Solaris

I thought Solaris was just the poor man's Moby Dick. So go read that.

>>9655551
Strugatsky brothers of course.
Roadside Picnic and Hard to be a God are the only plots I'm familiar with

>>9655566
>poor man's Moby Dick
come the fuck on, don´t do that kind of pleb comparisons.

>>9655579

I bought Hard to be a God recently, good place to start for the Noon universe? If I like that where should I branch out next besides Roadside Picnic, I've seen Stalker a bunch of times.

>>9655551
you can't really. although check out vurt by Jeff noon. sorta similar with the love interest. but not really. good book anyway. Google it senpai.

>>9655551
His Master's Voice is Lem's best imo.
>>9656907
this

>>9657050
Noon universe is kinda diverse, as the books were written over more than 30 years, and changes from full-on communistic utopia to a more sober approach.
You should definitely check out Prisoners of Power, Beetle in the Anthill and Time Wanderers. The Final Circle of Paradise is interesting, if only to see how the modern western approach to communism is shit.
Outside of Noon universe, The Doomed City is great.

>>9657710
Anyway, the best way to start with the Noon universe would be Noon: 22nd century itself. It's quite short and sets the tone.

>>9657710

Will check out The Doomed City next, reminds me of Kafka's The Castle a little.

>>9655551
Solaris is my all time best along with Roadside picnic.

File: f70edc4c11ae936a207457ccfaf1c7ee.jpg (604KB, 1241x2097px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 1241x2097px

Read The Invincible

>>9658425
Is this book hard to understand? I would like to read it soon.

>>9657328
>His Master's Voice is Lem's best imo.
This.

>>9659518
Roadside Picnic? Rather easy. The Doomed City and Snail on the Slope, these are hard.

>>9655551
Are Lem's books the most complex and deep in the sci-fi field?
>>9657328
Interesting, but not a proper sci-fi book

>>9659542
>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

>>9655551

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

>>9655551

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

>>9655551
Book of The New Sun

>>9656907
>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?

>>9661791
>>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.

File: 1491968480936.png (1KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 400x400px

>>9661852
>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.

>>9662067
>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.

>>9655551
read more Lem and Strugatsky Bros

>>9659534
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

>>9662077
>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.

File: e9d.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>9662105
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.

>>9662112
>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.

>>9662105
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.

>>9662085
>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.

>>9662140
it's a story of Stalin era, fucktard; the rest is a set-dressing - don't argue

>>9662143
Whatever fits your ideology the best, anon

>>9662130
>more pointless buzzwords to cover up the fact he doesn't know what he's talking about

leave

>>9662153
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.

>>9662140
>>9662153
>>9662190
Looks like both you faggots are talking about the same thing, but the one faggot assumes that the other anon is ignorant of the implications of the social commentary. Probably from having too many dicks up his ass.

File: 12313456441.png (602KB, 847x512px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 847x512px

>>9662198
thanks for the thoughtful input

>>9662203
You're most welcome! I try.

>>9662099
We need more anons like you.

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

>>9662099
>>9662798
If by support it with the text, you mean misinterpret with pseudery, then yes, more like him are definitely needed on /lit/.

>>9663429
So you are saying Moby Dick isn't unknowable?