Помощник
Здравствуйте, гость ( Авторизация | Регистрация )
Цитаты форумчан
25.4.2014, 23:38
Сообщение
#1
|
|
Группа: Ветераны JC Сообщений: 3847 Регистрация: 11.7.2010 Пользователь №: 18083 Награды: 5 Предупреждения: (0%) |
Что-то ещё говорить, думаю, лишнее.
Старый опрос |
|
|
29.9.2015, 19:49
Сообщение
#2
|
|
Группа: Ветераны JC Сообщений: 3847 Регистрация: 11.7.2010 Пользователь №: 18083 Награды: 5 Предупреждения: (0%) |
Это тот самый, который к канону старому отношения не имеет и у которого в книжке есть пидоры? Ещё бы он что-то в пользу РВ сказал, ага.
|
|
|
30.9.2015, 13:52
Сообщение
#3
|
|
Trust the Force Группа: Jedi Council Сообщений: 14851 Регистрация: 14.7.2006 Пользователь №: 3009 Награды: 9 |
Хант
Если бы ты взял на себя труд, собственно, почитать саму статью, то обнаружил бы, что Вендиг мало того, что ссылается на многие произведения РВ, которые он читал/смотрел/играл, но также приводит немало доводов в пользу существования единого непротиворечивого Канона. Не утруждайся, вот цитата: Цитата And so, I’ve been thinking a whole lot recently about canon. What is it? How rigorous must it be? More importantly, why are we so beholden to it? Why do we care so much? The answers to those last questions are many-faced. First, I think it’s that we are beholden to viewing large narrative universes the same way we view things like memory, history and religion. We see things as sacred and true — which springs from the original usage of that word “canon.” Some books are canonized. Some are apocryphal. The apocryphal ones do not govern the larger history or the religion. They are somewhat… ancillary. And in our minds, lesser as a result. Second, as geeky nerdy type folks, we love to become dogmatic about the things we love. It’s in our nature to be protective and knowledgeable — even hyper-knowledgeable — about the things we love. It’s a way to identify with our tribe. (Of course, that dogmatic adherence can also lead to fandom toxicity. Witness the dipshit fuckwhistle tradition of calling out “fake geek girls” or cosplayers, both of whom have a perfect right to engage with their fandoms as deeply, innately or intricately as they so choose.) We like rules. We like rulebooks. We are fans of data and detail. Third, and connected to the last point, we love the things we love and want to know them through and through. Consider it a kind of rigorous exploration. Fourth, and also connected to the second point, loving all the rules and the data and the details gives us a deeper reach into the worldbuilding aspect of the universe. It is a touchstone to the experiential — we perhaps more vividly connect with material that is continuous and true. Fifth, the elegance of simplicity is not to be denied. If Gandalf acts one way here, then to have him act entirely different elsewhere feels abrasive and impossible. Keeping things together in a singular thrust of narrative consequence is, frankly, easier to keep track of in the long run. Но, признавая все это, в дальнейшем Вендиг вполне убедительно расписывает, почему сакральное отношение к Канону "is a little bit bullshit". -------------------- "Невинный блаженец" © D.G.
Ilaan vanished – and took all the sounds and sources of light along. Only Ilaan remained. Down on his knees, an obedient servant of the Force, just like all those months ago. It spoke to him – and he listened, without saying a word. Out of his silence, the sounds and images appeared, filling the space around them, giving the reality its meaning and weight, just like clean white cloth that gradually becomes heavy with blood when it covers the body. |
|
|
Текстовая версия | Сейчас: 28.11.2024, 15:04 |