[zakk]

Sinoć nešto drvimo u kafani, pa oftopikom dođosmo do ovoga:

Ursula K. Le Guin: A Rant About "Technology"
In an interesting and favorable notice of Changing Planes (which you can find elsewhere on the site, in Spanish and English), the Argentinean reviewer asserts that since Le Guin isn't a hard science fiction writer, "technology is carefully avoided." I stuck a footnote onto this in my translation of the article, and here is the footnote expanded — because this business is really getting my goat.
'Hard' sf is all about technology, and 'soft' sf doesn't have any technology, right? And my books don't have technology in them, because I am only interested in psychology and emotions and squashy stuff like that, right?
Not right. How can genuine science fiction of any kind lack technological content? Even if its principal interest isn't in engineering or how machines work — if like most of mine, it's more interested in how minds, societies, and cultures work — still, how can anybody make a story about a future or an alien culture without describing, implicitly or explicitly, its technology?
Nobody can. I can't imagine why they'd want to.
Its technology is how a society copes with physical reality: how people get and keep and cook food, how they clothe themselves, what their power sources are (animal? human? water? wind? electricity? other?) what they build with and what they build, their medicine - and so on and on. Perhaps very ethereal people aren't interested in these mundane, bodily matters, but I'm fascinated by them, and I think most of my readers are too.
Technology is the active human interface with the material world.
But the word is consistently misused to mean only the enormously complex and specialised technologies of the past few decades, supported by massive exploitation both of natural and human resources.
This is not an acceptable use of the word. "Technology" and "hi tech" are not synonymous, and a technology that isn't "hi," isn't necessarily "low" in any meaningful sense.
We have been so desensitized by a hundred and fifty years of ceaselessly expanding technical prowess that we think nothing less complex and showy than a computer or a jet bomber deserves to be called "technology " at all. As if linen were the same thing as flax — as if paper, ink, wheels, knives, clocks, chairs, aspirin pills, were natural objects, born with us like our teeth and fingers -- as if steel saucepans with copper bottoms and fleece vests spun from recycled glass grew on trees, and we just picked them when they were ripe...
One way to illustrate that most technologies are, in fact, pretty "hi," is to ask yourself of any manmade object, Do I know how to make one?
Anybody who ever lighted a fire without matches has probably gained some proper respect for "low" or "primitive" or "simple" technologies; anybody who ever lighted a fire with matches should have the wits to respect that notable hi-tech invention.
I don't know how to build and power a refrigerator, or program a computer, but I don't know how to make a fishhook or a pair of shoes, either. I could learn. We all can learn. That's the neat thing about technologies. They're what we can learn to do.
And all science fiction is, in one way or another, technological. Even when it's written by people who don't know what the word means.
All the same, I agree with my reviewer that I don't write hard science fiction. Maybe I write easy science fiction. Or maybe the hard stuff's inside, hidden — like bones, as opposed to an exoskeleton....

http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Note-Technology.html

[Berserker]

Čitao sam davno davno jedan njen zanimljivi intervju na temu visoke tehnologije, mada ne mogu da se setim gde sam naleteo na njega. U tom razgovoru se ona osvrće na svoju prvu knjigu, Rokanonov svet. Sama kaže da je u toj knjizi pustila mašti na volju jer je tada još uvek shvatala žanr kao magičnu kutiju iz koje može izvući šta god joj zatreba za priču kako bi ona funkcionisala. U toj knjizi je recimo glavni junak imao impermasuit, odelo otporno na SVE, a spominje se prvi put i Ansibl, aparat za trenutnu komunikaciju sa bilo kojim drugim takvim aparatom u svemiru. Kasnije je revidirala svoj pogled na upotrebu VISOKE tehnologije u SF romanima, i redukovala ga do dva pojma koja se jedino i spominju u svim kasnijim delima: Ansibl, i NAFAL letovi (koji su apsolutno u domenu realnosti, pošto su u pitanju Near-As-Fast-As-Light letovi). Pretpostavljam da je u pitanju potreba da se priča razvija kroz likove umesto kroz opise čudesnih tehnologija i da se izbegne taj deus-ex-machina momenat. Sa druge strane, njeni romani imaju neverovatno detaljne i uverljive tehnološke pozadine, koje su uglavnom na nivou 19.og do ranog 20.veka ali su zato odlično uklopljene u priču.
Primer loše upotrebe visoke tehnologije je recimo Ričard Morgan, za koga uporno pokušavam da prokljuvim zbog čega ga smatraju novom ikonom cyberpunka. Kod njega je visoka tehnologija iskorišćena na najgori mogući način: kao čista scenografija i naravno, magični zec za rešavanje raznih nelogičnosti u koje često zapada pri pisanju. Izbacite svu visoku tehnologiju iz njegovog romana, i dobićete čisti akcioni (slabašni) triler, jer ne postoji ni jedan aspekt visoke tehnologije koji je ključan za njegov roman (govorim naravno o Digitalnom ugljeniku) i bez koga roman ne bi funkcionisao. Znam da je ovo malo offtopic ali današnji romani sve više koriste tehnologiju/magiju/natprirodno isključivo u funkciji scenografije, pa efektivno čitamo krimiće/ljubiće/softporn na kojima stoji etiketa SF/horor. A to mrzim iz dna duše.

[Lidija]

Eto, sve nekako izgleda prosto i jednostavno kad se ovako postavi u kontre: “kosti” - “egzoskeleton”, “psihologija” - “tehnologija”… ali iskrena da budem, ja to nikad nisam mogla tako da sagledam. Po meni, nema psihologije bez tehnologije, meni to naprosto nisu ovako dva odvojena fenomena, ni u žanru a ni u životu. Mi kao vrsta garant jesmo imali nekakav prepoznatljiv psihološki profil i pre no što smo otkrili toljagu, ali smatram da je taj profil bio striktno produkt instinkta i okoliša, baš kao i u ostalih životinjskih vrsta, onda i danas. Ursula je jedan od onih autora koji kao da sagledavaju fenomen iz striktno onog ugla iz kog se čini da je čovekova ‘inteligencija’ proizvela njegovu tehnologiju, ali to je po meni dilema tipa “prvo kokoš ili jaje”: neodrživa je jer je u pogrešnoj postavci.

Ali kad već govorimo o žanrovskim postavljanjima u takve kontre, onda ja svakako spadam u “egzoskeleton” grupu, tim pre što mi se čini da ona “kosti” grupa uglavnom ide prohodnijim putem, zato što nema obavezu da analizira ili ekstrapolira taj najvažniji fenomen od svih koji nas definišu. A obaška je taj put i fantastički impresivniji, jer teško je biti u krivu kad si silno otvoren za tumačenja…

 Ako ikad i jesam bila svesna neke kontre po pitanju tih konkretno dimenzija žanrovskih svetonzora, to su mi uglavnom bile pozicije tehnofilije vs. tehnofobije. A “soft” sf ni tu nije morao bog zna kako da se trudi, jer opet, pazio je da bude dovoljno otvoren za tumačenja, pa nije ni o tome morao da se izjašnjava...