Author Topic: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY  (Read 47543 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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: 23.813
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: 44.880
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: 44.880
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: 9.198
    • 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: 23.813
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: 23.813
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: 23.813
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: 23.813
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.