Author Topic: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY  (Read 47596 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Melkor

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

Father Jape

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

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


Između ostalog veli:

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



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

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

Melkor

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

Gaff

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

Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

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

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





Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

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




Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

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



Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

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



Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

zakk

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

Gaff

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

Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

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

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


Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Melkor

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

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

Gaff

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


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







Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

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

Melkor

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

Melkor

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

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

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

Science in SF: A Taxonomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally, the all important …

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

Some Other Examples:

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

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

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

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

PTY

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

zakk

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

Melkor

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

PTY

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

Melkor

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

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

PTY

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


PTY

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

A Private Letter from Genre to Literature




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




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

Mme Chauchat

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

Nightflier

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

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.610
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #75 on: 11-12-2011, 13:55:28 »
Ali nije prodavanost jedini kriterijum uspešnosti.
Ljudi žele da budu priznati kao pisci od strane stručnjaka a ne histerične mase tinejdžera, pisci žude za Nobelovom nagradom ili za objavljivanjem u kakvom prestižnom literarnom časopisu sa tiražom od jedva 500 primeraka.
Nekima je unutrašnje ispunjenje masovnost, a nekima nije.
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

Nightflier

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

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.818
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #77 on: 11-12-2011, 14:13:18 »
A nepristojni se pitaju da li je to tako.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Nightflier

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

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

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.818
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #79 on: 11-12-2011, 14:24:53 »
Ma, pitaj njih. Ti bar imaš veze sa tim piscima.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Nightflier

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

Gaff

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

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

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

PTY

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

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

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


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


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


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

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.818
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #83 on: 11-12-2011, 14:53:54 »
Vidi, Gaff, mogu ja da napišem sve te eseje na srpskom, jer je priča uvek ista. Decenijama živim sa tom pričom. Sada me samo malo živcira Nightflier, jer tupi priču koja nema nikakvu osnovu, osim u činjenici da je literatura, kao i sve drugo, potonulo u marketinški napor da se nešto proda, a ne da bude dobro napisano. Kad neko počne da vrednuje literaturu prema tiražima, on o literarnim vrednostima pojma nema. I dobitnici Gonkura steknu tiraž tek kad ga dobiju. Tako je i sa svim drugim prestižnim nagradama. Nažalost, one su postale samo argument za potonji marketing, vrednost njihovog pisanja je za prodaju nevažna. Zbog toga, tvrdim da bi i oni sa milionskim tiražima dupe dali za neku od nagrada, kao što bi neki domaći pisci pljunuli na sve pohvale koje im organizuje izdavač za jedno dobro kritičarsko dranje. A to ni izdavači, ni mediji ne ljube mnogo, jer može pisac da im se pokondiri i poveruje da ipak vredi on, a ne onaj koji mu "udeli" knjigu.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Mme Chauchat

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


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


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


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

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

angel011

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

PTY

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


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


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


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

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


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

Nightflier

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

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

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

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

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 20.610
Re: FANTASTIKA, SERIOUSLY
« Reply #88 on: 11-12-2011, 16:03:06 »
Boban nikada nije rekao "10000", već 4500 za koje znam i neznani deo tiraža na engleskom, jer već 4 godine nemam nikakvu povratnu informaciju.
Recimo, CC se godinama nudi u Indiji kao print demand, a to može da znači svašta; da nije otišlo više od nekoliko primeraka, a možda je i megahit sa ko zna koliko preuzetih komada.
Indija je, primera radi, zemlja sa najviše mobilnih telefona na svetu... tamo vladaju neka sasvim drugačija pravila (Bolivud i sl...)
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

Nightflier

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

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

PTY

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

Nightflier

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

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

PTY

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


Mme Chauchat

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

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

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

PTY

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


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

Mme Chauchat

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

Mme Chauchat

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

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

PTY

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


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



Mme Chauchat

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

PTY

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

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


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