Volume
This time it was a debate on Science and Literature in Eternal Cadence, led by Diego Golombek and Martin Hadis, in the intimacy of a living room with moon including through the glass roof. There was no more than ten people, if I include three minitas they knew to be late. Enumerate topics: Oliver Sacks and his wife, hat, Borges and false credibility, the memory of Funes, the ships of the Raman Clark, the children's fiction and Ebly Volpi, the links between fiction and science, the papers well-written, absurd anthropomorphic beings need in Sci-Fi, and the scientific basis for Memento and moments of epiphany.
I kept thinking I need the wire. Maybe that, my search for meaning (what Pamuk, at Saer) might serve to summarize. While studying physics was understood without friction, almost wishing that Science was easy, and you can not. Supposed to understand everything in a blink was a kind of magic we were not allowed, and that there should be a precise meaning. Now, when I read or write, I see that everyone follows what may or what he wants. And if I were to propose an exercise in Sci-Fi, I would very homely, non-linear adding a spark to a banal situation in Burzaco. As I write a bit discouraged me realize that this did Bioy Casares, between women and tennis matches, almost reluctantly.
I went home and looked at the shelf where piles Nacional B sci-fi: the Le Guin, the Bester, the Farmer, the early bird Dick, Gene Wolfe's latest. In the middle rack up the triumvirate ruling Clark, Asimov and Bradbury, with intermediate and undisciplined firing. I wonder if they have felt the need to escape the ravines of fiction, not necessarily with Martians hooting, and what have they done with their own need for meaning.
0 comments:
Post a Comment