Здесь больше нет рекламы. Но могла бы быть, могла.

Post reply

Message Icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: Juliana
« on: 19/09/2017, 00:13:43 »

Слушаю "Игру Эндера" в оригинале (фильм не смотрел).

Продолжение гораздо лучше и интереснее начала.
Posted by: Dik
« on: 18/09/2017, 23:31:41 »

Орсон Кард не просто получил Небьюлу и Хьюго, а получил их дважды подряд.
Хайнлайна не люблю
А Обама получил Нобелевскую премию мира. Как это влияет на выдвинутые претензии и на вторичность идей?
Posted by: Adenis
« on: 17/09/2017, 20:55:43 »

Орсон Кард не просто получил Небьюлу и Хьюго, а получил их дважды подряд.
Хайнлайна не люблю
Posted by: Ричард Нунан
« on: 03/01/2014, 03:16:20 »

Слушаю "Игру Эндера" в оригинале (фильм не смотрел). Так много восторженных отзывов о книге, премии "Небьюла" и "Хьюго" и т.д. и т.п. Пребываю в удивлении. Примитивный милитаризм (детский милитаризм), неудачно скопированный у Хайнлайна, жуткая наивность, абсолютно плоские ходульные персонажи (назвать героев гениями легко, а вот ты попробуй достоверно опиши их так, чтобы они казались гениями на самом деле, а не так, что все окружающие их - дауны и дебилы). В общем, как-то я что-то не понял. В чем суть и оригинальность?
Кстати, много лет назад в рамках "Модели для сборки" слушал "Советника по инвестициям" (одна из книг эндеровского цикла). Недавно переслушивал. Те же впечатления, что и от "Игры Эндера". Плоско, скучно, неоригинально, недостоверно. Даже магия МДС мало выручает.
Posted by: pitirimsorokin
« on: 18/02/2007, 14:47:50 »

До чего же хорошо человек формулирует... Наберу-ка ещё одну выдержку:

    "All storytelling contains elements of the particular, the epic, and the mythic. Fiction and scripture are both uniquely suited to telling mythic tales... That fiction and scripture are also inevitably epic, reflecting values and assumptions of the community out of which they arose, is true but not terribly important, for their audience believes mythic stories to be universal and, over time, comes to behave as if they were universal.
    It might seem then that fiction becomes more mythic as it is divorced from identifiable real-world patterns, but it is not really the disconnection from reality that makes fiction mythic - if that were so, our myths would all be of madmen. Rather a story becomes more mythic s it connects to things that transcend reality. Tolkien's Middle Earth is so thoroughly created in The Lord of the Rings that the wealth of detail makes readers feel as though they had visited in a real place; but it is a place where human behavior takes on enormous importance, so that moral issues (the goodness or evil of a person's choices and actions) and causal issues (why things happen; the way the world works) take on far greater clarity. We find in Aragorn, not just that he is noble, but Nobility. We find in Frodo, not just that he is willing to bear a difficult burden, but Acceptance. And Samwise is not just a faithful servant, but also the personification of Service.
     Thus it is in fantasy that we can most easily explore, not human behaviors, but Humanity. And in exploring it, we also define it; and in defining, invent it. Those of us who have received a story and believed in its truth carry those memories inside us and, if we care enough about the tale, act out the script it provides us. Because I remember standing at the Cracks of Doom, and because I remember experiencing it through Sam Gamgee's eyes, I clearly remember seeing that those who reach for power are possessed by it, and if they are not utterly destroyed by it, they lose part of themselves in getting free. I doubt that in crucial situations I'll summon up the memory of Lord of the Rings and consciously use it as a guide to my behavior - who has time for such involved mental processes when a choice is urgent, anyway? But unconsciously I remember being a person who made certain choices, and at that unconscious level I don't believe that I - or anyone - distinguishes between personal and community memories. They are all stories, and we act out the ones we believe in and care about most, the ones that have become part of us.
     ... because it is to be received and acted upon unconsciously, the most successful fantasy is not often that which looks most mythic; often the most powerful fantasies are those that seem to be very realistic and particular. I think this is part of the reason that Tolkien shunned allegory. Consciously figured storytelling is received intellectually; it is never as powerful as stories whose symbols and figures - whose mythic connections - are received unconsciously. And I've come to believe that the most successful mythic writing is that storytelling in which the author was unconscious of his or her most powerful mythic elements. ... A fantasist who works from a deliberate plan will almost never achieve as much as the fantasist who is constantly surprised by the best moments in his or her stories.
      You can see, then, that I'm not defining fantasy the way the word is used in contemporary publishing. When publishers speak of fantasy they generally mean stories set in a kind of pseudo-medieval world in which some kind of magic plays a role. ... Most such "fantasists" tuck their imagination away somewhere before they enter the mythic marketplace; they have come to buy, not to sell.
      It's woth pointing out that works of derivative fantasists often sell very well; there is a large audience that buys fantasy in order to have their pre-existing vision of The Way Things Work reaffirmed. And some quite brilliant fantasists remain obscure, because their mythic universe is so challenging that few readers are happy to dwell in it. But when a fantasist imagines well - and writes evocatively - many people drink in the story as if it were water, and their lives till then a vast desert in which they wandered without ever realizing how much they thirsted.
     The real fantasists are not content to echo other writers' myths. They must discover their own. They venture into the most dangerous, uncharted places in the human soul, where existing stories don't yet explain what people think and feel and do. In that frightening place they find a mirror that lets them glimpse a true image. Then they return and hold up the mirror, and unlike mirrors in the real worls, this one holds the storyteller's image for just a fleeting moment, just long enough for us also to glimpse the long-shadowed soul that brightly lingers there. In that moment we make the mythic connection; for that moment we are another person; and we carry that rare and precious understanding with us untill we die.
     And what am I? Like most who attempt fantasy, I imagine that I am doing true Imagining; like most, I am usually echoing other people's visions. There's always the hope, though, that at least some readers will dip into the old dry well and find new water there, seeped in from an undiscovered spring."
Posted by: pitirimsorokin
« on: 01/02/2007, 12:37:17 »

К слову о проповедях: Кард мне интересен религиозностью в первую очередь. Лучше об этом не скажешь, чем сам автор; не поленюсь, перепечатаю фрагмент из сборника рассказов "Maps in the Mirror":

     I believe that speculative fiction - science fiction in particular - is the last American refuge of religious literature.    ...     You have to understand that what passes for religious literature in the U.S. today is really inspirational literature.  ...   It doesn't explore, it merely affirms. It gives readers an emotional high in connection with membership in their own community of faith.
     Real religious literature, I think, does something entirely different. It explores the nature of the universe and discovers the purpose behind it. When we find that purpose, we have found God  ...
In science fiction alone the search for the purposer is still alive. Indeed, in story after the story the question arises and is explored at depths that would be imposible in any other genre - even fantasy. For while fantasy is uniquely suited to dealing with human universals - the mythic - science fiction is uniquely suited to ealing with suprahuman universals - the metaphysical.   ...   My point is that in science fiction, the relationship between man and god can be dealt with explicitly, in depth, and with great originality, without necessarily being connected to any religious system that has ever existed on Earth.
     So I write three kinds of fiction that deals with religion. First, like many, perhaps most, science fiction writers, I tell stories that deal with the purpose of life - with the relationship between man and God. Second, I tell stories that deliberately subvert the cliches about religion that are so widespread in American fiction, by showing religious characters in a full range of roles within my stories. And, third, I tell stories that include my direct experience of religious life by depicting the community I know best, Mormonism.
     At no point am I trying to persuade you; I want readers, not proselytes.
Posted by: Hobbit Snufkin
« on: 26/12/2006, 22:36:47 »

Worthing Saga я не читала. Надо бы добраться.
Выверты - то, как автор перепрыгивает с одной мысли на другую и связывает то, что, скажем, для меня, совершенно не стыковалось. При этом мне нравится, что идеи поданы не в лоб ("подача в лоб" - это то, чем меня неприятно удивила предпоследняя прочитанная книга Олди: читал-радовался, что, ишь, додумался, а потом переворачиваешь страницу - и на тебе, разжевывание для тупых и слабодумающих).
Я абсолютно согласна с когда-то прочитанной рецензией на серию про Альвина (Элвина) - интересна только тем, кто увлекается историей США. Т.к. представлен альтернативный вариант, где Дж. Вашингтон бродит по лесам и деревням и проповедует. Волшебник, не иначе. В остальном - скучно.
Posted by: pitirimsorokin
« on: 23/12/2006, 13:49:24 »

Не сказал бы, что он так уж "любит проповедывать"... Хотя серию про Эндера бросил после второй книги, а до Альвина ещё не добрался. Но Wyrms, Hart's Hope и Worthing Saga - вещи действительно неординарные.
Просто уж очень много у него, в самом деле, идей, и в книгах его большинство событий и происходят как раз на уровне идей. Он один из немногих знакомых мне авторов "фентези", кто умеет вызывать и поддерживать в читателе заветное состояние "wonder". Метод у него удачный: герой, как правило, погружается в незнакомый ему мир, и читатель вместе с ним испытывает открытия и потрясения и невольно сравнивает свою реакцию с реакцией героя - которая, как правило, очень адекватная и быстрая; резюмировал обстановку, сделал вывод, скорректировал план - поехали дальше. Хорошая проза, очень динамичная и ёмкая...
Любопытно, что Вы называете "мыслительными вывертами"?
Posted by: Hobbit Snufkin
« on: 19/12/2006, 23:51:57 »

Хотелось бы услышать ваше мнение о творчестве данного писателя.
Мне, например, очень нравятся его фентези-романы, такие как Wyrms, Hart's Hope, Treason, и не очень - серия про Эндера. Серию про Альвина как начала, так и бросила. Не могу не согласится, что Кард любит в книгах проповедовать, но зато у него много интересных находок и мыслительных вывертов.
Что скажете?