Why is Russian Sci-Fi (Stanislaw Lem, 'We') so much

it really isn't

One is politically oriented while the other is technically oriented? One is about what science is used for and the other is about what science does?

>>9626989
>Vonnegut
>PKD
>Asimov

>technically oriented

Pfftchakahahahah

>>9626995
I didn't mean technically oriented as in hard-sf Anon, if that's what you mean.

>>9626970
Soviet Union cultural policy was actually very patrician if a bit oppressive at times. To make it big there you didn't just need pleb appeal, their governments wanted to encourage more thoughtful work to succeed for the sake of national prestige and to avoid cultural degradation.

In the US the most successful writers would all of course be whoever could sell most. The middle-tier 'known but not huge' American writers are pretty much on par with the Soviets. Guys like Algis Budrys, Gene Wolfe and R.A. Lafferty are probably much better writers than their soviet counterparts in the long run.

>>9626970
After reading Heart of the Dog and We, I really don't see what you are talking about. The satirical metaphors are as blunt as anything you find in Vonnegut, the technological imagination is as unsophisticated as Asimov and the characters are about interesting as PKD. The only stand out work I've read was Roadside Picnic and that was probably because it wasn't trying parody anything.

Granted, it might be a translation problem but I still don't think your statement is accurate. If you don't like these authors its probably for the following reasons.

>Assimov made money by shitting out tonnes of works in weekly magazines. Most of them are probably too short or hastily written for any major substance, but then you see shit like I, Robot and Foundation where its his own intellectual pet project.
>Vonnegut is kind of like if Frank Zappa was an author. He is just so much smarter than everyone else but also hates everything and himself. This doesn't make his works bad though but it does fall to parody.
>Haven't read enough PKD but what I have read (Androids) is very emotionally stimulating.

Ultimately, I don't know what you mean with making any kind of specific criticism. Also, Arthur C Clark. You forgot to mention him.

Lem was Polish, numbnuts

If you want into russian sci-fi, try Strugatsky brothers works, like the Final Circle of Paradise, a Billion Years Before the End of the World and the Doomed city
t.russian

>>9627178
>russian
I have an exam I don't feel prepared for coming up, could you hack the results for me?

>>9627186
u like Putin?

>>9627190
shure, he doesn't seem to want to drag Australia into any wars.

>>9626970
Idk man, Ubik was pretty deep
>>9627047
Read Ubik. I haven't been surprised so much by a book in a long time.

File: 1475700618417.jpg (66KB, 625x918px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 625x918px

>>9626970
>Russian Sci-Fi (Stanislaw Lem)
You are seriously retarded.

>>9627198
I'm not OP but don't care much for Ubik. I think that it's one of Dick's weaker works. Too much Twilight Zone-tier twist-nonsense and Dick's played out fake realities within fake realities thing. I think that "Flow My Tears," The Policeman Said and The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch did the same thing better.

>>9626970
>Lem
>russian
wtf?

>>9626970
>Russian Sci-Fi (Stanislaw Lem
Godfuckindammit OP

>>9627005
That's a good point. The degree to which Wolfe is better than Asimov is shocking considering how much more well known Asimov is.

>>9626970
Foreign literature always appears to have a higher hit-to-miss ratio because the good stuff is more likely to be translated while the day-to-day filler is typically left behind.

In addition a work getting translated is decided by popularity among the class of people who speak multiple languages and have an interest in literature rather than among the general population.