Okay, Veeky Forums, just finished pic related

Okay, Veeky Forums, just finished pic related.

My quick thoughts:
>Decent characterization of Kelvin and Snaut
>Great world building that seemed jarringly out of place for a novel of this short length
>Philosophical ideas were introduced as surface level claims and then never substantiated with further in-depth analysis
>Intentional ambiguous prose came off as an annoyance and failed to create the childlike wonder I can only assume Lem was going for
>Far too many detours of convoluted imaginary scientific terminologies, names and histories
>Ironically inconclusive ending

Overall, it was an underwhelming read tbqh. What do you guys think?

I thought it was meh also. the actions of the other scientists were so retarded.

i thought it was a philosophical mindfuck

I was intrigued by his philosophical claims, but disappointed to find that they really went nowhere.

Sometimes being left with more questions than answers is a good thing but, in this case, it failed to make an impact.

lol @ Sartorius' aloof and dismissive demeanor entwined with a neurotic professionalism meaning nothing.
Even though he is always mysteriously in his lab we never know why and I guess Lem gives us no reason to care at a point.

solaris is primarily about the limits of the scientific method. Everything else is irrelevant, including characterization, plot, suspense, etc. etc.

Of course, I mean, a large portion of the novel is just different proposed theories made by fictional scientists ranging from the romantic romantic to the practical.

There are lengthy tangents comprised of essentially just lists of theories, with even Kelvin outwardly stating that they are imperfect. Saying "Solaris" about the limits of the scientific method is about as subtle as a sledgehammer. To create a novelization of it, well, Lem must have had an ulterior motive.

there are a couple things that make me think why lem wrote it as a science fiction novel and not an essay.

Firstly, lem never argues for 1 clear point. The scenario he sets up allows for a variety of implications which he highlights in turn, but to have all of these in one essay would be, in my opinion, a bit awkward.

Secondly, there is an element of criticism towards soviet style bureaucracy, and science fiction novels were often hardly censured because they were assumed to be harmless. There are exceptions of course, but it is definitely a lot easier to get published if you hide behind a fantastical wall.

As to your language point, it is well known that translations of Lem are particularly poor in English and that his Polish is not only famously witty and brilliant but nearly untranslatable. What you read is a sort of underlying structure that is also brilliant but not the novel. He supposedly hated Tarkovsky's film.

>He supposedly hated Tarkovsky's film.
The movie has nothing to do with the book.
Solaris was just an excuse by Tarkovsky to film and direct whatever the fuck he wanted.

True, I am ignorant to the nuances of his native style and I can admit that much of his wit was regrettably lost in translation.

However, that is not to take away from the noticeable jarring shifts in his writing style - varying from interesting prose to descriptions that could be at home in dense academic essays.

I might also add that having solaris be novel permits for a certain ambiguity. A lot of lem's ideas are quite revolutionary, so it makes sense to put them forwards in a sort of experimental style: let's create a scenario and play it out. It might be that lem hadn't thought out many of the ideas present in the book before writing it. Many of these theories could have been produced as a result of writing the story. There are definitely some theoretical elements of solaris that appear naturally from the set of suppositions and so it only makes sense to keep it all in the form of a novel to preserve these elements

I guess Lem's decision to write "Solaris" as a science fiction novel and not as a philosophical dissertation is bitter sweet.

While the novel acts a vehicle for Lem to flesh out his ideas more naturally, this also leaves him vulnerable to plot holes and loosely related ideas that make for a questionable story.

While there are very ambiguous elements to the plot, intentionally so, it appears that Lem attempted to cram as many of his newfangled theories into one place, utilizing his characters as a mechanism to simply think these theories to themselves or, on rare occasions, vocalize it with one of the other tow scientists.

I agree that these ideas most likely would't hold up as an essay, but "Solaris" the novel could have been approached differently - stylistically and organizationally.

solaris is by no means a perfect novel, but the originality of the ideas make it very much worth reading to me. I guess what I'm trying to say in response to the OP is that the meat of solaris is in the theories, and that it is very much worth it to look past the weaknesses of the novel and read it almost as an essay.

>Philosophical ideas were introduced as surface level claims and then never substantiated with further in-depth analysis

This is a novel, not a philosophical essay. Proof of claims is not necessary, nor can one even reach the conclusion that the ideas expressed are genuine beliefs of the author.

>Far too many detours of convoluted imaginary scientific terminologies, names and histories

I don't see how this is bad, after all isn't this also a description of Moby Dick? I don't see what makes this a less valid approach than anything else.

>Ironically inconclusive ending

How was is ironic? I don't see how he could have ended the novel coming to a conclusion of Solaris because it would undermine everything the novel is about.

>This is a novel, not a philosophical essay. Proof of claims is not necessary, nor can one even reach the conclusion that the ideas expressed are genuine beliefs of the author.

Sure, valid point. But, following your reasoning, I disagree with how Lem introduced his claims. He touches the surface of his ideas without actually explaining them. It seems lazy and he does this for nearly every one of the philosophical assertions he introduces. And yes, "it is a novel," but it is a novel that also contains encyclopedic sections of historical information that contain no relevance to the plot.

>I don't see how this is bad, after all isn't this also a description of Moby Dick? I don't see what makes this a less valid approach than anything else.

Well, strictly in the context of "Solaris." Moby Dick is a ~800 page epics, Solaris is just over 200 pages. All I was saying is that I think far too much for the novel is spent discussing irrelevant scientific theories and historians in a fairly transparent attempt to discredit the scientific method. These are things I don't want interrupting the continuity of an already short story.

>How was is ironic? I don't see how he could have ended the novel coming to a conclusion of Solaris because it would undermine everything the novel is about

An ending without an end is, well, ironic. Sure it may go against the the essence of Solaris, but I don't think Lem successfully captured any child like wonder in his ambiguity. I, personally, disliked how the novel offerred so many loose ends that existed intentionally, obviously, but ultimately never cultivated in an "a-ha" moment. The book could have just been: "we know things, but, despite countless theories or explanations, there is know way to know. The end."

bump

I thought the ambiguous prose was supposed to be Kelvin slowly losing his sanity

reminder that lem was just a committee of commies trying to brainwash the west with science fiction.

>Decent characterization of Kelvin and Snaut
ok?

>Great world building that seemed jarringly out of place for a novel of this short length
why was it jarring? great artists can paint a world in just a few pages

>Philosophical ideas were introduced as surface level claims and then never substantiated with further in-depth analysis
missed the point

>Intentional ambiguous prose came off as an annoyance and failed to create the childlike wonder I can only assume Lem was going for
you must have read a bad translation

>Far too many detours of convoluted imaginary scientific terminologies, names and histories
I thought the world building was great?

>Ironically inconclusive ending
in what way was it ironic? it fit the book

>I'd been lying sleepless for hours, staring into the darkness, alone, because I couldn't even hear her breathing, and in the tangled labyrinth of nighttime thoughts that were feverish, half logical, and thus acquired a new dimension and meaning, I'd forgotten about her.

>must have read a bad translation
My first thought was OP must've read the double translation via French, which really is vague and weak compared to the one by Johnston (which is digital or audio only, no print).

Yeah but it was pretty gud tho

>ok?

Yeah, I guess it is okay? Can I not point out that an element of this novel I enjoyed was the dynamic development of Kelvin - notably his gradual loss of sanity?

>why was it jarring? great artists can paint a world in just a few pages

That may be so but this was not done, I'm afraid, in a few pages. For a novel that is only just over 200 pages in length, I felt the space dedicated to all the fictional histories of a non existent planet was far too great and, at times, needlessly distracting.

>missed the point

Despite your lack of elaboration, I certainly did not. I recognize this novel was a critique of the scientific method and what it means for one to actually trust knowledge or an experience to be true or validated. That being said, I can still disagree with the way Lem preseneted, and subsequently, deviated from these claims in his presentation of the novel.

>you must have read a bad translation

Obviously I cannot speak on other translations, but the constant lists of inconclusive scientific theories and the overall mystery of Solaris failed to leave an impression on me. I felt like I "got the point", to use your words, after a few examples.

>I thought the world building was great?

Sure, but again, specifically regarding "Solaris," I felt the extent of the world building was out of place. ~800 page epics, such as "Moby Dick" are able to flesh these world building techniques out more cohesively with an actually engaging plot.

>in what way was it ironic? it fit the book

An ending without an end is, well, ironic. It might have fit the thematic elements of the book, but what many interpret as Lem's psuedo-intellectualism culminating in a 3deep5me moment was actually just the actions of the book receding aimlessly as Kelvin listless mulls over yet ANOTHER concept of what the unintelligible soup that is Solaris could be.

Not a bad book by any stretch of the imagination, just underwhelming.