/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14446812]

Have you ever bought a book in the wrong language? I ordered a copy of pic related and when it came today, it was in French.

[Anonymous No.14447624]

>>14446812
Strangely something similar happened to me with Lem but the edition I ordered turned out to be in Polish.

That said still read Solaris when you can, it's extremely /lit/ in more ways than one, the only thing that compares in science-fiction I sincerely think is The Book of the New Sun

[Anonymous No.14448206]

I've ordered a new copy of it but I don't think it will get here before I finish what I'm currently reading. Sucks since I was deadset on reading this thing next.

[Anonymous No.14448209]

>>14448206
meant for >>14447624

[Anonymous No.14448977]

>>14447624
Really? What are your thoughts on Roadside Picnic then?

[Anonymous No.14448998]

>>14446812
watch out lem encoded demon summoning engrams in his novels

[Anonymous No.14449014]

>>14448977
Not that anon, but Roadside Picnic >>>> Solaris
Roadside Picnic is one of the best speculative fictions books ever produced and I found Solaris to be somewhat simplistic and lacking any sort of depth besides "hey, bro, what if, like, there is this whole planet, which is like, intelligent or some shit. it probably would be way beyond our understanding haha".
A solid 3 star book, maybe 4.
Futurological congress was pure cringe though.

[Anonymous No.14449051]

>>14449014
Futurological Congress is a fantastic book what didn't you like about it? And I think you should reread solaris. There was a lot more going on than just "incomprehensible knowledge ooh".

[Anonymous No.14449094]

>>14449051
>what didn't you like about it?
The absurd writing style for starters, which was clearly meant to be comedic in nature. In essence the protagonist is similar to that of Strugatsky's Privalov - a calm, observant man in peculiar circumstances, but he just didn't pull that shit off. I was continually feeling that I should be having fun, but I wasn't. Instead, I feelt like Lem was showing pills down my throat, screaming THIS IS FUN THIS IS INTERESTING, all while everything about the situation failed to impress me. It just seemed artificial, pointless, and unnatural.

I read Solaris twice, in two different languages. I understand what you mean by "a lot more going", but I found everything undeveloped. Just glimpses and glances at what could have been a magnificent story; failed, because Lem can't fucking write. It could have explored the depths of human psyche a la Dostoevsky, but instead we get 15 pages of pseudo-scientific ramblings. It could have achieved the mysterious, abstract impressionism of South American magical realism a la Pedro Paramo or Marquez. Instead, we get an amalgamation of rationality and weird sub-plots.

[Anonymous No.14449169]

>>14449094
What are your thoughts on the movie then (If you've watched it). An improvement like what you said or more of the same?

[Anonymous No.14449220]

>>14449169
I haven't watched it, but it is very high on my to watch list, because everything I have seen from Tarkovsky was brilliant

[Anonymous No.14449246]

>>14446812
just learn french my dude

[Anonymous No.14449279]

I guess Ill just use this thread. Is there any english edition of Golem XIV?

[Anonymous No.14449304]

>>14449094
I'm not sure I'd describe the style itself as absurd- I will say it's not terribly disciplined, but I really don't see that as too much of a barrier and I personally enjoy a lot of the humour. I do also genuinely think the subject matter is very original, and employed in a very original way. Take that for what you will.

Solaris is not about the human psyche. I think you've started out on entirely the wrong foot in reading it- the book is about the ocean, and any exploration of psychology is a consequence of interaction with it. I'll admit some areas are somewhat underdeveloped, but the whole is extraordinary. I'm not sure what you mean by pseudoscientific, most of the long descriptive sections concern mathematics or (admittedly somewhat rambling) philosophy. I also don't think it's fair to criticise a book concerning an obviously ludicrous premise to have realistic science- how could it not be *pseudo*-scientific if the subject is purposefully a contradiction of scientific understanding?

[Anonymous No.14449342]

>>14449304
There was a whole chapter that did nothing but talk about "waves" or some shit. Something that related to how the ocean worked. It was absolutely pointless, and incredibly boring. The thing is, I have seen the "science rambling" be intresting (Greg Egan for example), because they were actual, you know, *scientific* ramblings. Lem just invented shit on the go, with no basis whatsoever (as many sci-fi writers do, this is fine), and then decided to actually spend dozens of pages focusing on that made-up shit, instead of dedicating more time to actually interesting things, such as the psychological effect of the discovery. We briefly get some sociology thrown in, in the context of Academia, and this was the culmination of what I disliked about Solaris. Uninteresting, overly-narrow, and simplistic.
Again, I said it was arguably a 4-star book, meaning I didn't hate it. My problem is the constant praise for Lem which completely ignores all of the flaws and missed opportunities in solaris (which as I said, could have been a masterpiece).

>an obviously ludicrous
If you are referring to the square cube law, it doesn't apply, because the ocean was decentralized.

[Anonymous No.14449751]

>>14449342
The ocean expresses itself, and throughout the book is understood through, geometry- hence the heavy exploration of geometry and more generally maths in relation to the ocean. I say the ocean is absurd because it creates sentient replicas of people out of poorly explained "energy-matter" based on the minds of people that live too near it. Why are you so obsessed with psychology? In a story about an ocean-sized alien with bizarre abilities, you'd rather focus on the tiny insects crawling over it?