni kromosomu Calcutta." Journal wa Jumuiya ya Madola Fasihi 38.1 (2003): 58-72.

Desai, Anita. "Indian Fiction Leo." Daedalus 118.4 (1989): 206-231.

Gupta, Cyril. Sayansi ya Kubuniwa nchini India. Februari 8, 2005
http://www.cyrilgupta.com/Articles/indiansf.htm . (BORKED)

Mandal, Somdatta. "'Profesa Shonku': Fiction Sayansi ya Ray Satyajit." Journal wa Jumuiya ya Madola na Mafunzo ya Postcolonial 5.1 (1997): 91-99.

Mehan, Uppinder. "Uyeyushaji wa Teknolojia ya Hindi katika Sayansi ya Kubuniwa Short Stories . "Foundation 74 (1998): 54-66.

Nelson, Diane M. "Sayansi ya Jamii Fiction ya mapayo homa, na ugunduzi. Kromosomu Calcutta, Maabara ya kikoloni, na Postcolonial New Binadamu" Sayansi ya Kubuniwa Mafunzo ya 30 (2003): 246-266.

Weinkauf, Maria S. Extrapolation 20 (1979): 308-320 "ya Hindi katika sayansi ya uongo."."
Veoma zanimljivo vidjenje novih tokova u SF-u, sa ogromnim tržištem. Molim teoretičare koji su prisutni da obrate pažnju na serioznu kritiku poznatih autora kao i na izvore, radi svoje edukacije i proširenje vidika suspregnutih prozapadnim klišeima, koji metastaziraju žanr u puku tvorevinu ala koka kola i žvakaća guma radi sticanja profita.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #149 on: 05-06-2012, 10:56:26 »
Intervju s Bredberijem:

http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6012/the-art-of-fiction-no-203-ray-bradbury



Quote


INTERVIEWER
Why do you write science fiction?

RAY BRADBURY
Science fiction is the fiction of ideas. Ideas excite me, and as soon as I get excited, the adrenaline gets going and the next thing I know I’m borrowing energy from the ideas themselves. Science fiction is any idea that occurs in the head and doesn’t exist yet, but soon will, and will change everything for everybody, and nothing will ever be the same again. As soon as you have an idea that changes some small part of the world you are writing science fiction. It is always the art of the possible, never the impossible.
Imagine if sixty years ago, at the start of my writing career, I had thought to write a story about a woman who swallowed a pill and destroyed the Catholic Church, causing the advent of women’s liberation. That story probably would have been laughed at, but it was within the realm of the possible and would have made great science fiction. If I’d lived in the late eighteen hundreds I might have written a story predicting that strange vehicles would soon move across the landscape of the United States and would kill two million people in a period of seventy years. Science fiction is not just the art of the possible, but of the obvious. Once the automobile appeared you could have predicted that it would destroy as many people as it did.


INTERVIEWER
Does science fiction satisfy something that mainstream writing does not?

BRADBURY
Yes, it does, because the mainstream hasn’t been paying attention to all the changes in our culture during the last fifty years. The major ideas of our time—developments in medicine, the importance of space exploration to advance our species—have been neglected. The critics are generally wrong, or they’re fifteen, twenty years late. It’s a great shame. They miss out on a lot. Why the fiction of ideas should be so neglected is beyond me. I can’t explain it, except in terms of intellectual snobbery.


INTERVIEWER
There was a time, though, wasn’t there, when you wanted recognition across the board from critics and intellectuals?

BRADBURY
Of course. But not anymore. If I’d found out that Norman Mailer liked me, I’d have killed myself. I think he was too hung up. I’m glad Kurt Vonnegut didn’t like me either. He had problems, terrible problems. He couldn’t see the world the way I see it. I suppose I’m too much Pollyanna, he was too much Cassandra. Actually I prefer to see myself as the Janus, the two-faced god who is half Pollyanna and half Cassandra, warning of the future and perhaps living too much in the past—a combination of both. But I don’t think I’m too overoptimistic.


INTERVIEWER
Vonnegut was written off as a science-fiction writer for a long time. Then it was decided that he wasn’t ever a science-fiction writer in the first place, and he was redeemed for the mainstream. So Vonnegut became “literature,” and you’re still on the verge. Do you think Vonnegut made it because he was a Cassandra?

BRADBURY
Yes, that’s part of it. It’s the terrible creative negativism, admired by New York critics, that caused his celebrity. New Yorkers love to dupe themselves, as well as doom themselves. I haven’t had to live like that. I’m a California boy. I don’t tell anyone how to write and no one tells me.
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #150 on: 05-06-2012, 11:00:12 »
 
Quote
Suggestion is a literary strategy. But when, in 1968, works like Henry Miller’s
Tropic of Cancer and Black Spring and Lawrence’s Lady
Chatterley’s Love
r were legal to publish and sell in this country, the age
of innuendo and the coyly placed line of white space, as the hero envelops the
heroine in his arms, ended. Fifteen years later, aids rendered them permanently
obsolete.

Iz onih opaski o preskakanju eksplicitnosti se jasno vidi koliko bi to Jo Walton bila iskreno zahvalna da se Dilejni u ovom paukovom gnezdu latio te strategije...   :)  paradoks je da bi zapravo trebalo da bude zahvalna sto se od toga uzdrzao. Ovo nisu stvari koje bi trebalo ostavljati u domenu sugestije, makar da se ne bi pogresno shvatile, ucitavale, pretpostavljale ili, nedaj boze, stilizovale. A revnosno sam skrolovala komentare, ne sto me brinu spojeri (ovo nije vrsta knjige koju se moze spojlerovati), nego zato sto sam i u ovlas citanju shvatila da su upravo najelokventniji komentari ujedno i najproblematicniji, jer ocigledno smatraju da je eksplicitnost ponudjena u nameri da izazove konkretnu reakciju, maltene nekakav standard, ciji bi nedostatak sve druge reakcije predstavio kao promasaje. A ionako, nije seksualna eksplicitnost u knjizi ta koja pomera granice i redefinise pojmove, nego to radi sama reakcija, i stav na koji ona natera citaoca, pa ako se ona ublazi ili kompromituje, onda... dzaba citanje. Sto se mene tice, ja se pred ovim stivom uopste ne osecam iskusno ili prosveceno, ali sve sam vise svesna mogucnosti da ce se to itekako promeniti do kraja knjige... hocu reci, naravno da sam svesna postojanja parafilija, ali jedna je stvar biti toga  generalno svestan a sasvim je druga stvar biti ovako nateran da ih ukomponujes u okvire svakodnevnog zivota i obicnih ljudi. Ovo je knjiga koja definitivno i temeljito menja coveka, i to ne nuzno u pravcu koji mu se dopada... malo li je, s obzirom da je proza ipak tek second best opcija sirenja horizonata...  xwink2
 

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #151 on: 24-07-2012, 11:07:22 »
Justine Larbalestier o adaptaciji romana/serijala u televizijske serije:

http://justinelarbalestier.com/blog/2012/07/24/no-im-not-dying-for-my-books-to-become-hollywood-movies/
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #153 on: 26-07-2012, 14:47:29 »
China Miéville intervjuiše Ursulu K. Le Guin:

www.ursulakleguin.com/MP3s/ChinaMievilleInterviewsUKL-BBC-200904.mp3
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #154 on: 26-07-2012, 21:47:14 »
Intervju  Ursula K. Le Guin: Still Battling the Powers That Be

Quote
Wired: There’s been a large amount of academic criticism devoted to your work. Do you ever read any of that, and is there any that you think is particularly noteworthy?


Le Guin: Well, I read some of it. A lot of it’s kind of written for other academics, you know? But there are certain writers, like Brian Attebery or Jim Bittner, who I think really understand my work, and sometimes can explain it to me. “Oh, is that what I was doing? Hmm, never thought of that,” you know.



http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/07/geeks-guide-ursula-k-le-guin/all/
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #155 on: 28-07-2012, 12:37:13 »
Painting With Grey: The Development and Popularity of “Gritty Fantasy”

Naslov govori skoro sve o tematici teksta. Ali ne baš sve.


Quote
Nowhere is this more evident than in The Wire. Although it wasn’t the most popular show on television at the time, it has become hailed universally as one of the greatest (if not the greatest) TV show of all time. It shows us that people want something to become invested in. Great characters who can’t be painted with anything but shades of grey. Vast landscapes that feel lived in. Stories that require a significant investment on the part of the viewer/reader.
Shows like Breaking Bad, where we follow the downfall of an ordinary man into the very pits of despair, self-loathing and (eventually) outright villainy. But we come back every week. We want that sense of investment, and that pay-off in the end.

http://fantasy-faction.com/2012/painting-with-grey-the-development-and-popularity-of-gritty-fantasy
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #156 on: 30-07-2012, 13:48:41 »
Tekst o razvoju i savremenim autorima kineske naučne fantastike:

http://www.chinesescifi.org/475.html


Intervju (iz 2006.) Lavie Tidhar-a s predavačem naučne fantastike na Pekinškom Univerzitetu, autorom i urednikom, Wu Yan-om:

http://www.irosf.com/q/zine/article/10241


I (takođe Lavie Tidhar-ov) tekst pod nazivom Science Fiction, Globalization, and the People's Republic of China:

http://www.concatenation.org/articles/sf~china.html
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #157 on: 02-08-2012, 14:14:05 »
Quote
Panelists from different mediums discussed their creative processes and how can fans support their diversity efforts. Featuring novelist and comic book writer Marjorie Liu (Astonishing X-Men, The Hunter Kiss), video game writer David Gaider (Dragon Age, Bauldur's Gate II), comic book writer Brandon Thomas (Miranda Mercury, Voltron), showrunner and screenwriter Javier Grillo-Marxuach (The Middleman, Lost), writer Sarah Kuhn (One Con Glory, Chicks Dig Comics), and Comic-Con special guest author N.K. Jemisin (The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms)

Razgovor o seksizmu i rasizmu.



Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #158 on: 04-08-2012, 09:21:07 »
Theodora Goss o realizmu unutar eskapizma.

Quote
All literature is a representation of reality, because we have nothing else. We have ourselves and the world around us, that is all. Fantasy represents that world, in a different way than literary realism, but it represents it nevertheless. It also, and this I have not said, allows us to imagine new possibilities that do not exist in our current reality. It is fantasy that allows us to imagine the world we want to create. Perhaps a world without tanks, which a realist might tell you is stark fantasy.


http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/goss_08a_08/
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #159 on: 04-08-2012, 12:48:24 »
Damien Walter o palpu.

New pulp fictioneers are ready to rock'n'roll

Quote
In a world where anyone with a blog and an ebook is a writer, putting yourself up on the pedestal of great literature is a good way to get yourself knocked down again. What makes you better than me, shout the pitchfork wielding mob of self-published Kindle authors as they loom over the prostrate figure of the fallen literary genius. The new pulp looks the mob square in the eye and says, hey, I'm just ordinary folk like you. But I got me this idea for a book about zombie-vampire-ninja-supersoldiers that I thought y'all might enjoy, want to hear it? Just 99p in the Kindle store for the next 24 hours!

The old pulp is dead, all hail the new pulp.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/29/new-pulp-fictioneers-fiction

Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #160 on: 08-08-2012, 08:44:08 »
Patrick Rothfuss, Emma Bull, Diana Rowland i Jim Butcher o urbanoj fantastici. (The Storyboard ep. 1)



Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #161 on: 14-08-2012, 10:27:40 »
Looking for Lovecraft in All the Wrong Places
 
 
 If there was a fight between the big three staple monsters of horror writing—vampires, werewolves, and zombies—do you know who would win?  Goddamn Cthulhu.  I know he wasn’t in the fight.  It doesn’t matter.  He’s Cthulhu.  He has tentacles coming out of his face.  He is dead and dreaming.  He’s on an island called Rl’yeh.  It has an apostrophe in it and isn’t really pronounceable.  He goddamn wins.  Live with it.
 
This is the genius of Howard Phillips Lovecraft.  A man whose horror writing was so good that he has transcended the silliness of his own last name.  Because Lovecraft tapped into a terror deeper than any fear inspired by our own bestial inner nature (suck it werewolves) – he managed to capture and crystallize exactly how small and meaningless we are in the face of the large uncaring universe.  His work taps into a profound existential terror that can freeze your blood.
 
And then he gave it tentacles.

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #162 on: 22-09-2012, 08:23:19 »



Kirkus nudi kratku istoriju vampirskog romana:



Vampires have captured our imagination for centuries. Béla Lugosi's portrayal of Dracula has defined the appearance of the creature in all manner of media, while more recent works in film and literature have updated the undead bloodsuckers to something more modern while retaining the same level of complication and deadliness. Dracula, however, wasn't the first vampire novel, even if it is widely considered to be the most definitive. Here's a look at just a handful of the influential and popular entries in the genre.



http://www.kirkusreviews.com/blog/science-fiction-and-fantasy/brief-history-vampire-novel/

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #164 on: 05-11-2012, 04:11:00 »
SF & Fantasy need to stop being so damn eager to please   
Damien G. Walter 


“It just seems to me that, from Ballard to Herbert, SF was on a mission to invent and explore unknown fresh new psychologies. It was a fascinating, daunting task. We were on to something- and we lost the nerve to do it.”

There’s nothing less interesting than something which only exists to please you. And sometimes things of this kind aren’t just dull, but radically off putting and even offensive. Because something that only aims to please is by its nature manipulative, maybe even exploitative. It’s only trying to please you because it wants something from you. And if the thing it wants is money. Well that’s the most boring and offensive thing of all.

The quote at the head of this post was left by my friend Jim Worrad on a Facebook thread sparked by the idea that that Ursula Le Guin would not be published as a debut author today. Jim’s quote really sums up what I’ve felt festering inside for the last few days since publishing my latest Weird Things column on Le Guin’s new selected stories The Real and the Unreal. Thinking about Le Guin’s writing I really found myself wondering why there are so few writers in the fantasy genre producing work of the kind of quality – creatively, intellectually, technically – that Le Guin has produced throughout her career.

Clearly there are some. Lavie Tidhar scooped a World Fantasy Award for his novella Osama today – a book so original and challenging I dedicated a whole column to it back in October 2011. I could list a fair crop of other writers creating high quality fantasy writing, many of them World Fantasy award winners or nominees. Of all the genre awards it is the most consistently focussed on rewarding quality in fantasy fiction.

I’m going to guess that many, many SF & Fantasy readers will be less than pleased by the experience of reading Osama. It is a novel that goes out of its way to challenge its readers. If I was to pin one quality to Lavie’s writing as a whole it would be that. Tidhar is a steampunk author who hates steampunk, and an SF writer who hates SF. But this is exactly why many, many readers of SF & Fantasy enjoy Lavie’s writing. Because they believe that SF & Fantasy are supposed to be original and challenging, not just desperate attempts to please a nebulous mainstream audience.

Many of the current batch of bestsellers, particularly in Epic Fantasy, read exactly like calculated, desperate attempts to please some platonic ideal of a fantasy readership. Brandon Sanderson’s novels read like they were written by a committee of marketing executives, which from the author who sailed Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time franchise home is hardly surprising. Trudi Canavan’s books are basically Mary Sue coming of age fantasies. Pat Rothfuss novels are like post-modern simulacra of of fantasy novels, a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a fantasy novel. Steven Erikson’s Malazan series are well described role playing source books with a feint stab at character that misses more often than not.

SF & Fantasy have a self-destructive tendency to behave like eager to please employees at a new job. You want a five part magical quest story with a singing sword? YOU GOT IT! You want a steampunk romance with zeppelins and robot armies? YOU GOT IT! You want a poorly disgusied sex fantasy / power trip? YOU GOT IT! You want a violent mysoginistic romp with some rape and torture scenes? YOU GOT IT! In short order the strategy of giving people what they want conforms to the law of diminishing returns, because actually people don’t know what they want. If they did, they wouldn’t need artists to give it to them. Do you expect to just get what you want from a doctor? Or a teacher? Or a parent? Or a friend? Then why would you carry that expectation in to the deep and complex relationship an author has with a reader?

SF & Fantasy are, in the words of my friend Jim Worrad, on to a good thing. I say that in present tense because I think we’re still far from losing it all together. It’s made the artform that is SF & Fantasy storytelling one of the most powerful in contemporary culture. But SF & Fantasy don’t thrive on being eager to please. They thrive on being challenging. On being original. On describing both reality and unreality in ever more innovative and beautiful ways. So let’s please carry on doing just that.
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #165 on: 06-11-2012, 07:18:11 »
 Ne krijem da sam fan svega što Damien napiše, to uglavnom zato što se generalno složim sa 99% svega što iznese, ali pri tom obavezno steknem dojam da je Damijen svoje stavove i pristup najčvršće bazirao upravo na onih 1% koji mi izmaknu.  Tako je bilo povodom Clarke shortlist afere, a tako je i sad sa ovim tekstom. I sve da se čovek složi sa svime što Damien ovde navodi (a to uopšte nije teško), svejedno ostaje dojam da Damien žešće omašava, negde duboko ispod faktografije, i da mnogo toga što on u tekstu dovodi u vezu zapravo ima vrlo malo veze u Real World. Otud i protivrečnosti u tekstovima, jer koliko god ovde denuncira pisce koji “čitaocu daju sve što on želi”, toliko je branio upravu tu i takvu lajmlajt produkciju u Clarke aferi, i to naspram nekakvog “Platonic ideal work of fiction”, za čijim nedostatkom kao da upravo ovde jadikuje.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #166 on: 10-03-2013, 15:34:35 »
javlja abn da su danas u blicu izašla dva prilično važna texta: ima li neko primerak i može li da to skenira i okači?
(znajući kolko se brzo to kod mene rasproda, znam da mi ne vredi sad da trčim do trafike)

evo šta:

у данашњем „Блицу“ па у средини у прилогу „Књига“, на првој страници тог прилога имате велики и важан чланак Ђорђа Писарева под насловом „Капија још затворена“, у коме он поставља питање шта је потребно да би најзад, једном у историји, НИН-ову награду добило неко дело из жанрова фантастике.

На исто питање одговара, великим илустрованим чланком на другој и трећој страници овог прилога (уствари су то "Блицове" стр. 20 и 21), под насловом „Фантасти су међу нама“, Слободан Ивков.
Они се, заправо, залажу за то да НИН-ов жири погледа и СФ, фантази и хорор жанр равноправно са другим делима српске књижевности.

У овом чланку, Ивкова, су и три фотографије. На једној је корица једног издања Пекићевог „Беснила“, на другој је др Зоран А. Живковић.

Оба чланка су веома снажно аргументисана. Ово би могла бити иницијатива од историјског значаја за респектабилност српске фантастике. Писарев-Ивков иницијатива из марта 2013.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #167 on: 10-03-2013, 16:00:43 »
Ne moraš da trčiš. Nisu te pomenuli. Samo Skrobonju, Bakića i Oltvanjija (Pisarev). A Ivkov je mene poslednji put pomenuo kad mi je objasnio da će prikaze mojih knjiga pisati njegova bivša žena.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #168 on: 10-03-2013, 18:21:59 »
Ne moraš da trčiš. Nisu te pomenuli.

onda ništa!  :cry:



šalim se, ko može, nek okači, ipak!

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #169 on: 13-03-2013, 17:16:16 »
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #170 on: 13-03-2013, 17:28:24 »

...
...
...

"Literature - The Final Frontiere"


Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #171 on: 19-03-2013, 12:13:40 »
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #172 on: 20-03-2013, 19:50:20 »

Intervju-razgovori:

G. R. R. Martin/Ursula K. Le Guin/S. T. Joshi/Istvan Csicsery-Ronay

(pa nek' bira svako po svom ukusu. nisu od juče al' su interesantni)


via to the best of our knowledge

Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #174 on: 15-04-2013, 18:23:41 »
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #175 on: 18-04-2013, 11:20:20 »




Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #176 on: 19-04-2013, 10:54:27 »
Bili, naslušali se zabavnih digresija, ko hoće da sazna nešto koncizno bolje da uzme knjigu -_-
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #177 on: 22-04-2013, 20:10:54 »
Lauren Beukes, Paolo Bacigalupi, Jesse Bullington


Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.539
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #178 on: 08-05-2013, 00:09:05 »
Year’s Best Reviews and their Effects on Reviewers
— posted by Karen Burnham  at Tuesday 7 May 2013 @ 10:49 pm BST



  It is well past time for any new comments on Paul Kincaid’s “The Widening Gyre” or Jonathan McCalmont’s response to such, “Cowardice, Laziness and Irony: How Science Fiction Lost the Future.” However, I’ve been reading one of Damon Knight’s collections of criticism, In Search of Wonder, and came across the following gems. They come back-to-back-to-back in a chapter on Anthologies, discussing the first three Judith Merrill S-F, the Year’s Greatest Science-Fiction and Fantasy anthologies. (Pardon the typos, as these excerpts are all transcribed, not pasted.) Starting with 1955:

Readers of Miss Merril’s previous anthologies already know that her taste is unfaltering [...] Taken altogether, the eighteen stories (and the eighty honorable mentions in the back of the book) give an intriguing picture of science fiction, 1955. The spread of subjects is rather small: there are six space stories, three about robots or androids, two each about psi phenomena and supermen, and a scattering of others: but no cataclysm stories, no dangerous inventions, no time travel. The range of periods is correspondingly small: one story takes place in the past, the rest either in the present or the comparatively near future.

[...] the one thing that most of these stories have in common is their tragic mood. Miss Merril worked hard to keep this from overbalancing the collection I know–one of the year’s best but most dismal stories had to be jettisoned on that account–and yet all but seven of the stories [out of eighteen] that were finally chosen give a dominant impression of sadness [...]
I have the feeling that in spite of itself, science fiction is pulling in its horns. In these stories, we are visited three times by beings from else-where, but our own far traveling is limited to wistful glimpses of distant worlds [...] The flow of technological marvels has dried up. Of the eleven stories which make some use of the familiar “world of tomorrow” background, only one–Asimov’s–explores the consequences of a new invention; the rest merely postulate the usual equipment, spaceships, robots or what have you, and go on from there.

In the space stories, the sense of destination is lacking. Sturgeon’s “Bulkhead” takes place in a spaceship, but it might just as well have been a psychoanalyst’s broom closet. Gone is the exuberance with which, in the thirties, writers peopled far planets with fascinatingly cockeyed life forms. Modern astronomy is no doubt partly responsible for this, but certainly there has been a change of mood among the writers, too. There was a lightheartedness in the way prewar writers  used to destroy the Earth by solar flares, invasions, earthquakes or inundation; but stories like “The Hoofer” [Walter M. Miller] and “The Cave of Night” [James Gunn] seem to suggest a feeling that nothing so fortunate is likely to happen.

I am far from wishing to suggest that all this is evidence of the desperate plight of our times: to the contrary, science fiction was never more romantic and outward-looking that in the Depression years. What it does prove, if anything, is the desperate (and traditional) plight of writers.  Then for the same anthology covering 1956:
 
It may be that science fiction, which looks so flourishing, is coming to the end of its cycle. I crib this notion from Walter Kerr, who thinks our disillusionment with technological progress has already doomed out present theater, with its naturalistic conventions and its preoccupation with ideas drawn from science.
Maybe the same thing is happening to science fiction. Of the fifteen stories in this collection, three are upbeat in tone
[...] The rest range from mild, almost cheerful pessimism [...] to the unrelieved gloom of my own “Stranger Station.” Knight defends his own gloominess thus:
 
(I have been writing gloomy stories for years, in a reaction against the silly convention that ruled in the magazines when I was a pup, that all stories must have happy endings. But I think a convention of gloom is just as silly as the other one, and you may expect me to turn optimist just as soon as I can retool for it.)
But that doesn’t stop him from going on:
 
The point is not so much that the people in these stories come to sticky ends; I’m used to that. But never before have the futures imagined by sf writers seemed to me so thoroughly dismal.
A little of this goes perhaps a longer way that we have been realizing. All right, our confidence in the future has slipped a little, for good reasons, in the last decade; all right, science fiction is among other things a literature of escape and of protest: but surely we don’t have to bang the same drum all the time.
Then we move on to the 1959 volume:
 
More and more during the last ten years, the field has come to be dominated by writers who are interested in s.f. chiefly as a convenient vehicle.
Hardened old addicts have been watching this change a little dubiously. In style, depth of character, and other literary values, the new work is superior (that is to say, the top tenth of it–the remainder, according to Sturgeon’s Rule, is, was and will be crud). But what we used to regard as the essential thing in s.f.–the technical idea, rigorously and imaginatively worked out–is almost as passe as the pure deductive element in the mystery novel.
This is dramatically shown by the contents of Judith Merril’s fourth annual SF, the Year’s Greatest Science-Fiction and Fantasy. The thirteen s.f. and fantasy stories are of high quality; but there is not one new s.f. idea in the book, unless you count Avram Davidson’s madly ingenious notion about the life-cycle of the bisexual bicycle.
[...] As I noted earlier, “Casey Agonistes” by Richard M. McKenna, and “Space-Time for Springers” by Fritz Leiber, seem to me the strongest stories in the book. Both are pure fantasy. Almost invariably, where an s.f. gimmick appears in the other stories, it does so with an air of intrusion, and the story is weakened by it.
What we are calling “s.f.,” it seems to me, is at an awkward transitional stage. Either that, or (more hopefully), the field has drifted as far as it can go in the direction of indifference to science, and in the next few years we can expect a resurgence of space stories written by people who can tell the moons from the comets.
Compare this with Kincaid in 2012:
 
THE OVERWHELMING SENSE ONE GETS, working through so many stories that are presented as the very best that science fiction and fantasy have to offer, is exhaustion. Not so much physical exhaustion (though it is more tiring than reading a bunch of short stories really has any right to be); it is more as though the genres of the fantastic themselves have reached a state of exhaustion.
And McCalmont:
 
I think that science fiction has lost interest in the world and fallen out of step with the times resulting in the emergence of a narcissistic and inward-looking literature devoid of both relevance and vitality.
Consider that the years 1955-1959 were only 10-15 years before landing on the moon, and that Judith Merril’s later anthologies are now considered to be critical to the development of the New Wave.

Having done the year’s best review circuit myself, I can empathize with the feeling of exhaustion and despair it can engender in the reviewer, especially in Paul’s case when he had to review three at once. I once had to review two for one column, and afterwards the editor apologized and promised that I could review novels for the rest of the year.

Still, if 10 years after Knight had his despair we landed on the Moon and started the New Wave (the period on which Kincaid and McCalmont look back nostalgically, as Knight looks nostalgically on the thirties), then I expect great things from NASA and SFWA no later than 2025.

P.S. In Search of Wonder is a book that the late Charles N. Brown more-or-less forced me to buy at the 2008 WorldCon in Denver. I caught up to him in the dealer’s room as he was heading back to the Locus table. He, in his power scooter then, quickly veered over to the NESFA table and started handing me book after book that I “needed to read.” I’m unashamed that I bought them all, and I’m sorry that it took me until 2013 to started reading this Knight collection. It really is great and sheds a lot of perspective on sf literature (and debates about the same) over the years.
 
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #179 on: 13-06-2014, 07:27:21 »
zamrla ozbiljnos! :(





Grimjack

  • 2
  • Posts: 263
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #180 on: 28-07-2014, 02:56:37 »
"Magic Systems: Urban Fantasy vs. Epic Fantasy" with Jim Butcher, Patrick Rothfuss, Jaye Wells, Myke Cole, Sam Sykes, Stephen Blackmoore.


Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 44.847
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #181 on: 18-09-2014, 10:24:00 »
Ovo verovatno pripada ovde:


Project Hieroglyph: Fighting society's dystopian future



Quote
Pop culture has painted a darkly dystopian vision of the future. But a new book hopes to harness the power of science fiction to plot out a more optimistic path for the real world.
Just glancing at this week's movie listings, those in the US can see humans battling super apes for world domination, a gang of Marvel misfits fighting against the universe's certain doom, or a young boy tasked with keeping all memories of a society that has done away with individuality.
The future, according to Hollywood, doesn't look so good. Successful dystopian science fiction television shows like HBO's The Leftovers and books like The Hunger Games trilogy add to the notion that bad news is very much in store.
Acclaimed science-fiction writer Neal Stephenson saw this bleak trend in his own work, but didn't give it much thought until he attended a conference on the future a couple years ago.
At the time, Stephenson said that science fiction guides innovation because young readers later grow up to be scientists and engineers.



But fellow attendee Michael Crow, president of Arizona State University (ASU), "took a more sort of provocative stance, that science fiction actually needed to supply ideas that scientists and engineers could actually implement", Stephenson says.
"[He] basically told me that I needed to get off my duff and start writing science fiction in a more constructive and optimistic vein."
That conversation spawned a new endeavour called Project Hieroglyph, which seeks to bring science fiction writers and scientists together to learn from, and influence, each other - and in turn, the future.
Renowned writers such as Bruce Sterling and Cory Doctorow were tasked with working with scientists to imagine optimistic, technically-grounded science fiction stories depicting futures achievable within the next 50 years.
Those stories, collected in a book also entitled Hieroglyph, will be released on 9 September.
"We want to create a more open, optimistic, ambitious and engaged conversation about the future," project director Ed Finn says.
According to his argument, negative visions of the future as perpetuated in pop culture are limiting people's abilities to dream big or think outside the box. Science fiction, he says, should do more.
"A good science fiction story can be very powerful," Finn says. "It can inspire hundreds, thousands, millions of people to rally around something that they want to do"


Indeed, the influence of science fiction is already apparent in modern research, says Braden Allenby, Project Hieroglyph participant and professor of engineering, ethics and law at ASU.
"Why do we end up with the technologies we do? Why are people working on, for example, invisibility cloaks? Well, it's Harry Potter, right? That's where they saw it," he says. "Why are people interested in hand-held devices that allow you to diagnose diseases anywhere in the world? Well, that's what Mr Spock can do. Why can't we?"


ASU structural engineer professor Keith Hjelmstad has been thinking about tall architecture throughout his nearly four-decade-long career. As a professor, he even instructed the designer of Dubai's Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world.
But it was his collaboration with Stephenson on a short science fiction story about a steel tower 20km high that really sparked his imagination.
"That [idea] caught my curiosity like almost nothing ever has before," Hjelmstad adds. "I wasn't thinking about it and now, of course, I can't stop thinking about it."
The collaboration also spawned detailed, structurally accurate 3D models of Stephenson's ideas, a "thrilling" first in his thirty-year career as a writer.


"I was seeing something that was actually based on physics," he says. "It injects a new element into the science fiction writing process that could be of benefit to writers and to readers who get to see these depictions, and also to people like [Hjelmstad] who get to reach a larger audience."
That larger audience may extend to not only other scientists and innovators, but politicians who can influence our society for generations to come.
"If the government has to decide what to fund and what not to fund, they are going to get their ideas and decisions mostly from science fiction… rather than what's being published in technical papers," says  Srikanth Saripalli, an ASU roboticist and project participant.
Drones, his specialty, are frequently depicted as weapons or a means of surveillance rather than helpful tools used for search and rescue, agriculture and traffic monitoring.
Science fiction writer Lee Konstantinou worked with Saripalli on a story, Johnny Appledrone Vs. the FAA, about a future in which drones are commonplace and utilised in communication.
Konstantinou admits he was initially sceptical about the nature of Project Hieroglyph, worrying it would "white-wash negative aspects of our reality [and be] too Pollyanna-ish".
Instead, he now sees the medium as a way to spur creative thinking.
"It's not the job of the science fiction writer to create a blueprint for the future, but it's part of a collaboration with the reader to think hard about problems and to think about how people working together might overcome them."


According to Finn, his involvement in Project Hieroglyph has already changed how he sees what's next for society.
"I do feel more positive about our future," he says. Dystopianism may be having a pop-culture moment, but people are ready for something new.
"We desperately need better stories," Finn says. "If we want to have better futures, we need to have better dreams."


Quote
Hieroglyph writers' visions of the future:
 
  • Environmentalists fight to stop entrepreneurs from building the first extreme tourism destination hotel in Antarctica
  • People vie for citizenship on a near-zero-gravity moon of Mars, which has become a hub for innovation
  • Animal activists use drones to track elephant poachers
  • A crew crowd-funds a mission to the Moon to set up an autonomous 3D printing robot to create new building materials
  • A 20km tall tower spurs the US steel industry, sparks new methods of generating renewable energy and houses The First Bar in Space

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 44.847
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #182 on: 18-09-2014, 10:25:35 »
A možda i ovo ide ovde:



Ethical trap: robot paralysed by choice of who to save

Quote
Can a robot learn right from wrong? Attempts to imbue robots, self-driving cars and military machines with a sense of ethics reveal just how hard this is
CAN we teach a robot to be good? Fascinated by the idea, roboticist Alan Winfield of Bristol Robotics Laboratory in the UK built an ethical trap for a robot – and was stunned by the machine's response.
In an experiment, Winfield and his colleagues programmed a robot to prevent other automatons – acting as proxies for humans – from falling into a hole. This is a simplified version of Isaac Asimov's fictional First Law of Robotics – a robot must not allow a human being to come to harm.
At first, the robot was successful in its task. As a human proxy moved towards the hole, the robot rushed in to push it out of the path of danger. But when the team added a second human proxy rolling toward the hole at the same time, the robot was forced to choose. Sometimes, it managed to save one human while letting the other perish; a few times it even managed to save both. But in 14 out of 33 trials, the robot wasted so much time fretting over its decision that both humans fell into the hole. The work was presented on 2 September at the Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems meeting in Birmingham, UK.
Winfield describes his robot as an "ethical zombie" that has no choice but to behave as it does. Though it may save others according to a programmed code of conduct, it doesn't understand the reasoning behind its actions. Winfield admits he once thought it was not possible for a robot to make ethical choices for itself. Today, he says, "my answer is: I have no idea".
As robots integrate further into our everyday lives, this question will need to be answered. A self-driving car, for example, may one day have to weigh the safety of its passengers against the risk of harming other motorists or pedestrians. It may be very difficult to program robots with rules for such encounters.
 
But robots designed for military combat may offer the beginning of a solution. Ronald Arkin, a computer scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, has built a set of algorithms for military robots – dubbed an "ethical governor" – which is meant to help them make smart decisions on the battlefield. He has already tested it in simulated combat, showing that drones with such programming can choose not to shoot, or try to minimise casualties during a battle near an area protected from combat according to the rules of war, like a school or hospital.
Arkin says that designing military robots to act more ethically may be low-hanging fruit, as these rules are well known. "The laws of war have been thought about for thousands of years and are encoded in treaties." Unlike human fighters, who can be swayed by emotion and break these rules, automatons would not.
"When we're talking about ethics, all of this is largely about robots that are developed to function in pretty prescribed spaces," says Wendell Wallach, author of Moral Machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Still, he says, experiments like Winfield's hold promise in laying the foundations on which more complex ethical behaviour can be built. "If we can get them to function well in environments when we don't know exactly all the circumstances they'll encounter, that's going to open up vast new applications for their use."
This article appeared in print under the headline "The robot's dilemma"




дејан

  • омнирелигиозни фанатични фундаменталиста
  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.370
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #183 on: 18-09-2014, 14:23:02 »
гледао сам ово јуче, скроз је блесаво - асимовљеви закони на делу у незгодним ситуацијама
...barcode never lies
FLA

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 9.197
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #184 on: 18-09-2014, 15:19:37 »
Ma, loše je isprogramiran ovaj robot. Možda ne uzima u računicu vreme potrebno da se okrene, i zato misli da može da stigne tamo gde ne može. Dobro isprogramiran robot nema šta da se vrti. Ako može da stigne onda će stići, a ako ne može da stigne onda se bar neće vrteti u krug.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #185 on: 14-11-2014, 14:55:39 »
skalop, skrobonja i drf su slučajevi za ispitivanje u ovom naučnom radu:

Srpska naučna fantastika na konferenciji u Engleskoj

http://cultofghoul.blogspot.com/2014/11/srpska-naucna-fantastika-na_14.html

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #186 on: 14-11-2014, 18:16:24 »
kačenje ove vesti danas dovelo je do kratkotrajnog sloma ovog foruma... ne znam zašto?! da li zato što se o skalopovom pisanju najzad govori u belom svetu?

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #187 on: 14-11-2014, 20:54:58 »
bravo za dr piševa
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #188 on: 14-11-2014, 22:32:50 »


Antropolog koji ugura neku tlapnju u apstrakt tipa - kakva Miloševićeva politička taktika stvara diskurs kolektivnog mučeništva - e vala svašta čoek sazna svaki dan. Nisam znao da se time antropolozi bave, ali valjda je to cijena koja se plaća za kartu do Londona. Nadam se da će biti dovoljno Žižeka u fusnotama, mislim kako će se drugačije dokazati da je Sloba u stvari bio scallopov mecena.

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.875
    • IP Tardis
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #189 on: 15-11-2014, 12:38:31 »
I meni je malo pun kufer rabljenja devedesetih, al neosporno je vanbalkancima zanimljivo i atraktivno. A ako je trebalo jahati po Miloševićima da se čuje za Radmila, Fipu i Skrobonju, pa dobro, jahali su i Miloševići po Radmilu, Fipi i Skrobonji...

Na Animi ( http://www.art-anima.com/32-vesti/promocije-i-predavanja/2760-srpska-naucna-fantastika-na-konferenciji-u-engleskoj ) mogu i da se pročitaju pomenute dve priče. "Vučja deca" su roman pa je malko teže...
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #190 on: 15-11-2014, 12:54:30 »
ne smetaju meni devedesete, neka piše o njima koliko hoće, samo ono što ja ovdje vidim je pokušaj da od antropologa napravi politikologa

prve 3-4 rečenice u apstraktu nemaju tu šta da traže, niti spadaju u antropološku tezu, a čisto sumnjam i da ih dokazuje ovaj rad, nego je samo naslagao kozmetiku u uvodu

''kolektivno mučeništvo'' kao fenomen je nastalo bez ikakve državne intervencije, jer za tursko vrijeme ista nije ni postojala. Prosto pričati da je režim konstruisao najspontaniju viševjekovnu pojavu u srpskoj kulturi jeste tendenciozno do zla boga, a ne vidim da služi ičemu sem nizdlakivanju organizatorima.

O tome da to pretvara čitavo društvo u konzumente slobopijuma da ne pričamo, ispade da niko od autora nije sposoban koristiti sopstveni mozak nego su samo medijumi


scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #191 on: 15-11-2014, 13:14:52 »
Složiću se potpuno sa Batom. Povezivati mene i moju priču "Sva vučja deca" i "slobopijumom" je idiotski. Priča ima jedino veze sa odlaskom moje ćerke u SAD 1993. i frustracije koju sam tada doživeo. Takođe mi je krajnje opskurno Zakkovo objašnjenje zašto priče nama na ArtAnimi. Priča je samo jedna od pet novela u zbirci "Sva vučja deca".


Kako se ovde zastupa i pravo na reagovanje na komentare o napisanom, voleo bih da znam na kom je to skupu referisano kao "naučni rad".
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #192 on: 15-11-2014, 13:28:11 »
onda je dodatni problem što je Pišev imao mogućnost da razgovara sa autorima, a to nije učinio

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #193 on: 15-11-2014, 13:44:53 »
Kako se ovde zastupa i pravo na reagovanje na komentare o napisanom, voleo bih da znam na kom je to skupu referisano kao "naučni rad".

šta ti sad nije jasno?
ne umeš da klikneš na link koji sam postavio?

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #194 on: 15-11-2014, 13:51:49 »
Neću. Kako Bata kaže, Pišev je mogao da razgovara sa autorima. Tim pre što sam prvi ocenio jednu njegovu priču na konkursu Znaka Sagite kao najbolju. Mene se nije imao rašta plaštiti.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #195 on: 15-11-2014, 13:57:37 »
Povezivati mene i moju priču "Sva vučja deca" i "slobopijumom" je idiotski.

sa ovim se, za promenu, slažem: onaj ko to učini zaista je IDIOT.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #196 on: 15-11-2014, 14:46:39 »
Quote
The closing decade of the last century saw Serbia (then part of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia formed with Montenegro) traumatised by wars, UN sanctions, and internal turmoil. The regime of Slobodan Milošević skilfully manipulated these socio-political conditions by placing the blame on the international community (i.e. the West), allegedly unlawfully and unjustly retributive towards Serbs. This political tactic, roughly speaking, created a dominant sense of social paranoia and desperation among the people of the country, together with some resentment towards Western countries, and/or their political elites. The brooding sentiments of this types and contents gradually became engaged in many public discourses by deploying the expressive means of self-marginalisation. In Serbian science fiction, or an important part of it, the analogue process of self-marginalization obtained a conceptual form of collective martyrdom, representing the central motive of Us against Them, related to the paradigm of a cosmic conflict between forces of Good and Evil (whereas Good, in conclusion, triumphs only occasionally). The identity of the Other in such narratives usually did not match the ethnic or national identity of the war enemies or the Western powers, but allusions towards the latter have proven to be firm and concise. The main models of “othering” in the indicated contexts operated with the notions of immense technological and economical advantages of the Other, as well as its agenda to destroy Serbia due to the inherent righteous nature of Serbian folk and their deep-rooted opposition to the world of Evil. The storylines in such works of fiction were often framed in different relations to the concept of cosmic struggle of Light versus Darkness – an element that brings them closer to the discourse of historical legends and mythology of traditional Serbian culture and Orthodox Christianity, than to the (post)modern science fiction literature which preceded and followed 1990’s in Serbian mainstream and genre-based literary production. In this sense, a relevant body of Serbian SF narratives of the 1990’s deserves to be explored as a culturally-specific phenomenon, partly developed from modern, partly from traditional fantastic discourses, and simultaneously, deeply immersed in socio-political circumstances of the era.   

camerashqiptarica

  • 2
  • Posts: 62
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #197 on: 15-11-2014, 15:11:47 »
dakle to sto je on antropolog znaci da ne moze da barata nekim komonsens i malo-spornim politickim cinjenicama?
kako se uopste cisto antropoloskim jezikom moze govoriti o uskom segmentu kulture u jednoj zemlji u jednoj eri?
pise i da je panel multidisciplinarnog karaktera:

"The event will tackle the numerous relationships and parallels between science fiction and anthropology and provide a platform for an energetic, multi-disciplinary discussion between established scholars and postgraduate students from a diverse range of institutions and disciplines. Science fiction, like anthropology, is involved in producing discourses about societies, alterity and political imaginations. Authors in both fields attempt to convey to their readers a coherent impression of a cultural whole, presenting them with alternative social orders; an endeavour in which science fiction is perhaps more successful, at least if the size of its readership is anything to go by."

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #198 on: 15-11-2014, 15:41:46 »
Zgodno je kad se na forumu pojavi neko prvi put i ima stav. Može se antropologija baviti i odnosom čoveka i društva posmatranjem kako pisci SF-a reaguju na društvene promene. Meni je to legitimno, ali mi nije legitimno ako se moje delo izloži kao primer reakcije na Miloševićev režim, a da dr Piševu nije palo na pamet da moje stavove prema devedesetim u Srbiji preispita i kroz lični kontakt. Priznajte da bi to bilo legitimnije nego izvlačiti ad hoc zaključke bez uvida u ili komparacije sa nekim drugim mojom delima koja su nastala PRE Miloševića. Volim ja naučne radove, ali ne i kad se obijaju o moju grbaču.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #199 on: 15-11-2014, 15:47:57 »
Da je taj panel bio iole ozbiljan, mogao je da konsultuje i Skrobonju i Drfa. Živi ljudi i imaju svoje stavove. Nismo crkli kao neki drugi pisci koje post mortem razvlače tek tako. Ozbiljan istraživač bi, na primer, u mojoj literaturi otkrio ekstremno balkansko opredeljenje, a nikako srpsko, podstaknuto Miloševićem. Uostalom, Srbin sam samo frtalj, čime nonsens postaje ogromantan. Zapravo, ja sam sa Piševim više zemljak nego svi ostali sa ovog foruma.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #200 on: 15-11-2014, 18:17:13 »
Jedan moj profan, kad bi htio da kaže da je rad loš, obično bi rekao da je ''previše zdravorazumski''. Jer zdrav razum i naučni um nisu isto.

Ne postoji ništa logično i podrazumijevajuće u tvrdnji da je Milošević stvorio diskurs socijalne paranoje i kolektivnog mučeništva, budući da Milošević nije pisao pokosovski ciklus. Šta je tu uzrok a šta posljedica?

Samim tim, iako ja ne strepim od tumačenja sasvim suprotstavljenih namjerama autora, pričati da su neka književna djela analogna tom političkom procesu jeste vrlo sumnjivo sa naučne strane.

''a coherent impression of a cultural whole'', toga uopšte nema kada se ubacuje Miloševićevo ime, jer kulturalna cjelina je veća od Miloševića i on je njen derivat a ne tvorac. Ovdje imamo devetanestovjekovno poimanje politike kao gomile odluka u glavnom štabu, dok moderna društvena nauka bježi od takve centralističke misli i ''komandne odgovornosti''. Vučić ne vlada Srbijom već u toj vlasti učestvuju milioni, na ovaj ili onaj način. Glavni štab gubi veliku moć, bar onu moć da tek tako nasvira u vugla svima šta god toj vlasti pada na pamet. Takvo poimanje propagande je past tense.

dakle, sam apstrakt djeluje prvoloptaški i linearno, i to autor zaključuje bez etnografije i bez intervjua sa glavnim akterima? Nije to literarna analiza već ukazuje na jedan socijalni odnos

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #201 on: 15-11-2014, 18:53:37 »
dr Piševu nije palo na pamet da moje stavove prema devedesetim u Srbiji preispita i kroz lični kontakt. Priznajte da bi to bilo legitimnije nego izvlačiti ad hoc zaključke

Da je taj panel bio iole ozbiljan, mogao je da konsultuje i Skrobonju i Drfa. Živi ljudi i imaju svoje stavove.

ovakva orgija lupetanja može se i očekivati od nekoga ko je amater i kao pisac, a još veći amater po pitanju teorije.
uopšte, ni po čemu, ni po kojoj osnovi, osim tzv. 'zdravorazumskoj' (ako i po njoj!) nije jedan izučavalac nečijeg DELA obavezan da autora bilo šta pita o tom delu.
zašto bi skalop dr piševu na uvce bilo šta objašnjavao, kao da ovaj ne ume da ČITA i tumači šta u skalopovom DELU piše? što bi skalop - ili bilo koji autor - vodio tumača za ručicu?

to su toliko neozbiljne i tupave tvrdnje da se jedva suzdržavam da ih ne okvalifikujem i strože od toga. to što skalop više puta ovde ponavlja - nema veze s mozgom. ali dobro, to teško da će nekoga začuditi.

mislim, na delu je fundamentalno nerazumevanje toga koje je mesto i uloga autora/stvaraoca, sasvim u rangu lupetanja jedne druge budale ovde, ovih dana, o tome kako je strašno bitno da li neki reditelj smatra da je njegov film horor ili nije.
to je toliko irelevanto da mi je smešno da uopšte pričam o tome.
šta pisac ili reditelj misle o svom delu bitno je samo u nekom anegdotalnom smislu, i (skoro) nikako više. zapravo, ima određenu težinu ako je izloženo programski, ozbiljno, npr. u sopstvenom predgovoru/pogovoru itsl, ali to šta je neko reko u intervjuu ili na tribini uzimati kao neki presudni argument u tumačenju nečijeg dela - pa to može tako samo u kafani ili ispred zadruge, dok ločete pivo.
od istog je značaja i to šta bi skalop šapnuo dr piševu na uvo, da ga je samo ovaj pozvao da ga pita. ali, bezobraznik, NIJE - nego se drznuo da mu tumači delo SAM (odnosno, zajedno sa dr žikićem)!  :-x

da i ne govorim o idiotizmu toga što ovde neki govore o radu koji nisu pročitali, o izlaganju koje nisu saslušali, na osnovu apstrakta koji je napisan prvi, kao 'udica' za tu konferenciju - a neki, kao skalop, npr. ne čak ni na osnovu apstrakta, nego na osnovu tako kako im ga je neka budala prepričala, znači - iz treće ruke. gluvi telefoni...  :roll:

totalni amaterizam, neozbiljnost i budalaština. :-x

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #202 on: 15-11-2014, 19:04:03 »
Eto, ludi Radmilo i Maloumni idiot imaju više više znanja o naučnim radovima, kako se konceptiraju, pišu i saopštavaju. Moguće je da još neko ima slično mišljenje, ali je opasno suprotstavljati se Ghoulovom samopouzdanju u sopstvene stavove. Bezbednije je strpati se u sopstvenu nišu i imati mišljenje kad ga vas malac ne čuje. Nadam se da će ovi redovi bar neke posramiti, a ja da ih prozivam neću.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #203 on: 15-11-2014, 19:06:02 »
Daj, majke ti, objasni zašto je bitno tvoje mišljenje o "Zavodniku", ako je moje, kao komentatora, dijametralno suprotno?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #204 on: 15-11-2014, 19:08:39 »
Eto, ludi Radmilo i Maloumni idiot imaju više više znanja o naučnim radovima, kako se konceptiraju, pišu i saopštavaju.

pa kad ste tako pametni, napišite jedan zajednički rad, odite u london i izložite ga tamo, pa posramite sve živo!

ili barem svoje grdno znanje podelite sa dr piševim i dr žikićem, pošto oni očigledno nemaju pojma budući da uopšte ne borave na sagiti, kao skalop i sl. stručnjaci, znalci i experti za sve i svašta, a naročito za naučne radove.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #205 on: 15-11-2014, 19:12:21 »
Daj, majke ti, objasni zašto je bitno tvoje mišljenje o "Zavodniku", ako je moje, kao komentatora, dijametralno suprotno?

majku nemoj da mi pominješ, i nemoj da mešaš babe i žabe, jer ako si amater, slep barem nisi!

valjda barem ti možeš da napraviš razliku između diskusije na forumu i toga kako se piše naučni rad.
ako nekad rešiš da pišeš naučni rad o ZAVODNIKU, ja svakako neću tražiti -kao što ti činiš- da mene pitaš bilo šta: piši, bate, izlaži gde oćeš, objavljuj po svojoj volji.
a dok lupetaš o njemu na FORUMU, e, tu mogu ponekad i da odreagujem, ali i to samo zato što si tako D-ovski napastan i dosadan.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #206 on: 15-11-2014, 19:25:46 »
Nemoj ti mene da pominješ i mirna Bačka. Sad se i neki dr Žikić pominje! :-?  Kako li se dosetio baš nas trojice?


Ovo samo za one koji sa strane čitaju ovaj topik: Jeste li ikada pomislili da je ovaj scallop aka radmilo u životu imao više posla sa naučnim radovima nego ovaj nadri expert Ghoul?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #207 on: 15-11-2014, 19:32:23 »
Ovo samo za one koji sa strane čitaju ovaj topik: Jeste li ikada pomislili da je ovaj scallop aka radmilo u životu imao više posla sa naučnim radovima nego ovaj nadri expert Ghoul?

da, to i mene zanima:
da li je iko sa strane, čitajući ova skalopova bulažnjenja - o obavezi autora rada da njega, pisca, koji mu je dao nekakve poene nekad negde, konsultuje šta je ovaj teo da oće - pomislio makar u dubini mozga da je skalop imao u životu ikakva posla sa naučnim radovima?

Stipan

  • SEVERNJAK
  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.523
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #208 on: 15-11-2014, 19:46:19 »
Kako li se dosetio baš nas trojice?

U stvari, to je vrlo jednostavno. Smatrao je da ste baš vas trojica dobri za predstavljanje pred strancima. Nešto poput okosnice srpske fantastike. Ne vidim u tome ništa loše, baš naprotiv,
...Only one gets out alive...

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #209 on: 15-11-2014, 20:04:09 »
Zgodno je kad se na forumu pojavi neko prvi put i ima stav.

Valjda je to što neko ima (neki) stav upravo razlog da se pojavi na forumu?
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 7.943
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #210 on: 15-11-2014, 20:13:11 »
Već sama činjenica da se domaćim SF-om uglavnom bave antropolozi predstavlja ozbiljan razlog za zabrinutost...  :)


Šalu na stranu, na primer, i Lazović i ja smo bili prilično zadovoljni Đorđevićevim čitanjem naših dela, jer je ozbiljno pristupio njihovom izučavanju i zaključci su mu uglavnom bili na mestu, bar kako se meni (kao objektivnom autoru) čini. Prepoznavanje obrazaca (da pozajmim termin od majstora) jeste važan element u razumevanju svakog dela, pa, naravno, i SF-a.


Zaista bih voleo da vidim rad ove dvojice...
Mica

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #211 on: 15-11-2014, 20:14:05 »
izgleda da su mnogi skrenuli lijevo prema prolepsisu, a ja nemam tri života da ispravljam krive Drine. Skoro 50 godina postoji jedan fundamentalni esej Kventina Skinera - šta može a šta ne može da se radi u tumačenju jednog djela, i prolepsis je smrtni grijeh, apsolutni. Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas, lako se nađe, ko ima oči neka vidi.

eo konkretnog, opštepoznatog primjera

Dekartovo ‘’Mislim, dakle postojim’‘ ni u jednom trenutku nije za samog pisca značilo kredo racionalizma, maksima prema kojoj će se voditi svi kasniji racionalistički filozofi, već je direktno upereno protiv jedne tadašnje intelektualne struje, koja je sada sasvim irelevantna.

Dekart se posvađao sa nekim tipovima iz 16. vijeka i to je njegova lična prepirka. Dakle, Dekart ni u jednom trenutku nije mislio da sa Cogito ergo sum definiše opšti stav racionalističke filozofije. Filozofi doduše imaju pravo da ga slave u tom kontekstu. Antropolozi, sociolozi ili politikolozi - njet.
Pri tumačenju jednog djela mora se uzeti u obzir šta navedeni izraz znači i šta navedenim izrazom autor čini. Ako se ne uzme u obzir šta autor time misli da čini, upada se u mitologiju kartezijanskog racionalizma, u ovom slučaju mitologiju devedesetih.

U takvoj postavci, prolepsis je čuvena greška ''još-ne-x'': Dekart se tumači kao '' još-ne-Hegel'', kao da postoji neka svrhovitost koja od Dekarta vodi ka Hegelu, kao da je Dekart još nerazvijeni Hegel, ''nesvjesni'' Hegel, kao da je grčka mitologija ''još-ne-horor'', ali ''anticipira horor'', sadrži neke njegove elemente, koji u potpunosti dolaze do izražaja valjda u Lavkrafta, koga drugog. Dekart je izgubljena karika između Aristotela i Hegela, Kralj u žutom je posrednik između Zevsa i Ktulua. Tako Leptirica, umjesto priče zasnovane na srpskoj narodnoj tradiciji, treba prolepsisom da upadne u žanr koji je mlađi od srpske narodne tradicije. Zato što u prolepsisu novo određuje staro.

Milošević određuje pokosovski ciklus. U takvim nesuvislim idiotlucima valja se zapitati kad će Zevsovo proždiranje sopstvene djece ili ušivanje Dionisa u bedra biti proglašeno predstavnikom horor žanra. Zevs kao ''još-ne-Ktulu'', umjesto kao uzor Saturnu. Jer, pobogu, to izaziva jezu. Exorcist, koji se u potpunosti temelji na rimokatoličkom diskursu, u stvari dokazuje da je rimokatolicizam ''još-ne-satanizam''. Možda tako monstruozna seksualnost ispadne ''još-ne-bešavni rod'' pod visokom tenzijom. I slične besmislice.
Satanizam je derivat, Ktulu je derivat, Milošević je derivat, horor je derivat. Deal with it.

Onda sasvim logično ispadne da se apstrakt tretira kao udica, maltene blurb, a ne ono što jedino i znači - rezime. Ko ne zna da napiše apstrakt ne zna da napiše ni rad. A ovaj apstrakt ukazuje na to da autori niti njihovi branitelji nisu upoznati sa maltene jednim od trojice najpoznatijih kritičara postmodernističkog pristupa u tumačenju djela, iako je taj kratak esej napisan prije gotovo pola vijeka.

Ovaj apstrakt ne tvrdi da se bavi elementima srpske tradicije u srpskim SF djelima devedesetih godina, što bi bilo sasvim legitimno polje istraživanja koje ne iziskuje kontaktiranje autora. Ovaj rad čak ne tvrdi u apstraktu da je Milošević iskoristio tradicionalne mentalitetske elemente srpske nacije, npr koristeći nalaze Rota i Havelke koji su 1981. objavili veliko istraživanje srpskog sistema vrijednosti, i da je imajući taj rad u rukama svoje političko djelovanje prilagodio osnovnim mentalitetskim karakteristikama Srba. Samim tim, jahao je na talasu koji nije njegov, pa su na tom talasu, makar i nesvjesno, jahali i književnici. Čak ni ovdje nije potreban intervju, ali je poželjan.

Autori u apstraktu ne tvrde ni prvo ni drugo nego treće. Da je Milošević stvorio osjećaj paranoje, da je Milošević kreirao preduslove za automarginalizaciju, da je Milošević obezbjedio kontekst u kojem su određeni modeli drugosti poželjni. Sem ako ne misle na Pajkićevog Miloševića, i bez obzira da li ''demonizovani demonizuju demonizatora'' i slične zapetljavine teorijski nepotkovanih, predmet istraživanja izlazi iz čisto intertekstualne postavke i zahtijeva empirijsku potvrdu tih tvrdnji.

Nije, dakle, srpska tradicija kao tekst uzrok niza SF tekstova (što bi mogle biti istaživačke opcije 1 i 2), nego je Milošević proviđenjem, svakodnevnim politikantskim avanturama i kleopatrizacijom društvene krize taktički usmjerio kulturno stvaralaštvo u određenom pravcu. To piše u apstraktu, za koji sam rekao da ima smisla tek kada se izbrišu prvih 4-5 rečenica, jer tek bez njih se rad vraća na opcije 1 i 2. A to da autori jedno pišu u apstraktu a drugo u radu je više nego neozbiljno, toliko bezumno da se nadam da su samo Lonijevci u duši, jer je to nekako ''moralnije''. S druge strane, možda su autori na putu da zaebu londonske kolege, al to su već šbbkbb priče, i nemaju veze sa ispravnim tumačenjem apstrakta.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #212 on: 16-11-2014, 01:54:38 »
Bato, u jednom udarcu si opravdao sve svoje postove na ovom forumu. Bravo.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.604
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #213 on: 16-11-2014, 11:36:54 »
mda... i Fipa i Radmilo barataju sa iskonskim balkanskim motivom vuka koji je utkan i u srpstvo i obe priče su osmišljene pre Miloševićevih papazjanija. Nadam se da motivi iz tih dela neće biti čitani u postmiloševićevskom obrascu, jer to bre nema veze sa životom.
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #214 on: 16-11-2014, 11:43:38 »
Dobro si se setio da laneš. Kao što su nam vukovi bili motivi o kojkima se razgovaralo, tako je jedan od motiva bio i Baš-Čelik. Iako ne izgleda vidljivo, "Crni cvet" i "Dan Mitre" su proistekli iz tog motiva.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.604
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #215 on: 16-11-2014, 12:01:43 »
Tako je, i Lazović ima jednu baš-čelikastu priču... ali o svemu tome se pričalo još od 1987-8. i narednih nekoliko godina intenzivno.
Fipa je u mnogim svojim delima vivisecirao komunizam kao društvenu pojavu ("Rame sokolara", neobjavljeni roman "Vučiji zijev", "Između dve vatre", "Trinaesta škola"...) i buđenje iskonskih balkanskih duhova u odbranu srpstva, pa je i priča "Tri miliona kostura" jedna u nizu. Fipa se samo u jednoj priči dotakao Miloševića - "Harlekin malo kasni".
Posebno je Fipine radove teško izvlačiti iz konteksta, mada si i ti imao neka preklapanja; jedino ja radim svako delo nezavisno od drugih.
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #216 on: 16-11-2014, 12:23:37 »
Istini za volju, sve ovo šta nam se događa danas, posledica je potpuno odsustva iole ozbiljne analize toka domaće fantastike u poslednjih tridesetak godina. Tako se danas može zloupotrebiti i tvoja izjava da smo o domaćim temama počeli da raspravljamo 1987-8. i kasnije. Mada su rasprave o značenjima epigonskih tema sa motivima, okruženja i imena likova počele znatno ranije. Tako je sada lako, a i u svetu poželjno, izvlačiti i druge zaključke.


Tvoju dodatu rečenicu ću prevideti, jer je doprinos takvim stavovima i mišljenjima.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.604
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #217 on: 16-11-2014, 12:38:05 »
Tada smo počeli masovno i redovno da raspravljamo... priče iz našeg okruženja javile su se krajem sedamdesetih. Pojedinačnih iskoraka je bilo početkom osamdesetih, ali Sirius kao okruženje nije bio pogodan za domaće teme (Sokolar kao izuzetak... nijednu Fipinu priču iz kosovskog ciklusa nisu hteli da objave)... ja bih bavljenje domaćim temama u širem obimu vezao za pojavu Alefa (1986.) i zatim Tamnog vilajeta, zapravo za moj urednički rad, koji je načinio tu ključnu razliku između dotadašnjih sporadičnih priča i kasnijih uobičajenih i redovnih.
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #218 on: 16-11-2014, 12:49:27 »
Eto, tajming nam tada nije išao na ruku. Objasni ti danas nekome da "kosovski ciklus" nije pisan u vreme Miloševićevih aktivnosti. Da su "Rašani" omašili prvo objavljivanje upravo zbog toga što je tada Milošević preuzeo uticaj u Srbiji, pa nisu znali da li je poželjno. Sad je sve moguće izopačiti. Iz knjige "Sva vučja deca" odgovarala je priča pod tim nazivom, ali ne i ostale četiri novele. Zašto? Zato što je "Oko Svetovida: Falus" o kraju doba matrijarhata na Balkanu, "Rašani" o alhemiji VII veka u mojoj makedonskoj Strumici, "Dan Mitre" se takođe događa u Makedoniji, kao i "Nema mesta za svilene bube". Kako bi autori za Britanski skup objasnili moju opsednutost Miloševićem? Nikako.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

angel011

  • PsychoKitty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.050
  • meow
    • Hronika mačjeg škrabala
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #219 on: 16-11-2014, 13:36:35 »
I, hoće li neko od vas starijih koji su prisustvovali tim klupskim razgovorima da kontaktira autore ovog rada i da im ispriča kada je šta stvarno nastajalo, za neku buduću priliku i buduće radove? Ili da napiše i objavi sopstveni tekst o tome (ne nužno naučni), pa da oni koji se late proučavanja srpske fantastike u poslednjih trideset godina imaju gde da nađu tačne podatke?
We're all mad here.

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.604
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #220 on: 16-11-2014, 13:56:17 »
Problem je što mi za autore radova saznamo tek kad su urađeni i objavljeni.
Možda bi autori radova trebalo da se obazru oko sebe i pokušaju u sklopu celokupnog istraživanja da iščeprkaju i podatke o vremenskom sledu događaja.
Fipine priče kosovskog ciklusa objavljuju se od 1986. godine - jeste to godina u kojoj je Milošević došao na vlast, ali do 1989. on nije bio nikakav bitan faktor u javnosti, a tek kasnije je nastupila njegova diktatura, pa treba pretpostaviti da su pisci svoje ideje razrađivali nezavisno od dnevne politike.

1991. godine je u splitskoj Misiji objavljen prikaz Fipine Zlatne knjige sa glavnim zaključkom na kraju da je šteta što je izdavač dao lažnu godinu objavljivanja (1988) da bi svom izdanju obezbedio autentičnost u odnosu na tadašnje stanje u državi. A ja sam knjigu dobio krajem 1987, objavio zaista 1988. bile i javne promocije tada, dakle, čak i tada, nekoliko godina nakon svega toga, neko je posumnjao u sled događaja; šta da očekujemo danas, ili za 50 godina.
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #221 on: 16-11-2014, 14:04:19 »
Baš zgodno, Angel, ali imam utisak da to ne ide tim redom. Ja sam u više navrata piskarao o tome za Emitor, ali izgleda da je dosledno istraživanje zametan posao za koji naši istraživači nemaju vremena.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

angel011

  • PsychoKitty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.050
  • meow
    • Hronika mačjeg škrabala
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #222 on: 16-11-2014, 14:29:40 »
Emitor je fanzin. Interno glasilo jednog kluba, štampano u malom broju primeraka, i ne uvek dostupno.


Slažem se da bi bilo dobro kada bi autori radova sprovodili sveobuhvatnije istraživanje pre nego što napišu rad. Bilo bi dobro i kada bi podaci bili lakše dostupni. Šta se radi i šta može da se uradi pa da se lakše dođe do tačnih podataka?


Bibliografija je očigledan odgovor, i super je što je tu. Šta još?


Da li bi, recimo, scallop mogao da pokrene blog i na njemu piše kako je sve teklo, kojim redom, kad je šta nastalo, kada se o čemu pričalo i slično? To bi bar bilo lako dostupno za sve koje zanima.
We're all mad here.

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.604
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #223 on: 16-11-2014, 14:40:04 »
Ali scallop nije najstariji... znaš li ti da sam ja kao urednik objavio prvu skallopovu SF priču 1981. godine. Ja sam bio već stara kuka kada je on počinjao. A nisam ni ja od iskona.
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #224 on: 16-11-2014, 14:44:25 »
Da li bi, recimo, scallop mogao da pokrene blog i na njemu piše kako je sve teklo, kojim redom, kad je šta nastalo, kada se o čemu pričalo i slično? To bi bar bilo lako dostupno za sve koje zanima.

i ti bi tome verovala?
to bi, misliš, bio relevantan izvor za buduće istraživače?
to bi mogao da bude anegdotalno-humoristički blog, prošaran kulinarskim receptima, kako bi bar nešto s njega bilo upotrebljivo.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #225 on: 16-11-2014, 15:09:57 »
Angel, Boban je stariji, a Ghoul relevantniji. Obrati se njima.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

angel011

  • PsychoKitty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.050
  • meow
    • Hronika mačjeg škrabala
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #226 on: 16-11-2014, 15:25:26 »
Ok, važi.


Hajde neka neko (najstariji, najpametniji, najbolje informisan) piše o tome kojim je sve redom išlo, šta, kada, kako, i neka to bude lako dostupno onima koje to zanima i koji bi to da istražuju i pišu radove.


@Ghoul: anegdotalno-humoristični blog sa pričom o tome kada (godina i mesec) se razgovaralo o određenim temama i koje priče su nakon toga napisane (godina i mesec) i objavljene (godina i mesec), a od strane učesnika razgovora, mogao bi da bude veoma koristan.
We're all mad here.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #227 on: 16-11-2014, 17:23:19 »
@Ghoul: anegdotalno-humoristični blog sa pričom o tome kada (godina i mesec) se razgovaralo o određenim temama i koje priče su nakon toga napisane (godina i mesec) i objavljene (godina i mesec), a od strane učesnika razgovora, mogao bi da bude veoma koristan.

tebi onda ne treba skalop nego ABN.
on to sve ima, a uz to je mnogo pouzdaniji i ozbiljniji od skalopa.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #228 on: 16-11-2014, 17:28:13 »
Odličan savet. Obrati se ABN-u.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

varvarin

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.365
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #229 on: 17-11-2014, 01:31:58 »
Sa zakašnjenjem sam video ovu temu (pod stare dane spremam jedan ispit  :x), pa bih da dodam i ja svoj kamenčić.
Ne smeta mi ako me neka deca-istraživači povežu s Miloševićem. Uopšte mi ne smeta. Ali prvu verziju SOKOLARA ponudio sam SIRIUSU davne 1981. (osamdeset prve), kad je Milošević bio nepoznat većini ljudi ovde, a Jugoslavija delovala stabilno.
Hteo sam srpsku, lokalnu temu. Mislio sam da je to ono pravo.
Prva verzija je odbijena.  :lol:

A priča o srpskoj atomskoj bombi (Noć koja bi mogla da promeni sve) proganjala me desetak godina pre toga, još od studija. Kad sam konačno zagrizao, pregledao neke izvore i napisao priču- poklopilo se sa trenutkom kad su se ovde političari već pičkarali. Dobri urednik SIRIUSA reče - evo ga, još jedan s nacionalističkom tematikom...

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #230 on: 17-11-2014, 01:35:01 »
ih, deca!
ma šta zna dete šta je dvesta kila?!

varvarin

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.365
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #231 on: 17-11-2014, 01:41:38 »
I, rispekt Bati za poslednji post.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #232 on: 17-11-2014, 01:48:54 »
rispekt i varvarinu što je bio pionir.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #233 on: 17-11-2014, 02:00:17 »
rispekt i skalopu što je piševu dao prve bodove.

to je baš onako, slatko...

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #234 on: 17-11-2014, 12:36:17 »
i rispekt, naravno, dr piševu što je stavio u isti džak dva dobra pisca i jednog lošeg, i odneo ih u london da o njima priča.

i koji se od ovih zbog toga buni?
onaj loš, naravno. :)

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #235 on: 17-11-2014, 12:40:08 »
Kad bi tvoje mišljenje neko uopšte uvažavao.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #236 on: 17-11-2014, 12:42:20 »
ali o meni se ovde uopšte ne govori.

ja sam ovde samo beli sneg po kome zverke, poput tebe, pokazuju trag... :wink:


ps. ali istina je: moje mišljenje ne uvažavaju budale. i to samo neke.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #237 on: 17-11-2014, 13:10:40 »
To je poenta: ko ne uvažava tvoje mišljenje je automatski budala. Dobra ti ta automatika. Naravno, neke budale uvažavaju tvoje mišljenje. Takvi privremeno nisu budale, dok im se ne omakne da tvoje mišljenje ne prihvate. Zbog toga izbegavaju da imaju mišljenje. Šta će im sopstveno dok imaju tvoje. Verbalno nasilje je zgodno dok traje. Međutim, budući da ja ne dajem pišivog boba na tvoje mišljenje računaću sa onim mišljenjima koja nisu javna niti napadna kao tvoje. Takva duže traju i odnose šnjur. Jednom sam Prčiću poručio, kad se žalio da mu, uprkos napisanim dobrim mišljenjima o Siriusu tiraž opada, da razmisli šta mu poručuju oni koji mu ne pišu. Dakle, nebitno je šta ćeš ti da napljuješ, sve dok postoje oni koji uprkos tome čitaju i čude se koja si ti zlobna osoba.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #238 on: 17-11-2014, 14:49:40 »
ma to su samo tvoje fantazme i pakosna podmetanja.

taj ghoul koga ti opisuješ postoji samo u tvojim halucinacijama.
svako ko me poznaje zna da je moj način razmišljanja potpuno različit od tih nebuloza koje mi pripisuješ.
ali - i te tvoje projekcije govore, i to mnogo, o tebi.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #239 on: 17-11-2014, 15:12:36 »
Da se dogovorimo: ti haluciniraj svoje halucinacije, a ja ću svoje.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #240 on: 17-11-2014, 15:30:59 »
pa naravno! ne pada mi na um da u svoju glavu primam te tvoje!

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #241 on: 17-11-2014, 15:33:44 »
Sad veruješ da si odgovorio i da si uspešno poslednji u nizu. :-?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #242 on: 17-11-2014, 15:37:45 »
Sad veruješ da si odgovorio i da si uspešno poslednji u nizu. :-?

dokle god si ti ovde, ja neću biti poslednji ni u čemu. :)

angel011

  • PsychoKitty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.050
  • meow
    • Hronika mačjeg škrabala
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #243 on: 17-11-2014, 15:47:18 »
Može l' ovo prepucavanje na Deponiju?
We're all mad here.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #244 on: 17-11-2014, 15:49:08 »
može.
ovaj skalop odavno nije za drugde.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #245 on: 17-11-2014, 15:56:25 »
Mene samo stavite na neku drugu deponiju.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.604
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #246 on: 20-11-2014, 13:00:04 »
ali o meni se ovde uopšte ne govori.
ja sam ovde samo beli sneg po kome zverke, poput tebe, pokazuju trag... :wink:
ps. ali istina je: moje mišljenje ne uvažavaju budale. i to samo neke.

Gule, mislim da si dovoljno na ovom forumu rekao loših reči o Radmilu; svi smo više puta čuli šta misliš o njemu kao čoveku i kao piscu. Nije mi samo jasno odakle je ABN izvukao zaključak da ti nikada ne napadaš osobu, nego samo delo. Možda tako radiš na svom blogu. Ali vidim da je tamo drugima dopušteno da neograničeno pljuju po kome god hoće, pa onda ne znam šta je ABN video. Ili nije video. Bilo kako bilo, možda je vreme da ovde počneš da se ponašaš bar onoliko pristojno koliko to uspevaš u svom brlogu.
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #247 on: 20-11-2014, 18:06:47 »
moje pravilo je uvek i svuda bilo - prema svecu i tropar.
prema radmilu sam bio onoliko nežan koliko je sam to zasluživao/tražio.

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.604
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #248 on: 20-11-2014, 18:14:11 »
bio sam prisutan u svojstvu svedoka kada ste ti i on razmenili knjige i obećali jedan drugom da ćete pročitati i komentaristati delo onog drugog. Radmilo je svoju reč održao, ti svoju nisi, osim ako ovo konstantno pljuvanje ne smatraš za prikaz. Ja ladno mogu da ustvrdim kako si ti lažov i prevarant i da se Radmilo s razlogom ljuti.
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #249 on: 20-11-2014, 18:24:03 »
aj ne tupi više: te proklete ŠARANE sam odbacio 20 strana pred kraja zato što sam shvatio da me apsolutno nimalo ne zanima niko i ništa u tom textu.
mučio sam se i gnjavio 100-ak strana, i shvatio da je uzaludno - ja to NE MOGU da pročitam. to je toliko suvoparno i 'nabijeno' nezanimljivošću da me reči izdaju da to opišem.
isti utisak je imao i kolega kome sam tu knjigu posle prodao.

dakle, to je moj finalni komentar te užasne, dosadne, uninvolving knjige i detaljniji od toga neću biti, osim ako mi se ne plati, jer probijanje kroz 100 strana onoga je jedno od najgorih mučenja koja sam ikada doživeo u svojoj čitalačkoj karijeri (zato što ovakve knjige bacim mnogo brže, ali kroz ovu sam se mučio baš zarad radmila).

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #250 on: 20-11-2014, 18:54:12 »
Ako želite da saznate šta užasava Ghoula čitajte "Rašane" Radmila Anđelkovića.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #251 on: 20-11-2014, 20:17:30 »
Ako želite da saznate šta užasava Ghoula čitajte "Rašane" Radmila Anđelkovića.

eto blurba!
taj bi možda i pomogao da se proda neki primerak!

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #252 on: 21-11-2014, 14:21:52 »
Čekaj, Gul je popljuvao "Rašane"? Mislio sam da je nešto drugo.

Inače, moram priznati da je to veoma efektivan blurb. Recimo, Goranovu zbirku o apokalipsi kupio sam (ali ne još i pročitao) isključivo zbog Gulove negativne kritike Nešićeve i Lazovićeve priče.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

varvarin

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.365
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #253 on: 21-11-2014, 14:25:12 »
Kad pročitaš, napiši kako ti se čini ta priča.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #254 on: 21-11-2014, 14:27:24 »
S obzirom na književni komentatorski ugled, sve što Ghoul popljuje je poziv na čitanje.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #255 on: 21-11-2014, 14:29:29 »
Obavezno hoću. Naročito pošto mislim da od Ivana mogu mnogo toga da ukradem u spisateljskom smislu - premda mi je, prema pričama ljudi oko mene, tvoj spisateljski manir bliži. A u poslednje vreme trpim prilične pritiske da pišem više i obimnije. Moj problem je što me kratka priča nimalo ne privlači kao forma, a ne privlači me ni čitalački. Između ostalog, zbog toga toliko željno iščekujem ta tvoja sabrana dela u jednom tomu.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

varvarin

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.365
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #256 on: 21-11-2014, 14:31:28 »
Toj priči posvetio je Gul veliku pažnju: Pisao je prikaz u nastavcima... :)

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #257 on: 21-11-2014, 14:38:52 »
S obzirom na književni komentatorski ugled, sve što Ghoul popljuje je poziv na čitanje.

Tu već nisi u pravu.

Pokušaću da obrazložim svoj stav.

Ni Gul ni, recimo, ja nismo kritičari. Književna kritika je žanr za sebe, takoreći, i ima svoja pravila. Ni Gul ni ja ta pravila ne poštujemo. Posmatrajući naše tekstove, mi stavljamo na papir svoje utiske i merimo svojim, krajnje subjektivnim aršinima. Naš nekakav ugled zasniva se na broju čitalaca koji su pročitali tu i tu knjigu, pa se njihov utisak u većoj ili manjoj meri poklopio sa našim utiscima. Onda ti ljudi kažu "Čekaj, ova dvojica idiota nemaju život, pa čitaju dvesta puta više od mene. Zašto bih se ja mučio da probiravam kroz hrpu knjiga, kada mogu da se (relativno) pouzdano oslonim na njihovo mišljenje i tako sebi uštedim vreme?"

E, sad - prema Gulovom ukusu duhovito nazvani "Šarani" nisu za čitanje, pa će zato vernici u njegovom hramu/kultu da preskoče taj roman. Ali Gulovo mišljenje o fantaziji je vrlo verovatno malo gore nego moje mišljenje o gotskom hororu. Zato su čitaoci mog bloga pročitali "Šarane" i mahom se saglasili sa mojom ocenom tog romana. (Da obsetim, dao sam 3/5, što je po merilima Goodreadsa "dobra knjiga").

Opet, ako se na Gudridsu pogleda u kojim se naslovima Gul i ja poklapamo, videće se da iste naslove u oblastima u kojima nam se interesovanja poklapaju ocenjujemo vrlo slično. Dakle, nije po sredi pitanje kritičke verodostojnosti već isključivo pitanje čitalačkog ukusa.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #258 on: 21-11-2014, 14:39:25 »
Toj priči posvetio je Gul veliku pažnju: Pisao je prikaz u nastavcima... :)

Znam. Zato sam i kupio knjigu. :)
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #259 on: 21-11-2014, 15:27:21 »
Toj priči posvetio je Gul veliku pažnju: Pisao je prikaz u nastavcima... :)

nekima su traume proizvedene ovom kritikom, izgleda, izazvale neku vrstu halucinacija, jer OVAJ prikaz nikada nije izlazio u nastavcima: sve što sam o tome imao, kazao sam u ovom jednom textu -
Vladimir Lazović i Ivan Nešić, "U temeljima"



http://cultofghoul.blogspot.com/2011/06/vladimir-lazovic-i-ivan-nesic-u.html

kako čudno/zabavno radi povređeni/uvređeni um! :)
za godinu ili dve počeće da pričaju da sam knjigu o njima piso!  :-D

uostalom, i skalop to isto savršeno ilustruje ovim projekcijama sopstvene povređenosti i uvređenosti jer njegove su tlapnje utemeljene samo i jedino u njegovoj glavi, i nigde izvan nje:

S obzirom na književni komentatorski ugled, sve što Ghoul popljuje je poziv na čitanje.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 44.847
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #260 on: 09-02-2015, 13:30:23 »
Ovo nije za ovaj topik a ne znam gde da ga stavim, pa evo ovde a neka neko pametniji od mene razvrsta:

Ian Ballantine Made Paperbacks Required Reading


Quote
As a Columbia University student in the 1930s, Ian Ballantine wrote a paper on the economic prospects of paperback publishers.
Two years later, he was one.
Called by many the father of the mass-market paperback, Ballantine (1916-95) produced novel ideas that helped change American reading habits in the 1940s and '50s.
Along way, he sparked the publishing industry.
At a time when America had only 2,500 bookstores, the restless New Yorker turned to other venues — distributing 25-cent books to newsstands and drugstores accessible to the general public.
Ballantine and his wife, Betty, founded no fewer than three prestigious paperback houses — Penguin USA, Bantam Books and Ballantine Books — during pioneering careers spanning nearly 60 years.
"The idea was to produce a book that could be read for the price of a pack of cigarettes," Paula Rabinowitz, a University of Minnesota English professor and author of "American Pulp: How Paperbacks Brought Modernism to Main Street," told IBD. "It was an invitation to a literary life to working people, to regular people."
Lofty Authors

Ballantine was one of the earliest publishers of science-fiction paperback originals, with writers including Arthur Clarke ("2001"), Ray Bradbury ("Fahrenheit 451") and Frederik Pohl ("The Space Merchants"). During the 1960s, Ballantine published the first authorized paperback editions of J.R.R. Tolkien's books.
"These were great classics of world fiction," said Loren Glass, a University of Iowa English professor. "He published in original form some of the greatest works in the golden age of science fiction. One of the interesting things about Ballantine is that he was not only a businessman trying to make money in books; he was a student of literature and publishing, and something of an intellectual."
Ballantine grew up in New York with a father, Edward, who acted in the first Broadway production of George Bernard Shaw's "Pygmalion" in 1914. Also in the mix was playwright Eugene O'Neill, a friend of Ballantine's parents.
Ian had ties to publishing through his uncle, Saxe Commins, an editor at Random House.
"My uncle, a marvelous guy ... edited William Faulkner and Eugene O'Neill at Random House," Ballantine told the Chicago Tribune in the 1980s. "In 1935, a firm called Modern Age started doing paperbound books. My uncle said it would never work. I, with the glorious arrogance of youth, said it would work but that they were doing it wrong."
There was nothing new about paperbacks. In America, James Fenimore Cooper was writing frontier stories published in paper-like format as far back as 1823.
Dime novels soared in popularity during the Civil War.
Near the end of the 19th century, paperbacks mostly disappeared as the economy soured.
Then came the 1930s and Ballantine's paper, which called paperbacks publishing's greatest hope.
Impressed by Ballantine's research, Penguin Books' Allen Lane tapped Ballantine to launch a U.S. branch of Penguin in 1939, making the 22-year-old London School of Economics graduate a junior partner in the newly formed American Penguin. The Ballantines were married the day before they sailed for America that June to set up a New York office.
"Ian's stated objective was very simple: He said he wanted to change the reading habits of America, and by golly, that's what we proceeded to do," Betty said years later.
Within two months of their launching Penguin USA, World War II erupted, causing huge import problems. As many as 50,000 books at a time were being lost to German subs.
With the London-based Lane unable to cross the Atlantic, Ballantine started publishing books as well as importing them.
As it turned out, the war helped sales. The demand for books among soldiers was enormous, so Ballantine collaborated with other publishers to produce armed service editions of popular titles.
According to Rabinowitz, they published nearly 1,200 titles in these editions and distributed 123 million copies, at a cost to the U.S. government of 6 cents a copy.
Peace And Pages
And after the war ended in 1945, returning service men and women expected to find books.
"They developed a habit of reading," Rabinowitz said. "By the time the war was over, the paperback industry was well established and exploding. In a sense, the modern paperback is a product of the war."
After a power struggle at Penguin in 1945, the Ballantines quit to begin a reprint house, which they named Bantam Books.
When the first paperbacks rolled off the presses, the 20 titles included "The Great Gatsby" by F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck and "Life on the Mississippi" by Mark Twain.
All the books sold for 25 cents and had initial printings of 200,000 copies that could soar above 500,000 if demand warranted it. They were the first books widely available in drugstores, cigar stores, bus stations and other nontraditional outlets.
"Ballantine and others were aware there was a high level of literacy in the U.S. but extremely poor distribution mechanics for books," Glass said. "He was aware there was an untapped market. Part of it was a realization that Americans were ripe for this kind of innovation. Americans were spread out over an enormous continent, plus there were surprisingly few bookstores. The book industry had been centralized in New York and New England."
In 1952, after losing another power struggle, Ballantine quit Bantam. In a stunning move, he announced that his new imprint, Ballantine Books, would begin simultaneous publication of original fiction and nonfiction in hardcover and paperback editions.
At the time, most paperbacks were merely reprints of books originally in hardcover versions.
Hard To Change
Older, conservative publishers harshly attacked the move, claiming that hardcover sales would falter because of the cheaper editions.
Instead, sales of both hard-bound and paperback books were impressive, letting Ballantine shift his focus to overlooked genres.
"He is known for being incredibly innovative," Rabinowitz said.
Turning serious science fiction into a literary genre ranks among his greatest feats. Prior to Ballantine Books, science fiction barely existed in novel form. He changed that with the 1953 publication of "Fahrenheit 451," the firm's 41st book. "That was obviously a key moment in the history of science-fiction publishing," Glass said.
In 1965, when Tolkien's rights to his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy lapsed, Ace Books published his books without paying royalties.
Ballantine quickly bought the rights and included Tolkien's back-cover note: "Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living authors will purchase it and no other."
Tolkien fans honored the author's request, and sales were huge for the Ballantine version.
Ballantine also published a "Lord of the Rings" calendar, a mock travel poster and a map of Middle Earth.
In 1974, Random House bought Ballantine Books for $6.4 million, and Ian and Betty Ballantine rejoined Bantam.
The couple had one child, Richard, a noted author of books about cycling, who died in 2013.
In 1986, Consumer Reports included the paperback book in a list of 50 products — along with the birth control pill, color TV and the air conditioner — that significantly changed American lives in the last half of the 20th century.
As a 20-year-old college student, Ballantine saw it coming.


Antrfile:


 Ballantine's Keys
  • Called the father of the mass-market paperback, he founded both Bantam Books and Ballantine Books, and laid the groundwork for the modern paperback industry.
  •   Overcame: Skepticism and establishment opposition to paperbacks.
  •   Lesson: If it looks great on paper, ignore conventional wisdom.
  • "I intend to change the reading habits of America."

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.174
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #262 on: 06-05-2015, 23:54:04 »
na Courseri prvog juna počinje kurs Fantasy and Science Fiction: The Human Mind, Our Modern World, gde će se čitati i analizirati 10 dela fantastične književnosti. spisak je sledeći:


    Grimm — Children's and Household Tales
    Carroll — Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass
    Stoker — Dracula
    Shelley — Frankenstein
    Hawthorne & Poe — Stories and Poems
    Wells — The Island of Dr. Moreau, The Invisible Man, "The Country of the Blind," "The Star"
    Burroughs & Gilman — A Princess of Mars & Herland
    Bradbury — The Martian Chronicles
    LeGuin — The Left Hand of Darkness
    Doctorow — Little Brother

kurs vodi Eric Rabkin sa univerziteta Mičigen. više informacija na

https://www.coursera.org/course/fantasysf
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.774
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #263 on: 04-06-2015, 11:38:55 »
http://www.newstatesman.com/2015/05/neil-gaiman-kazuo-ishiguro-interview-literature-genre-machines-can-toil-they-can-t-imagine

Čojs kvout za Gula:

NG Genres only start existing when there’s enough of them to form a sort of critical mass in a bookshop, and even that can go away. A bookstore worker in America was telling me that he’d worked in Borders when they decided to get rid of their horror section, because people weren’t coming into it. So his job was to take the novels and decide which ones were going to go and live in Science Fiction and Fantasy and which ones were going to Thrillers.

KI Does that mean horror has disappeared as a genre?

NG It definitely faded away as a bookshop category, which then meant that a lot of people who had been making their living as horror writers had to decide what they were, because their sales were diminishing. In fact, a lot of novels that are currently being published as thrillers are books that probably would have been published as horror 20 years ago.
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.774
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #264 on: 04-06-2015, 11:56:35 »
I ovo, Gejmen o Kini:


I took aside one of the Party organisers, and said, “OK. Why are you now in 2007 endorsing a science-fiction convention?” And his reply was that the Party had been concerned that while China historically has been a culture of magical and radical invention, right now, they weren’t inventing things. They were making things incredibly well but they weren’t inventing. And they’d gone to America and interviewed the people at Google and Apple and Microsoft, and talked to the inventors, and discovered that in each case, when young, they’d read science fiction. That was why the Chinese had decided that they were going to officially now approve of science fiction and fantasy.
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

Irena Adler

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 405
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #265 on: 04-06-2015, 12:01:59 »
Moj glavni utisak iz tog razgovora je da je Britanija leglo marksista. :)

Гражданка Шульц

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.803
  • ведьма
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #266 on: 04-06-2015, 12:30:00 »
Ovo oko trilera i horora, cesto ces cuti od horor fanbejsa da im triler otima zanrovske filmove, tj da se (mejnstrim?) hororima lepi etiketa trilera ne bi li se bolje kotirali kod kritike i mejnstrim publike.
Moguce da se smatra kako je horor lowbrow zanr, pa i u knjizevnosti (vec sam imala raspravu na ovu temu sa Batom, cini mi se), te otud ovo odumiranje i prelazak pod triler okrilje. Koje je, jelte, 'intelektualnije'.

A za Kineze, haha Partija je odlucila da dozvoli fantasy i sf, majko mila. :P

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.805
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #267 on: 04-06-2015, 12:35:03 »
I ovo, Gejmen o Kini:



I Gejmen je Amerikanac pa može da se bez reakcije nalupeta.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #268 on: 04-06-2015, 12:36:38 »
Moj glavni utisak iz tog razgovora je da je Britanija leglo marksista. :)

Ne baš leglo, ali fantastičari su uglavnom levičari i anti-tolkinisti, za razliku od SAD.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Irena Adler

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 405
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #269 on: 04-06-2015, 12:40:51 »
To je sasvim moguće, ali na mene nije toliko ostavilo utisak levičarenje, koliko smrtno ozbiljno shvatanje klasne podele (što pretpostavljam da jeste karakterističnije za Britaniju nego za neka druga mesta).

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #270 on: 04-06-2015, 12:47:02 »
To bi sada trebalo pitati nekoga ko je makar boravio tamo i družio se sa Britancima, ali moj je utisak da je kod njih ta podela i dalje na snazi, pa makar bila tek kozmetičke prirode. Doduše, podela na klase U VB jeste važeća pravna kategorija... bmliga.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Гражданка Шульц

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.803
  • ведьма
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #271 on: 04-06-2015, 12:52:28 »
Da se nadovezem na svoj prethodni post, neki fanovi cak smatraju da triler kao zanr i ne postoji, sto je po meni nerazumno, ali ces cesto na imdb-u videti da je horor film zaveden kao 'mystery/thriller'.
S druge strane, smestiti, npr Klajv Barkera u triler sekciju je jos nerazumnije. To je punokrvni horor pisac, tu nema mesta interpretacijama.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #272 on: 04-06-2015, 14:05:45 »
Nije triler zaklao horor, već urbana fantastika. Uz ogradu da ne treba mešati filmove i knjige, meni je sve što nema elemenata natprirodnog - u čemu sam saglasan sa Lavkraftom - triler. Ako ima elemenata natprirodnog, fantastika je. Ako me ta fantastika plaši, horor je. Međutim, devedesete su za horor bile reformativne kao recimo sedamdesete za epsku fantastiku, pa je tako čitav niz antiheroina najpre promenio horor, pa ga skroz napustio i stvorio novi žanr. Tu pre svega mislim na romane Nensi Kolins i te ekipe, ali i Pola Vilsona, Melani Tem, pa čak i Gejmana i Barkera - Barkerov "Utkani svet" je po svim sadašnjim definicijama urbana fantastika. Jednostavno, kako je čitalaštvo bivalo izloženije tim motivima mraka, čudovišnosti i gadosti, tako je to bivalo prihvatljivije i prihvatljivije sve dok se nije u potpunosti izgubila odbojnos prema onom drugom i čudovišta prestala da žive u getoima poput Barkerovog Midijana, počevši da dele svet barabar sa nama. Sad, siguran sam da bi Gul mogao da se ubaci i prokomentariše moju analizu, pošto on svakako više od mene prati taj žanr - ali mislim da sam u grubim crtama u pravu.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Гражданка Шульц

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.803
  • ведьма
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #273 on: 04-06-2015, 14:22:33 »
 
Quote
Jednostavno, kako je čitalaštvo bivalo izloženije tim motivima mraka, čudovišnosti i gadosti, tako je to bivalo prihvatljivije i prihvatljivije sve dok se nije u potpunosti izgubila odbojnos prema onom drugom i čudovišta prestala da žive u getoima poput Barkerovog Midijana, počevši da dele svet barabar sa nama.

Nisam sigurna da sam razumela; hoces da kazes da duze izlaganje i navikavanje na motive, elemente horora utice da publika prestaje da percipira taj zanr kao horor, te se ovaj pretvara/preimenuje u nesto novo? Kad horor postane prihvatljiv on prestaje da bude horor nego se pretvara u urbanu fantastiku, na primer? Ali to je i dalje izmastan, natprirodan i cudovisan svet kakav je i ranije bio.
Huh. Volela bih i ja da cujem Ghoulovo misljenje.
Nisam strucnjak, i zainteresovana sam za misljenja onih koji jesu. Ispraticu temu, hvala.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #274 on: 04-06-2015, 14:44:26 »
To je otprilike moja teza. Odnosno, ako užas prestane da nas užasava, da li je to i dalje užas? A tu je i stav čitalaštva, koje je u nekom trenutku prestalo da se identifikuje sa lovcima na čudovišta i počelo da se identifikuke sa čudovštima. Recimo, Nightbreed je sjajan pokazatelj trenutka kada se taj preokret odigrao.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Гражданка Шульц

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.803
  • ведьма
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #275 on: 04-06-2015, 17:15:56 »
Quote
Odnosno, ako užas prestane da nas užasava, da li je to i dalje užas?
Jeste. Verujem da jeste. Jer postoje objektivni kriterijumi po kojima je to i dalje - uzas. Nas subjektivni, izmenjeni, desenzitizovani stav ne menja prirodu nekog dela. A i autorov motiv i dalje ostaje isti. Da prenese i podeli taj uzas sa citaocima.

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #276 on: 04-06-2015, 17:30:57 »
Kako užas može da bude objektivan kriterijum? Da li jednako horor ako me vampirica davi ili pruža oralni seks? Doduše, Den Simons je imao priču u kojoj kombinuje ta dva motiva :) Ali ako ovo drugo (na primer) prevagne, nema tu mnogo horora.
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Гражданка Шульц

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.803
  • ведьма
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #277 on: 04-06-2015, 17:43:19 »
Quote
Da li jednako horor ako me vampirica davi ili pruža oralni seks?
Da, to je erotski horor, rekla bih.

Quote
Kako užas može da bude objektivan kriterijum?
Nije uzas nego ono sto ga izaziva eventualni kriterijum:
Ti si rekao 'uzas', ja sam to shvatila u smislu horora, strasnog scenarija, ako 'uzas' razumemo kao reakciju tj strah, onda nije objektivan, ali stvari koje strah izazivaju mogu biti univerzalne. Cudovista, demoni, ubice, nasilna smrt, natprirodne i pretece pojave itd.


Irena Adler

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 405
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #278 on: 04-06-2015, 20:33:21 »
Doduše, Den Simons je imao priču u kojoj kombinuje ta dva motiva :)

Zašto o zašto me neko podseti na tu priču svakih par godina...  :cry:

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #279 on: 04-06-2015, 21:34:44 »
It's a good story :)
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Irena Adler

  • 4
  • 2
  • Posts: 405
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #280 on: 04-06-2015, 21:38:31 »
Jeste, i ja se besomučno divim svakom muškom biću koje ju je pročitao do kraja. Al' svejedno pokušavam (bezuspešno) da je potisnem iz pamćenja.

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.774
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #281 on: 05-06-2015, 14:46:35 »
Gul vas ignoriše. :cry:

Još Išigura i Gejmana malo:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02sc1rf
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

Nightflier

  • Geek Royalty
  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 9.788
  • Wolf Who Rules
    • Nightflier's Bookspace
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #282 on: 05-06-2015, 16:13:27 »
Mnjah. Nije kao da bih promenio stav :)
Sebarsko je da budu gladni.
First 666

Гражданка Шульц

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.803
  • ведьма
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #283 on: 05-06-2015, 16:17:44 »
I to sto kazes, isti slucaj  :)

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.774
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 44.847
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #285 on: 06-07-2015, 08:52:44 »
Dune, 50 years on: how a science fiction novel changed the world

Quote
It has sold millions of copies, is perhaps the greatest novel in the science-fiction canon and Star Wars wouldn’t have existed without it. Frank Herbert’s Dune should endure as a politically relevant fantasy from the Age of Aquarius


In 1959, if you were walking the sand dunes near Florence, Oregon, you might have encountered a burly, bearded extrovert, striding about in Ray-Ban Aviators and practical army surplus clothing. Frank Herbert, a freelance writer with a feeling for ecology, was researching a magazine story about a US Department of Agriculture programme to stabilise the shifting sands by introducing European beach grass. Pushed by strong winds off the Pacific, the dunes moved eastwards, burying everything in their path. Herbert hired a Cessna light aircraft to survey the scene from the air. “These waves [of sand] can be every bit as devastating as a tidal wave … they’ve even caused deaths,” he wrote in a pitch to his agent. Above all he was intrigued by the idea that it might be possible to engineer an ecosystem, to green a hostile desert landscape.
About to turn 40, Herbert had been a working writer since the age of 19, and his fortunes had always been patchy. After a hard childhood in a small coastal community near Tacoma, Washington, where his pleasures had been fishing and messing about in boats, he’d worked for various regional newspapers in the Pacific northwest and sold short stories to magazines. He’d had a relatively easy war, serving eight months as a naval photographer before receiving a medical discharge. More recently he’d spent a weird interlude in Washington as a speechwriter for a Republican senator. There (his only significant time living on the east coast) he attended the daily Army-McCarthy hearings, watching his distant relative senator Joseph McCarthy root out communism. Herbert was a quintessential product of the libertarian culture of the Pacific coast, self-reliant and distrustful of centralised authority, yet with a mile-wide streak of utopian futurism and a concomitant willingness to experiment. He was also chronically broke. During the period he wrote Dune, his wife Beverly Ann was the main bread-winner, her own writing career sidelined by a job producing advertising copy for department stores.
Soon, Herbert’s research into dunes became research into deserts and desert cultures. It overpowered his article about the heroism of the men of the USDA (proposed title “They Stopped the Moving Sands”) and became two short SF novels, serialised in Analog Science Fact & Fiction, one of the more prestigious genre magazines. Unsatisfied, Herbert industriously reworked his two stories into a single, giant epic. The prevailing publishing wisdom of the time had it that SF readers liked their stories short. Dune (400 pages in its first hardcover edition, almost 900 in the paperback on my desk) was rejected by more than 20 houses before being accepted by Chilton, a Philadelphia operation known for trade and hobby magazines such as Motor Age, Jewelers’ Circular and the no-doubt-diverting Dry Goods Economist.


Though Dune won the Nebula and Hugo awards, the two most prestigious science fiction prizes, it was not an overnight commercial success. Its fanbase built through the 60s and 70s, circulating in squats, communes, labs and studios, anywhere where the idea of global transformation seemed attractive. Fifty years later it is considered by many to be the greatest novel in the SF canon, and has sold in millions around the world.
***
Dune is set in a far future, where warring noble houses are kept in line by a ruthless galactic emperor. As part of a Byzantine political intrigue, the noble duke Leto, head of the Homerically named House Atreides, is forced to move his household from their paradisiacal home planet of Caladan to the desert planet Arrakis, colloquially known as Dune. The climate on Dune is frighteningly hostile. Water is so scarce that whenever its inhabitants go outside, they must wear stillsuits, close-fitting garments that capture body moisture and recycle it for drinking.
The great enemy of House Atreides is House Harkonnen, a bunch of sybaritic no-goods who torture people for fun, and whose head, Baron Vladimir, is so obese that he has to use little anti-gravity “suspensors” as he moves around. The Harkonnens used to control Dune, which despite its awful climate and grubby desert nomad people, has incalculable strategic significance: its great southern desert is the only place in the galaxy where a fantastically valuable commodity called “melange” or “spice” is mined. Spice is a drug whose many useful properties include the induction of a kind of enhanced space-time perception in pilots of interstellar spacecraft. Without it, the entire communication and transport system of the Imperium will collapse. It is highly addictive, and has the side effect of turning the eye of the user a deep blue. Spice mining is dangerous, not just because of sandstorms and nomad attacks, but because the noise attracts giant sandworms, behemoths many hundreds of metres in length that travel through the dunes like whales through the ocean.
Have the Harkonnens really given up Dune, this source of fabulous riches? Of course not. Treachery and tragedy duly ensue, and young Paul survives a general bloodbath to go on the run in the hostile open desert, accompanied, unusually for an adventure story, by his mum. Paul is already showing signs of a kind of cosmic precociousness, and people suspect that he may even be the messiah figure foretold in ancient prophecies. His mother, Jessica, is an initiate of the great female powerbase in an otherwise patriarchal galactic order, a religious sisterhood called the Bene Gesserit. Witchy and psychically powerful, the sisters have engaged in millennia of eugenic programming, of which Paul may be the culmination.


This setup owes something to the Mars stories of Edgar Rice Burroughs and Isaac Asimov’s Foundation books, as well as the tales written by Idaho-born food chemist Elmer Edward “Doc” Smith, creator of the popular Lensman space operas of the 1940s and 50s, in which eugenically bred heroes are initiated into a “galactic patrol” of psychically enhanced supercops. For Smith, altered states of consciousness were mainly tools for the whiteous and righteous to vaporise whole solar systems of subversives, aliens and others with undesirable traits. Herbert, by contrast, was no friend of big government. He had also taken peyote and read Jung. In 1960, a sailing buddy introduced him to the Zen thinker Alan Watts, who was living on a houseboat in Sausalito. Long conversations with Watts, the main conduit by which Zen was permeating the west-coast counterculture, helped turn Herbert’s pacy adventure story into an exploration of temporality, the limits of personal identity and the mind’s relationship to the body.
Every fantasy reflects the place and time that produced it. If The Lord of the Rings is about the rise of fascism and the trauma of the second world war, and Game of Thrones, with its cynical realpolitik and cast of precarious, entrepreneurial characters is a fairytale of neoliberalism, then Dune is the paradigmatic fantasy of the Age of Aquarius. Its concerns – environmental stress, human potential, altered states of consciousness and the developing countries’ revolution against imperialism – are blended together into an era-defining vision of personal and cosmic transformation.
Books read differently as the world reforms itself around them, and the Dune of 2015 has geopolitical echoes that it didn’t in 1965, before the oil crisis and 9/11. Remember that European beach grass binding together those shifting dunes? Paul Atreides is a young white man who fulfils a persistent colonial fantasy, that of becoming a God-king to a tribal people. Herbert’s portrayal of the “Fremen” (the clue’s in the name) owes much to TE Lawrence and Wilfred Thesiger’s enthusiastic portrayals of the Bedouin of Arabia’s Empty Quarter. Fremen culture is described in words liberally cribbed from Arabic. They go on “razzia” raids, wear “aba” and “bourka” robes, fear a devil called “Shaitan” and so on. They are tough, proud and relatively egalitarian. The harshness of their environment has given them an ethic of fellowship and mutual aid. They are what Kipling would have termed “one of the martial races”: absolutely to be admired, possessing none of the negative “oriental” traits – deviousness, laziness and the like. They are, however, not carbon-copy Bedouin: Herbert freely mixes elements of Zen into their belief system, and also, intriguingly, suggests that their messianic eschatology – the sense in which they were “waiting” for Paul – may have been seeded in previous millennia by the Bene Gesserit order as part of its murky eugenic plans. Herbert, whose female characters are consistently strong and active, has also ditched the strict sexual divisions of actually existing Bedouin culture. Thus Fremen women do their share of fighting and fearlessly contradict their menfolk, though there is still a fair amount of child-bearing and housework to be done while the men are off riding worms.


What makes Dune more palatable than, say, the gruesome spectacle of a blonde-wigged Emilia Clarke carried aloft by ethnically indeterminate brown slaves in Game of Thrones, is the sincerity of Herbert’s identification with the Fremen. They are the moral centre of the book, not an ignorant mass to be civilised. Paul does not transform them in his image, but participates in their culture and is himself transformed into the prophet Muad’Dib. If Paul is one-part Lawrence of Arabia, leading his men on to Aqaba, he is also the Mahdi. Dune glosses this word as “in the Fremen messianic legend, The One Who Will Lead Us into Paradise”. In Islamic eschatology, the honorific Mahdi has a long and complex history. Various leaders have claimed or been given it. Most Shia identify the Mahdi with the 12th or Hidden Imam, who will imminently reveal himself and redeem the world. To the British, it will always be the name of the warrior prophet who swept through the Sudan in the 1880s, killing General Gordon on the steps of the palace in Khartoum and inspiring a thousand patriotic newspaper etchings. As Paul’s destiny becomes clear to him, he begins to have visions “of fanatic legions following the green and black banner of the Atreides, pillaging and burning across the universe in the name of their prophet Muad’Dib”. If Paul accepts this future, he will be responsible for “the jihad’s bloody swords”, unleashing a nomad war machine that will up-end the corrupt and oppressive rule of the emperor Shaddam IV (good) but will kill untold billions (not so good) in the process. In 2015, the story of a white prophet leading a blue-eyed brown-skinned horde of jihadis against a ruler called Shaddam produces a weird funhouse mirror effect, as if someone has jumbled up recent history and stuck the pieces back together in a different order.
***
After Dune was published, Herbert, the consummate freelancer, kept a lot of irons in the fire. He wrote about education for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and lectured at the University of Washington. In 1972, during the American push to extricate itself from the south-east Asian quagmire, he worked in Vietnam, part of a project called “Land to the Tiller”, aimed at cutting Viet Cong recruitment by enacting land reform. He built a family home on the Olympic peninsula which he thought of as an “ecological demonstration project”. He built his own solar collector, wind plant and methane fuel generator. In a 1981 interview he described himself a “technopeasant”. As the cult of Dune took off during the 1970s, he wrote a series of increasingly convoluted sequels, following Paul’s descendants as they fulfilled the cosmic destiny of the Atreides line. Since his death in 1986, his son and another writer have produced a further 13 books.


By rights, Dune ought to have become a big movie. An attempt by the visionary Chilean film maker Alejandro Jodorowsky to bring it to the screen became one of the great “what if” stories of SF cinema. Jodorowsky had extraordinary collaborators: visuals by Moebius and HR Giger, spaceships designed by the English illustrator Chris Foss. Orson Welles was to play Baron Harkonnen, Salvador Dali the Emperor. Pink Floyd and Magma were on board to do the soundtrack. But Jodorowsky’s prog-tastic project was strangled in the crib by risk-averse Hollywood producers. After a period of film industry bloodletting, David Lynch shot a version in 1984, only for Universal to release a cut that he hated so much he had his name removed from the credits. Lynch’s film is actually much better than its terrible reputation, but Sting in a codpiece and a Toto soundtrack will never match the potential greatness of Jodorowsky’s unmade epic.
 AdvertisementActually, the great Dune film did get made. Its name is Star Wars. In early drafts, this story of a desert planet, an evil emperor, and a boy with a galactic destiny also included warring noble houses and a princess guarding a shipment of something called “aura spice”. All manner of borrowings from Dune litter the Star Wars universe, from the Bene Gesserit-like mental powers of the Jedi to the mining and “moisture farming” on Tattooine. Herbert knew he’d been ripped off, and thought he saw the ideas of other SF writers in Lucas’s money-spinning franchise. He and a number of colleagues formed a joke organisation called the We’re Too Big to Sue George Lucas Society.
Though in his later years he enjoyed huge success, Herbert, the man who dreamed of greening the desert, had mixed feelings about the future. In Dune, he has Kynes, the “First Planetologist of Arrakis” (and hero of the novel’s first draft) muse that “beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers increase. This is as true of humans in the f