Solaris

Solaris is my all time best along with Roadside picnic.

Read The Invincible

Is this book hard to understand? I would like to read it soon.

>His Master's Voice is Lem's best imo.
This.

Roadside Picnic? Rather easy. The Doomed City and Snail on the Slope, these are hard.

Are Lem's books the most complex and deep in the sci-fi field?
Interesting, but not a proper sci-fi book

>not a proper sci-fi book
It doesn't stop being sci-fi just because it does not contain the shittier parts of the sci-fi

Solaris is the final boss of literary SF
One thing about Lem's oeuvre is that much of it is pretty humorous, and in that regard Solaris is kind of an anomaly; it's Lem's Tale of Two Cities that way. When you look at other works of Lem's, it can take some adjusting to his use of humor. Definitely among his best work, and a good next choice, is The Cyberiad. It's really funny and very inventive, and a great short-story collection

A Perfect Vacuum is Lem at his most Borgesian, featuring as it does reviews of fake books (and explicitly acknowledging Borges at the start)

Book of The New Sun

>both books contain non-narrative scientific chapters
>both books have the inability of man to understand the universe as a prevalent theme
>both books have an unknowable entity that is the focus of the book
It's a pleb comparison how?

>>both books have the inability of man to understand the universe as a prevalent theme
Wrong. God may be ineffable, but his creation is a part of the perceivable world, and therefore knowable through sensation and a priori reason.

>>both books have an unknowable entity that is the focus of the book
Also wrong. Neither the whale nor the planet are unknowable.

>It's a pleb comparison how?
Yes. You're making loose associations between two works that merely happen to be conceptual fiction. Lem works on a substantial theme that Melville could never have known since he was a man of a prior century, and Melville poeticizes the nautical world unlike any other author since. They work in different ends, and are only superficially similar. You might as well make a comparison between just about any two other works of fiction.

>Wrong. God may be ineffable, but his creation is a part of the perceivable world, and therefore knowable through sensation and a priori reason.
So if Moby Dick is knowable why doesn't anyone ever, you know, know anything about it? Even the name Moby Dick was chosen because it is a meaningless attribution that doesn't tell you anything about it. Why do you think that the cetology chapter contains glaring scientific untruths that were obvious to Melville? Maybe it's because he thought that science wasn't actually able to get to grips with reality... almost like another novel I can think of.

>Also wrong. Neither the whale nor the planet are unknowable.
This is bait right? Did you even read Solaris? At what point is it ever suggested in the novel that we can comprehend Solaris. Every single attempt they ever make to understand it fails. That is literally the point of the book.

>Lem works on a substantial theme that Melville could never have known since he was a man of a prior century
And that substantial theme is what exactly? Science is unable to comprehend reality? Philosophy is inadequate to understand reality? That humanity pales in the shadow of the powers of the universe? Because both novels share the exact same thoughts.

> You're making loose associations between two works that merely happen to be conceptual fiction.
Yes two works that merely happen to be share the same theme, and an analogous setting, and a similar object that is the inquiry of the characters. Who could possible think of any similarities.

>You might as well make a comparison between just about any two other works of fiction.
Do you really believe you can compare Don Quixote and the Iliad, or Paradise lost and The Catcher in the Rye in the same way? Go ahread, tell me about how Satan is a lot like Phoebe, except you can't because those are two novels that actually have nothing in common unlike these two.
It's not like Lem is on record as saying that the space station the book takes place on is shaped life a whale in reference to Moby Dick. That couldn't mean anything at all.

>Philosophy is inadequate to understand reality? That humanity pales in the shadow of the powers of the universe? Because both novels share the exact same thoughts.
You obviously have not studied modern philosophy. I see no reason to take you seriously.

>the same theme
[No]

>the exact same thoughts.
[NO]

>two novels...
Now I know you're a pseud. Take your autism somewhere else. You're not wanted here.

read more Lem and Strugatsky Bros

here's few hints to understand these books better:
Doomed City - it's an allegory to Stalin era
Snail on the Slope - what would the society with no need for men look like; inspired after reading first articles about parthenogenesis

>You obviously have not studied modern philosophy. I see no reason to take you seriously.
I see you have never studied literary theory. You are saying Moby Dick is knowable not because of anything in the book but because of philosophy. That's like reading the Bible and saying the bible teaches that God doesn't exist because God (at least God in the Christian sense) is not something supported by modern philosophy. We are talking about what Melville says in his book.

Why don't you tell us then what the themes of the two novels are. Tell me about how Melville teaches us that Moby Dick is knowable. Tell us how that even though we couldn't even figure out if Solaris was alive and would probably never be able to do so that we really can know Solaris. At least give me something to argue against. You haven't even stated a position.

>the exact same thoughts.
I never said that. I said that a very important theme to both books was the same.

>Now I know you're a pseud. Take your autism somewhere else. You're not wanted here.
So you can't make a comparison between Catcher in the Rye and Paradise lost while I could for Moby Dick and Solaris. You literally said you could take almost any two novels and make such comparisons. Why don't you try to prove it?

Literary theory is a subset of philosophy more so than the obverse. The modern discussion in philosophy, that which isn't sophistry at least, takes precedence over the particulars of lit theory. How do you not know this?

>You haven't even stated a position.
Like I said, I don't really take you seriously. Lmao.

>So you can't make a comparison between Catcher in the Rye and Paradise lost while I could for Moby Dick and Solaris. You literally said you could take almost any two novels and make such comparisons. Why don't you try to prove it?
I doubt you read any of those. You see, I called you a pseud, as you called Paradise Lost a novel. A classic pseud mistake. Not about any of that other pointless bullshit you mentioned.

Did you know that Language, Truth, and Logic is actually a work of anti-logical positivism. I mean the book is a work of logical positivism but because modern philosophy has cast this way of thinking aside therefore the book is magically changed to confirm to contemporary ideas. Because you know, that's how books work.
Could you at least try to be subtle with your bait? This could have had me going for ages if you did.

>Did you know that Language, Truth, and Logic is actually a work of anti-logical positivism.

So this is the only work of modern philosophy that you know about, but haven't read. And it's not even what I was talking about.

You should stop trying to debate and read about 200 more books before you come back here. Honestly I don't even want to harass you, but you're an embarrassment.

Wow, you are the most amazing gamma secret king that I have ever seen. If this is not just bait, then you're the biggest pseud I have ever seen.

>it's an allegory to Stalin era
It's much more than that, even though the protagonist plays human chess with Stalin at one point. More like the allegory for Soviet history, but still not exactly. It's a story of a person overgrowing the politics and the materialism (and thus marxist foundation of the soviet ideology), and going beyond that.

it's a story of Stalin era, fucktard; the rest is a set-dressing - don't argue

Whatever fits your ideology the best, user

>more pointless buzzwords to cover up the fact he doesn't know what he's talking about

leave

what i mean is "living under Stalin era" already implies stages of development (which are literally described as inner thoughts of protagonist):
1) Blind believer (in idea of communism);
2) Doubtful (some crazy shit happens around);
3) Crushed beliefs;
4) What the fuck do I do / believe in to justify my life next? (it's the last part of the book)

Anybody who has survived through Stalin era (including ABS themselves) went through these stages.

Looks like both you faggots are talking about the same thing, but the one faggot assumes that the other user is ignorant of the implications of the social commentary. Probably from having too many dicks up his ass.

thanks for the thoughtful input

You're most welcome! I try.

We need more anons like you.

If you're going to make claims about a text, support it with the text. That simple.

If by support it with the text, you mean misinterpret with pseudery, then yes, more like him are definitely needed on Veeky Forums.

So you are saying Moby Dick isn't unknowable?