ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

 

ево за љубитеље стеве краља:

Izašao TO u izdanju Alnarija u tvrdom povezu. Nisam to čitao, razmišljam da kupim...

Nisi čitao TO, a postuješ na topiku o Kingu ? Ajde, kazni se sam...

xa xa

Quote from: Truman on 25-06-2012, 13:05:58
Izašao TO u izdanju Alnarija u tvrdom povezu. Nisam to čitao, razmišljam da kupim...

Stvarno sramota. Evo i Pennywise ti se ruga... 

A dobro, šalimo se malo, ali zato očekujemo isrpan prikaz od Trumana kad pročita IT. Samo tako se može iskupiti  .

 

"То" постоји у издању Кошмара у две књиге(без кутије?) и Алнарија? Брош са кутијом и сада тврд ако се не варам, јел превод исти као издање Кошмара и постоји ли још које издање?

Kupio. Po gabaritu je na nivou Pod kupolom, mozda i deblje...

Quote from: Truman on 26-06-2012, 23:11:19
Kupio. Po gabaritu je na nivou Pod kupolom, mozda i deblje...

"Pod kupolom" je JEDINA knjiga (roman) sa koj(o)im se borim vec mesecima (od januara da preciziram), i stvarno, ako na kraju ne pobije sve protagoniste, zapalicu je, pa makar ne bila moja. Platicu nije frka, ali ako sam ispljuvao: "House of leaves" i "Utkani svet", ovo zasluzuje lomacu. Oooo, da. Lomacu!!!! Jbte, svaka cast onome ko je izdrzao do kraja... Mozda su godine u pitanju, ne znam. 

A to, Trumane, za IT - ne postoji dovoljno veliko bure za tebe. Ghoula mi.

sta jos "NISI" procitao od kinga?

Ono sa "mobilinim telefonima"...    Ali sledeci put kad odem u Merkur da kupim burgije - nece mi promaci! 

ja pitao trumana, ali nema veze a mobilni tel je jedina knjiga do sada koju sam poceo i nisam zavrsio...nekako nije to to, inace sam veliku ljubitelj ali moracu da pomenem da je po meni to jedini ne mora los ali prost i po malo dosadan roman

Quote from: cepa87 on 27-06-2012, 01:25:39
ja pitao trumana, ali nema veze a mobilni tel je jedina knjiga do sada koju sam poceo i nisam zavrsio...nekako nije to to, inace sam veliku ljubitelj ali moracu da pomenem da je po meni to jedini ne mora los ali prost i po malo dosadan roman

Je l'?

Javljam utiske cim pokacim garnisne

Quote from: cepa87 on 27-06-2012, 01:25:39
ja pitao trumana, ali nema veze a mobilni tel je jedina knjiga do sada koju sam poceo i nisam zavrsio...nekako nije to to, inace sam veliku ljubitelj ali moracu da pomenem da je po meni to jedini ne mora los ali prost i po malo dosadan roman

Šta si pitao Trumana?

Karl Rosmar:
1. dudlajte ga i ti i gul
2. Dopalo mi se ''Pod kupolom'', pre svega misteriozna priča a onda i likovi
3. TO me sve više uvlači...

Quote from: Truman on 27-06-2012, 20:24:48
3. TO me sve više uvlači...

samo još da se prepoznaš u njemu... 

Trebalo je da citiraš tačku 1 iz mog prethodnog posta...

Quote from: Truman on 28-06-2012, 13:57:31
Trebalo je da citiraš tačku 1 iz mog prethodnog posta...

Cemu vulgarnosti? 

Quote from: Truman on 27-06-2012, 20:24:48

Quote from: cepa87 on 27-06-2012, 01:25:39
ja pitao trumana, ali nema veze a mobilni tel je jedina knjiga do sada koju sam poceo i nisam zavrsio...nekako nije to to, inace sam veliku ljubitelj ali moracu da pomenem da je po meni to jedini ne mora los ali prost i po malo dosadan roman

Šta si pitao Trumana?

Karl Rosmar:
1. dudlajte ga i ti i gul
2. Dopalo mi se ''Pod kupolom'', pre svega misteriozna priča a onda i likovi
3. TO me sve više uvlači...

ma ovo za kinga, sta nisi procitao...

Pazi da te ne uvuče u kanalizacioni otvor

Da znaš da sam u jednom momentu pomislio šta bi bilo da je mene ščepalo za nogu...

Quote from: Karl Rosman on 28-06-2012, 14:02:22
Cemu vulgarnosti? 

Traumira ga Gul, pa sad i krotke pogrešno shvata. 

Quote from: D. on 30-06-2012, 01:28:23

Quote from: Karl Rosman on 28-06-2012, 14:02:22
Cemu vulgarnosti? 

Traumira ga Gul, pa sad i krotke pogrešno shvata. 

Nisam primetio. Cak mi se cini da je nekako perverzno dobrocudan. Ili sam to ja? Oh, well... 

Ma jeste (dobroćudan). Zato i govorim o traumi. Samo ona može da izvuče takav rečnik iz njega.  A i pogrešno te je shvatio.

Quote from: D. on 30-06-2012, 01:36:08
Ma jeste (dobroćudan). Zato i govorim o traumi. Samo ona može da izvuče takav rečnik iz njega.  A i pogrešno te je shvatio.

Interesantno...

Truman pogresno shvatio?   


Nemoguce! 

 

Quote from: HAL on 26-06-2012, 21:27:32
"То" постоји у издању Кошмара у две књиге(без кутије?) и Алнарија? Брош са кутијом и сада тврд ако се не варам, јел превод исти као издање Кошмара и постоји ли још које издање?

Кхм, кхм 

Upravo zavrsio METODU DISANJA...i to posle samo sat vremena, odlicna je.Inace posvecena Straubu i njegovoj zeni a napisana nakon Straubove price o duhovima (79/82) i ima slicnosti (necemo otkrivati kojih onome ko nije citao metodu disanja) ali ako vam se svideo Straub, svidece vam se i Metoda...

http://www.knjizare-vulkan.rs/vest-2-za-1---Zona-opasnih-cena_14163

2 KNJIGE PO CENI JEDNE>>>>SJAJNA PRILIKA AKO NEMATE U SVOJOJ KOLEKCIJI SLEDECE KNJIGE DA PO CENI JEDNE DOBIJETE 2, a knjige su :  ZELENA MILJA, MOBILNI TELEFON, LISINA PRICA I UPORISTE 1 DEO, KAO I NEKE KNJIGE DRUGIH AUTORA...

Quote from: Truman on 25-06-2012, 13:05:58
Izašao TO u izdanju Alnarija u tvrdom povezu.

Al' su usitnili slova kod ovog novog izdanja, bruka...

To ima samo jednu meni vidljivu manu - mnogo je obiman roman...Da, mnogo su sitna...
Inače, prevodilac je Skrobonja. Slušam stalno da su Alnarijevi prevodi loši, valjda je ovaj dobar.

Roman jeste obiman, ali to i nije neka mana. Mnogo je dobar, majstorski odradjeno to ispreplitano prebacivanje iz proslosti u sadasnjost. U principu Skrobonjin prevod je dobar, ali su i ovde Alnarijevi lektori malo umesali prste. 

Iseko bi im ja prste

Bližim se kraju TO, ali za sada mi se nije uvuklo u kožu kao recimo POD KUPOLOM. Ne mogu da kažem da mi se likovi toliko dopadaju, osim naravno Penivajza.

evo krstim se i levom i desnom 

Pa dobro, svestan sam da svojim beskompromisnim i iskrenim stavovima stvaram neprijatelje širom Sagite.

Koji je najpoznatiji film po romanu To? Hoću da odgledam čim dovršim čitanje. Zanimljivo da do sada nisam skoro ništa gledao od filmova i serija po SK knjigama...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099864/ jedini a ne najpoznatiji, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0884328/ pigledaj ovo ali je moja preporuka da isto procitas knjigu prvo a filmova ima pa bas mnogo http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000175/

Quote from: Truman on 16-07-2012, 14:19:38
Koji je najpoznatiji film po romanu To? Hoću da odgledam čim dovršim čitanje. Zanimljivo da do sada nisam skoro ništa gledao od filmova i serija po SK knjigama...

Ne moze se film nikako porediti sa knjigom. Jeste da je stvorio dobar utisak u to vreme '90-ih na 3K, ali kraj je totalno glupo uradjen, za razliku od knjige sto nije ni bilo moguce preneti na ekran.

Quote from: cepa87 on 16-07-2012, 15:22:01
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099864/ jedini a ne najpoznatiji, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0884328/ pigledaj ovo ali je moja preporuka da isto procitas knjigu prvo a filmova ima pa bas mnogo http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000175/

Hvala. IT ću pogledati, a MIST još uvek nisam čitao tako da neću još gledati.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151040819299059&set=a.10151038734944059.456115.60314069058&type=1&theater   ajmo neki lajk za nagradnu igru i mog psa koji isto cita kinga
p.s. kudzo mu se najvise svidja

READING DWIGHT ALLEN'S "My Stephen King Problem: A Snob's Notes" was like wandering through that part of the mental institution where the inmates are wearing stethoscopes and calling themselves doctors. Smart readers, unite! Let us decry the naked Emperor called Stephen King, and restore our soiled integrity! Uh, okay. After that, can we all play Thundercats?On a more serious note, I can understand Allen's frustration.


Literature no longer wields the same cultural currency it did fifty years ago. We're not all talking about the latest Wharton, Updike, or Carver. The Pulitzer in fiction wasn't even awarded this year (seeLaura Miller's explanation). As corporations bloat into obese, self-perpetuating monsters, our society has fractured into thousands of small, like-minded bubbles. We don't consume art; we produce text messages. Everybody's a star! Reality television has-beens, unite.


I think Allen blames King for what he represents: the blockbuster. Unlike most blockbuster authors (Patterson, Meyer), King commands esteem from the kinds of people who hand out awards. When most new writers can't get a book published unless they have an agent in New York, and they can't get an agent in New York unless their best friend is dating someone who once went to school with Nicole Aragi, that's demoralizing. There's only so much poop humor in Dreamcatcher that any starving artist can take.Maybe society is to blame. You can earn an easy million on Wall Street, while your first published novel probably won't pay a month's Manhattan rent. But why attack Stephen King? Why not go after the majority, who don't read at all?


Then again, what's with the picking? How does that help?It's a dead debate. Allen's oppositions — workmanlike/artistic; literary/genre; educated/blue collar; New Yorker reader from Louisville/dumb fuck from Bangor — are contrived. They distract us from real issues by splitting groups that aren't actually different, or at least not opposites. In other words, Margaret Atwood and George Orwell would have made a fantastic couple. Who knows, maybe Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton too.And on to Stephen King, who deserves fairer treatment. It's no secret that even the best of King's novels could use an editor. Much of his fiction is long-winded and rife with sentimentality. As I'm reading him, I'm sometimes embarrassed for him. I mean, how about that ending to It where the hero saves his wife from catatonia by taking her on a magic bike ride?


If you only saw the movie The Shining, you probably don't know that Jack Torrance is prone to cheesy, dry-drunk weeping about the perfection of his only son Danny. King's epic The Stand ends with God's Hand coming down from heaven and setting off a nuclear weapon, killing all the bad guys. How silly, right? No wonder, as Allen says, "King appeals to the aggrieved adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adult, who believes that people can be divided into bad and good."Then why is King so popular? Is it, as Allen suggests, that we're all just lemmings, following a forty-year trend? It's not that crazy a suggestion. Take any book King's written since he started publishing in 1974. It's never the best book of the year, or even the best in its genre. But all his novels, even the stinkers, have resonance. By this I mean, his fiction isn't just reflective of the current culture, it casts judgment. Innocent Carrie White wakes up with her period and telekinesis at the height of the women's movement. No wonder everybody craps on her, and no wonder we're delighted that she slaughters them all.




In Cujo, the materialism of the 1980s American family tears itself apart from the inside, as represented by the family dog gone mad.King marries this resonance with the same question that Dickens first addressed inDavid Copperfield: "Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show." Only in a King book, it's put like this: "Are you going to man/woman up, and kill some monsters, or are you yellow?" In some King novels, the stakes are the soul of the individual — will Johnny assassinate the senator to save the world's future (The Dead Zone)? In others, it's the family unit: Will Wendy take responsibility, punch Jack in the face with a cleaver, and save her son (The Shining)? In others (The Stand, The Gunslinger Series, Running Man), he asks, Will we be the heroes of our societies, and start steering this ship in the right direction? Do we have the courage to save the world?We live in cynical times. It's cool to pretend that these questions are stupid, irrelevant — dishonest reductions of issues much more complex. As Allen says, "This is absurd — as if 'life' consisted of production values or hokey premises or unearned, happy endings." In other words, King's treatment of this subject is schlock. But really, aren't these questions worth asking?


Aren't they the only questions worth asking?


No one except King challenges us so relentlessly, to be brave. To kill our monsters. That's because he's a believer — to him, it's not schlock. And because he believes his own horseshit, we swallow it too. When we read his fiction, we think: I want to go kiss my spouse, hold my kids, thank God they're healthy. I want to fix the things that are broken.King's impact isn't just on the baby boomers either. I was born the year Carrie was published. People younger than me think of King as a peer. People twice my age do too. Why? Because he's still resonant. Because he's addressing our current culture, even as he forces it to examine the same questions of social and individual bravery. When I squirm with embarrassment over King's cheesy afterwords, certain I'm too cool to be the Constant Reader he's referring to, I'm doing it because there's a friction happening. It's in this friction where King's magic lives. I know his sentimentality is bullshit — we can't save the world. Love doesn't conquer all. Characters who say just the right thing at just the right time don't exist. We can't fight monsters with inhalers and silver dollars and win, goddammit! So I squirm, because even as my intellect rebels, a part of me believes. He got me.




A final note on King. We never forget his characters. They live, they breathe. Their thoughts are disturbingly familiar, especially the dark ones. They do the things we want to do, or they fail in ways we've failed and wish we hadn't. At a time when reality television passes for entertainment, and big-butted rich girls who get married for seventy-two days are role models, it's so nice to visit King's world, where normal people get hosed, then try to do the right thing, or at least think about doing it. Where else should we look for our heroes, if not in fiction? Where are they right now? Silent, perhaps. Not as audacious as we'd hoped. King tells us we need to invent those heroes. We need to be them.Plenty of writers write better (Nabokov, Egan) or offer greater inspiration (Atwood, Marquez). But do they consistently resonate? Do the best of their stories sing with such gorgeous prose as to make a reader blush with joy (see "The Little Sisters of Eluria" inEverything's Eventual or the plague interludes in The Stand)? Take any Pulitzer winner. Pick through their entire corpus. You'll find they've got a lot of clunkers, just like King. But few have amassed a forty-year body of work.Fewer still have game. Pick up "Herman Wouk is Still Alive" in the Atlantic Monthly. The story is about two single mothers who've won a small amount of money in the lottery and decide to go on a road trip. We learn about their abusive childhoods, why they can't make ends meet, how their dreams match up to the crappy lives they're now living. We totally understand why they're getting drunk while driving, and even why they hit their kids. But we judge them. They're not us, after all. We'll never be like them, though it's fascinating to ride the hell-on-earth tour bus.The moms' story is interspersed with scenes featuring a couple of baby-boomer artists who meet at a highway roadside. We identify with them because they're smart and funny and neurotic. They'd rescue a baby from a burning building, but they'd be pretty pissed off if a waiter forgot to put their balsamic dressing on the side. Like Herman Wouk, they're old and too tired to have sex. They think the food at the faculty party they're about to attend will be mediocre, and they're sad that they turned out mediocre too. But there's still time, right? Maybe they'll get that Pulitzer yet. So they're sitting there, preparing to go talk to the next generation about art, when our two single moms and their car full of kids crash onto the roadside. The kids and single moms die. Heads literally roll. The old farts cry and are sad. It's utterly weird and believable. The end.What's this story about? It's about us, as a culture, letting our young and best die while we sit idly by debating high art. It's a screw you to the Altantic readers, the New Yorkerreaders, the people who lost sight of the dream, in the only language they might possibly understand, from the only venue they're going to read. It's about soul. Our American soul, perfectly expressed and challenged and loved by the American icon that is Stephen King.


http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?id=775&fulltext=1

Tekst Dwight-a Allen-a koji je bio povod za ovo zaista ima dobar, i po mom misljenju tacan, podnaslov - A Snob's Notes, sa naglaskom na Snob 

   snobi indidi. Zapravo je prva recenica u kopipejstovanom tekstu link ka toj snobov(sk)oj belesci, ali sam morala da uklonim formatovanje. Tekst je ovde http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?type=&id=737&fulltext=1&media= a jedan od za mene pronicljivijih delova je ovo:


What is it about King's writing that appeals to so many people? Clearly, King's readers — many of whom seem to get hooked on him when they are adolescents — don't care that the sentences he writes or the scenes he constructs are dull. There must be something in the narrative arc, or in the nature of King's characters, that these readers can't resist. My sense is that King appeals to the aggrieved adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adult, who believes that people can be divided into bad and good (the latter would, of course, include the aggrieved adolescent or adult), a reader who would rather not consider the proposition that we are all, each of us, nice good people awash in problems and entirely capable of evil. King coddles his readers, all nice, good, ordinary, likeable people (just like the heroes of his books), though this doesn't completely explain why these readers are so tolerant of the bloat in these novels, why they will let King go on for a couple hundred pages about some matter that has no vital connection to the subject of the book.

Tja, pročitah oba teksta i... tja. Ni sa jednim se ne slažem potpuno, ali nije ni da me nešto nerviraju. Zapravo, jedino sa čim se baš ne slažem jeste ono retoričko pitanje "ako ste pročitali Pinčona, Nabokova itd, zašto biste čitali Kinga?" Ma hajde. Zašto ne bih? Čitala sam i čitam svu trojicu. Da ne pričam o tome kako ne volim izraz "gilti pležr", jer, eto, ako me je blam da nešto radim, ja to neću raditi i gotovo.

Moj stav prema Kingu, začudo, nije odredio kvalitet njegovog pisanja (izrazito neujednačen) nego prvi kontakt, kad sam negde ranih devedesetih pročitala Uporište (i pre nego što krenu obaveštenja o tome kad je Uporište izašlo kod nas, izdanje koje sam čitala zvalo se "Das letzte Gefecht", hvala lepo) i negde na prvoj trećini pita me rođak koji mi je doneo knjigu - ko mi se najviše sviđa od likova. I ja bez razmišljanja tresnem: "Harold!"

Hvala mu, nije me spojlovao za dalji razvoj događaja, samo se vidno zgranuo.

Ali vidite ljudi, naravno da mi se Harold najviše dopao, naravno da sam se poistovetila sa njim a ne sa trudnicom ili hrabrim kaubojem ili blentavim rokerom. U svakom bitnom pogledu, sa četrnaest-petnaest godina ja sam bila Harold. I zamislite kako se na moje viđenje Kinga odrazilo ono što je uradio sa Haroldom. To boli. Osetila sam se kao da je odbacio mene lično time što je Harolda ćušnuo na tamnu stranu tek tako. (Aj da ponovimo, 14-15 godina, nema tu nekog zrelog neemotivnog određivanja prema štivu.) Pa sam odbacila i ja njega, bar na nekoliko godina.
Kasnije sam pročitala četiri-pet Kingovih knjiga, i nijedna mi nije bila loša, sve su bile pristojne (treba reći da sam eskivirala valjda sve što važi za njegove najbolje stvari) ali prosto... kad vidim kako se npr. ovde na forumu ljudi emotivno odnose prema Kingu, bar prema pojedinim njegovim delima, svaki put se pomalo začudim, jer eto, mi smo raskinuli pre dvadeset godina i sad se samo pristojno pozdravljamo na ulici. 

Ako bi trebalo da sad malo apstrahujem to lično iskustvo... eto, nije King loš pisac, daleko od toga, samo je u svemu što sam čitala povremeno vidljivo kako on prosto sa naporom skreće od teme koja ga zanima da bi ubacio neko krvoliptanje - recimo, Vreća kostiju i Rouz Meder su za mene bile knjige prvenstveno nehororične, i tek sa naporom ugurane u taj određeni žanr, pri čemu su likovi negativaca mnogo, ali baš mnogo pretrpeli što se tiče uverljivosti. I tako je došlo dotle da su meni najzanimljiviji i najuspeliji baš oni delovi Kinga zbog kojih drugi čitaoci gunđaju kako su digresije.    Dakle, ne smatram ja da je on loš pisac, samo sam uverena da je mogao biti (za mene) bolji da se nije opredelio za to da bude uspešan. Ali to je sasvim legitimna i na određen način ispravna procedura i... nemam ja na šta da se žalim, a bogami ni bilo ko drugi.
Sem na tretman Harolda.

Lepo receno, i slazem se sa drugaricom Jevtropijevic od reci do reci! (Osim onog dela sa trudnicom!)

Samo, Kupola mu nije trebala. Ne u ovolikom obimu. Stvarno je pojeo govno, with a big spoon...

Meni se Kupola veoma svidela...Ta atmosfera grada koji je zarobljen i sam kraj...

@Jevtra: ja sam Uporište pročitala sredinom devedesetih (paperback, uncut), sa 19 godina, i od likova mi se najviše dopao Flagg.  Da ne bude zabune, ne mogu da kažem da sam se poistovetila sa njim, ali mi se taj lik definitivno najviše dopao.