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

U našem slučaju - priča na radionici.

Bolje je pitanje: kako ga vi analizirate, kako mislite da treba?

Vi počnite. Ja odoh da dosanjam, pa ću se javiti kasnije.

Prvo se pročita. Onda prebroje tačke i zarezi. Izmeri se broj rečenica. Koliko puta se upotrebilo "je" i "da". Potrudimo se da pohvatamo imena likova i šta ko kome radi. Razmislimo o tome ima li nešto što nam ostaje u glavi posle čitanja (umemo li da prepričamo pročitano). Zaključimo da je pisac šalabajzer i nema pojma i mi bi to sto puta bolje uradili. Napregnemo pljvčne žlezde i udri.
Ceo proces traje oko deset sekundi.
Ovo se, naravno, odnosi na priče sa radionice.

Кеш мог браузера каже да је Д. овде Алексију одговорила следеће:

QuoteEto kakvi mišljenje ljudi imaju o analizama sa radionice. Aleksije je vrhunski satiričar.

Потом је то обрисала.

Није ни чудо. Како сад и Алексију од свих да се увлачи. Много је, куме. 

Priče ne komentarišem jer nije pošteno - ne glasam, pa nije red da ih sad tu nešto prevrćem. Ali, utisak, impresije, doživljaj (sad sam nešto zaribao sa traženjem eufemizama), o tome kako veliki broj komentara doživljavam, e to sam morao podeliti sa svekolikom javnošću.
Ponekad mi se čini kako pored zluradosti dobar deo kritičara se ponaša nalik učiteljici sa pundjom i crvenom olovkom koja peca greške, bez želje da uživa u pročitanom.
Analiza?
Idi, bre! To se ili nekom svidja ili nesvidja i tačka.

Gle, niko (osim Aleksija, ali on i ne analizira).

Pa ko bi bio toliko lud da sa tobom izlazi u arenu?

Dokon, ne lud, Stipane. Nije mi dao đavo mira da spavam kao čovek do devet, nego sam morao ustati u sabah da skrkam tanjir pasulja. Naravno, uvek nakon zornjak- graha me uhvati neko ludilo, kao da sam liznuo malčice LSD-a...

Da se i Džek, aka spisateljski mediokritet, učipi... inspiraciju za ovaj vid analize književnog gela mi je dala priča Protago Nista, koja mi je otvorila oči.
Analiza književnog dela (u našem slučaju, je l' te, priča sa radionice) se odrađuje na sledeći način:

Uzme se književno delo (u našem slučaju -priča sa radionice) i pronađe mu se Anal. U zavisnosti od pretpostavke tko ili što je autor književno dela pristupa se Lizi različitog inteziteta i učestalosti.

Dakle, vršimo analizu književnog gela po mediokritetskoj metodi koja je u praksi iznjedrila zapažene rezultate. 

Ček, ček...
Ti, D., očekuješ da neko nanovo analizira priče iz radionice ovde? Pa zar to ne radite na drugom mestu?
Džek, tvoja analiza "Anal Lize" mnogo je dobra. Ali, primetio sam izvesna ponavljanja koja nisu dozvoljena literatnom delu, naime imaš dva L, što je u ritmičkom smilsu dozvoljeno, kao i smisaonom, ali estetski i funkcionalno škripa. Ujedno, asocijacija koja se javlja izmedju pasulja i droge, liči na D. Kovačevića i njegovog kelnera u Radovanu III , tako da izvesna doza onog što bi se dalo smatrati "omažom", podsećanjem ili čak citatom nekog ozbiljnog dela, gubi se u tome što si naširoko razradio epizodu i time se, sa stanovišta čiste teoretske analize, može smatarati kao si plagirao delo, što ukazuje na nedostatak talenta ili pribegavanja jeftinim rešenjima, koja unazadjuju nesumnjiv talenat. Morao bi ponovo preraditi tekst i revidirati svoje idejne, analne, stavove koji dovode u sumnju seksualnu orjentaciju (ili, u krajnju ruku, postojanje izvesnih fetišističkih ili psihološkopatoloških problema koji se ogledaju u seksualnim devijacijama na granici koprofilije).
Lebac ti ražani, moram stvarno kod doktora. Oči me izdaju sve više, pa gutam i premećem slova. Dioptrija ne valja.

Quote from: ALEKSIJE D. on 12-09-2012, 10:01:24
Ček, ček...
Ti, D., očekuješ da neko nanovo analizira priče iz radionice ovde?

Ne. Očekujem da ljudi ispričaju kako cene neko delo...

E, jesi zapela...

Iščitaš priču i prvo vidiš ume li čovek uopšte da piše. Ako prođe prvi test, pogledaš ume li pravilno da se izražava.
Ukoliko je i to na mestu, onda počneš da čačkaš po pridevima, zarezima i redosledom reči u rečenici.

Ako i tu omaneš, opališ po patetici, ritmu priče, po mentalnom stanju autora, ishitrenosti, nerazumljivosti i slično...

Uvek ima po čemu da se opljune...

Komentar i analiza nisu isto. Kritička analiza ne govori samo o delu, nego bi i kritičar da se napuva i pokaže koliko je on pametan, pismen i talentovan. Sa komentarima se možemo izboriti, ali ćemo se sa analizom posvađati.

Blagodarim Aleksiju  na iscrpnoj analizi analize. Stvari su sada mnogo jasnije.

Sa namerom sam se zajebavao sa ovom temom, pišući prethodni post jer ne postoje univerzalna pravila za analiziranje priče, dok je za anal-lizu pravilo jedinstveno i jednostavno. Ups, opet ja. Pasulj i dalje deluje!

Percepcija sveta, okoline pa i umetničkih dela su svakako individualan proces svakog ponaosob, stoga se u svakom različito pokrenu i dejstvuju emocionalna stanja.

Ono što drugima tera suzu na oči, nekome može biti smešno.
Dakle, učesnici na toj premisi kreću u analiziranje i komentarisanje pokušaja na radionici. Naravno, tu su i različiti ukusi.

I kako sada da generalizujemo proces analize? Koja budalaština.
Evo npr ja. Meni je najfascinantnija rečenica ikad pročitana "U tmini šaka, a u šaci nož" iz jednog Gejmenovog dela.
Ta rečenica u meni pokreće ceo spektar različitih emocije i stanja. Oslikava mi jedan kompletan seting, u tančine prikazan, povezan sa tim stanjima.

Na osnovu toga bih napravio analizu dela. Naravno, nekome ili svima spomenuta rečenica ne izaziva ništa ili vrlo malo. I kako onda da se generalizuje analiza književnog dela?

Možda i postoje neka generalna pravila ali me ne interesuju. Egoistički ću i dalje da iznosim svoje impresije pokušaja i bezobrazno ću da im prilepim nalepnicu analiza. Ne dam tintaru da se svako zavlači u nju, niti ću da obučem uniformu sa roza cvetićima i paradiram po komandi.

Bože, Džek, kako si ti nezavisna persona! 

Opasan je kad se ljuti...bolje mu se maknuti u tim stanjima sa staze...

Yeah.

Još da se napiše univerzalno pravilo za jedenje pasulja, mogli bi da zaboravimo imena, prišrafimo brojeve i zaboravimo na ljubav i modu. Kamere bi same iznikle iz zidova i svi bi bili braća a samo bi jedan bio veliki. Ili bi samo jedna sestra bila velika?

Sad tek vidim ovaj topik, a mislila sam da napišem nešto na tu temu. Odnosno, da kopi-pejstujem ono što su smislili pametniji od mene i mnogo puta isprobali u praksi.


C R I T I Q U E R ' S C H E C K L I S T by Grace Ackerman

STORY LINE
What is the story saying? Is it clear? Can the reader understand what's
happening? If not, what isn't clear? Is there information or action that
feels essential, but was left out? Where does the plot get fuzzy?
Is the story line believable? Is it interally consistent? If not, where
does it contradict itself, and how?
Is the opening intriguing? Does it make the reader want to go further?
Why, or why not?
Does the story drag anywhere? Is there text which could be eliminated
without detracting from the story?
Are all major issues resolved? Not that the story can't end with a
question in the reader's mind, but it shouldn't raise and issue forcefully at
the beginning of the story, and then never mention it again.
Are there issues raised in the first place? Is there conflict? Does the
story build to a climax, and then come to a satisfying ending shortly
thereafter? (By satisfying, I mean appropriate.)
CHARACTERS
Does the reader see and feel the characters, or is s/he just told about
them? Is there a main (viewpoint) character? Does this character grow and
change during the course of the story? If not, is the fact that the character
remains static important to the story? If the answer to both the last two
questions is "No," something's wrong with the story.
Are the characters real people, or shadows? Does the reader get a sense
of what it would be like to meet them? Are the characters clearly distinct
from each other?
Are the names of the main characters similar, or awkward?
Is there anyone a reader can care about? If not, whatever happens to the
characters is pointless. By care about, I mean have feelings about, not just
affection or empathy. It's possible to hate the main character and stay with
a story just to see if s/he gets what's deserved.
SETTING
What is the background for the action? Is it clear? When the setting
changes, is the reader aware of it, or are the characters suddenly in a
different place with no explanations?
Is there at least a hint of the society on which the story is based?
Even if the action takes place on a ship, or a remote asteroid, the
characters
will have been exposed to, or developed all the patterns that go with people
living together.
Does the setting create a mood for the story and help sustain it? Do the
characters respond to the environment?
DIALOGUE
Is the dialogue true to the way people talk, or, if not, is the
discrepancy justified in the story?
Is the speech of the characters harmonious with their actions? Space
jockies shouldn't talk like archivists unless there's a good reason.
Is the dialogue true to the socioeconomic level of the person talking?
Can the reaader tell which character is speaking?
Do people talk with, and not at, each other? Does each respond to what
the other is saying?
DETAILS & MECHANICS
Is any passage awkwardly worded? Are there unnecessary or redundant
words or phrases? ("Most unique" is one of my pet peeves.)
Are there any cliches?
Are the verbs vivid, and the adjectives evocative?
Are the sentences too long? Too short? Too much alike? Ideally, there
should be a rhythm that goes along with the action.
Is there too much exposition?
Are there sufficient unintentional grammatical errors to draw the
reader's attention away from the story?
All this really boils down to:
1. Was the story worth telling?
2. Was it told well?
3. If not, why not?

I još nešto što bi moglo da bude od pomoći:



SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY WORKSHOP SELF-EDITING CHECKLIST


PLOT PROBLEMS:


pseudo-situations:
----"so what?" story--situation in story is not desperate enough to make
reader care whether it is resolved or not
----situation is too easily resolved, uninteresting
----misunderstanding (there would be no story if the characters would just
sit down and talk to each other)
----contrived plot (protagonist does something stupid, against all advice
and his or her own best judgement, just so there is a story)


starts in wrong place:
----too late (writer either has to backfill like crazy or reader doesn't
ever know what is going on)
----too early (writer takes too long to set up the situation and clarify
what the objective is, boring reader in the process)


holes in logic:
----motivation doesn't make sense
----reactions don't make sense
----reasoning behind resolution doesn't make sense
----objective or situation doesn't make sense


imposed solution:
----deus ex machina (something or someone totally out of the protagonist's
control solves the problem for him or her)
----coincidence (resolution totally unlikely--obviously the writer arranged
it)


others:
----off-stage action (point-of-view character (and therefore reader)
doesn't see what happens and so needs to be told)
----protagonist doesn't solve his or her own problem, too passive/helpless




CHARACTERIZATION PROBLEMS:


wrong choices:
----wrong protagonist--should be person most deeply concerned by the
situation, the one with the most to lose
----wrong view-point character--should be protagonist; if it isn't, there
needs to be a good reason why not


unbelievable characters:
----hero is too completely good, too one-sided, boring
----villain is too completely evil, too one-sided, boring
----characters don't talk like real people
----characters' actions and motivations aren't thought out or clear enough


others:
----unnecessary characters--the story works without the character, so get
rid of him or her




STYLE PROBLEMS:


----lack of sensory data (people can smell, taste and touch as well as see
and hear things, and aliens or magical beings may do even more)
----irrelevancies emphasized--detailed descriptions of unimportant things
----frustrating omissions--writer skims over key elements to understanding
----weak or overused words: very, but, then, seem, felt, suddenly, rather,
almost, nearly, slightly, certain, quite, was, -ing and -ly words
----too many point-of-view shifts--need a good reason for jerking reader
around from head to head or else don't do it




MISCELLANEOUS PROBLEMS:


----doesn't touch the reader, lacks emotional content, doesn't make the
reader care about what happens


reveals a Wonder, but is not a story:
----no clear protagonist, or person who has a problem
----no clear objective or need that motivates the protagonist, except one
that may be revealed at the end of the story
----no real complications to make the protagonist's attempts to reach his
or her
objective interesting to the reader
----no clear resolution to any situations in the story
----none of the characters are changed by what happens in the story
----story is not science fiction (take out the science and you still have a
story)
----story is not fantasy (take out the magic and you still have a story)
----story is not any of the above, and it doesn't scare the editor
----story is X or R rated, and so is not acceptable for this publication
----supportive details missing (story seems to happen in a vacuum, needs
the interesting little wonders that make people read SF/F/H)
----implications in story not thought out
----telling instead of showing--examples:
"He got away." (instead of describing how he did it)
"She was dressed funny." (instead of describing her clothes)
"He was angry." (instead of showing how he acted so the reader could
see his anger)
"It was cold outside." (instead of describing the way it felt to be
outside)

Napiši nešto na tu temu. Mrzi me da čitam na engleskom i prepoznajem poznato.

Pisala još kad je krenula radionica.


Videću ako stignem kad završim sa prevođenjem za danas.

Jednom je, ovde, nešto vrlo pametno napisao Kišobranac o tome. Ali, ko to da traži, a te pametnije nikako navatati da budu i za nas pametniji. Ove, ad hoc savetodavce na engleskom ne mogu da podnesem.

Quote from: scallop on 13-09-2012, 14:44:12
Jednom je, ovde, nešto vrlo pametno napisao Kišobranac o tome. Ali, ko to da traži, a te pametnije nikako navatati da budu i za nas pametniji. Ove, ad hoc savetodavce na engleskom ne mogu da podnesem.

http://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/index.php/topic,9866.msg300907.html#msg300907

Da, i to. Ima toga još, ali mi čitamo samo svoje tekstove i zastupamo samo svoje stavove. Ili se poduhvatimo nekog brljavog linka u kome neki beznačajan anglo-američki pisac soli naokolo pamet, kao da će od toga salamuru praviti.