Author Topic: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY  (Read 47607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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: 23.819
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: 23.819
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: 1.806
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.