Solaris

First read this in the late 70s. Since seen the classic Russian sci-fi film and the mediocre American sci-fi film. Treated myself to a new copy and just finished reading it. Still as fascinating as it was when I first read it. The sentient ocean on Solaris digs into the deepest recesses of your mind and brings to life your darkest memory. How can we understand a seemingly intelligent planet when we have only scratched the surface into trying to understand our motives? What is real and what is imagined? Deeply philosophical read.Ray Smillie

Psychologist Kelvin is sent to the Research Station orbiting one of the greatest mysteries encountered by mankind: an oceanic planet that appears to exhibit signs of intelligence. His mission is to evaluate whether the research is a failure. What he finds is utter chaos, scientists driven past the edge of sanity by a force that may be the ocean – and that Kelvin may not be able to escape.Some books stand the test of time. Others don’t. Early on in this book the word “Neg***s” is used, and I almost gave up there and then. On top of this is the constant low-grade sexism: Kelvin becomes obsessed with saving a woman because of MAN PAIN, and she is in love with him because, well, you know, that is what women do.Okay. This is a classic of science fiction. I’ve read Kipling and swallowed his racism because it is great writing. But accepting the dated social ideas leads you into a second problem.Much of this book is essays on epistemology – how we know things and how you can justify a belief. These are essential to the story. Except, well, I had to study Epistemology as part of my PhD and this book is, unsurprisingly, 60 years out of date. It is like reading like an essay on how to use leeches to cure period pains.When he ditches the serious science for the adventure and the impossibility of his quest for redemption, this is a good read. If I had read this when it was first published, I would have thought it marvellous. Kelvin makes a lot of weird decisions, some of which of unquestionably cruel, but there is a good, imaginative adventure in here. Just be ready for it to feel very old-fashioned.

Having read the Cyberiad and really liked it, this felt necessary. It (or the translator) doesn't share the Cyberiad's extreme inventive vocabulary and it is much darker. Much of the power of the text consists in what we are not told and many questions remain at the end.Philosophical speculation abounds and the discussions of anthropomorphism in human understanding are interesting. There are allusions to Hume and Paley in discussions of beginnings.Compare, p.178 “Grastrom set out to demonstrate that the most abstract achievement of science… nothing more than a stumbling progression from our rude anthropomorphic understanding of the universe around us”WithHume Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion:“Anyway, even if we do take the operations of one part of nature on another as our basis for a judgment about the origin of the whole (which is something we should never do), why would we select as our basis such a tiny, weak, limited cause as the reason and design of animals on this planet seems to be? This little agitation of the brain that we call ‘thought’—what special privilege does it have that entitles it to serve as the model of the whole universe? It looms large for us because we are always in the presence of it; but sound philosophy ought carefully to guard against this kind of natural illusion.So far from admitting, continued Philo, that •the operations of a part entitle us to draw any conclusion about •the origin of the whole, I won’t even allow •any one part to justify conclusions about •another part, if the two are very unlike one another. Is there any reasonable ground to conclude that the inhabitants of other planets have thought, intelligence, reason, or anything similar to these faculties that men have? When nature has operated in such a wide variety of ways on this small planet, can we think that she incessantly copies herself throughout the rest of this immense universe”And this of course resonates with Lem’s effort to avoid making the other here explicable in human terms; not just a civilisation much like ours, but with a few extra tentacles.Further compare, pp.206ff “do you happen to know if there was ever a belief in an imperfect God…a sick God…a childish” with Hume: Secondly, your theory gives you no reason to ascribe perfection to God even in his capacity as a finite being, or to suppose him to be free from every error, mistake, or incoherence in his activities... You must, at least, admit that we with our limited knowledge can’t possibly tell whether this system contains any great faults, or deserves any considerable praise, when compared to other possible systems and perhaps even when compared to real ones. If the Aeneid were read to a peasant, could he judge it to absolutely faultless? Could he even give it proper place in a ranking of the products of human intelligence—he who had never seen any of the others? Even if this world were a perfect product, we still couldn’t be sure whether all the excellences of the work could justly be ascribed to the workman. When we survey a ship, we may get an exalted idea of the ingenuity of the carpenter who built such a complicated, useful, and beautiful machine. But then we shall be surprised to find that the carpenter is a stupid tradesman who imitated others, and followed a trade which has gradually improved down the centuries, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies. ·Perhaps our world is like that ship·. It may be that many worlds were botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, before our present system was built; much labour lost, many useless trials made, and a slow but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the world-making trade. In such subjects as this, who can •determine what is true—who indeed can even •guess what is probable—when so many hypotheses can be put forward, and even more can be imagined? And what shadow of an argument, continued Philo, can you produce, from your hypothesis, to prove that God is one being? A great many men join together to build a house or ship, to found and develop a city, to create a commonwealth; why couldn’t several gods combine in designing and makinga world? This would only serve to make divine activities more like human ones. By sharing the work among several gods we can reduce still further the attributes of each one of them; we can get rid of the extensive power and knowledge that we have to suppose the one God to possess (if there is only one)—the extent of power and knowledge which, according to you, serves merely to weaken the argument for God’s existence. And if such foolish, vicious creatures as men can often unite in forming and carrying out one plan, think how much more could be done by those gods or semi-gods whom we may suppose to be quite a lot more perfect than we are!I like Hume, so no surprise that I loved this.

This is worth buying if you like either or both of the Solaris films. I first came upon the Clooney version which I enjoyed but felt lacked something so I bought the original Russian version by Tarkovsky which is quite different although similar enough to feel familiar. Having seen both films I felt no option but to buy the original book. I wasn't disappointed, the three items (two films and book) compliment each other and give you the full picture, both films seem to take areas of the book and expand them (Clooney puts emphasis on the relationship between Kelvin and his wife) The book is slightly more esoteric and really is about alien life in alien universes and the human inability to perhaps comprehend it even if we came across it, it is far more philosophical and expands on this area, at times at the expense of readability. One can understand why the films either bypassed or put less focus on some parts of this book. However those parts are essential and really are what intrigued me most(especially the 'alien' life forms ambiguity and seeming ambivalence couple with the human egos inability to comprehend things which don't mirror our own expectations of what intelligent life is or should be. Would we ever spot it if we came across it?)Very interesting read and as I say all three pieces contribute to a better understanding of the whole. If the films interest you then get the book, it won't give you definite answers but then I don't think it ever was meant to because there arn't any per sé.

This is a fascinating book by Lem, notably his most famous work. It considers the possibility of a conscious planet, a kind of superorganism. Kind of like Gaia theory taken to the extreme. It was written in the 1970's some time before the discovery of Chaos theory to which it is linked. In a sense this is the so-called life on the edge of chaos described in more recent scientific ideas. The entire planet is highly dynamic. What I liked about this idea was the dynamism of the lifeform, always undergoing change, never the same for long. Even the human copies that populate the scientific research station are discontinued after a while. But this book delves deeply into ideas of what life is, what it is to be a human being and all of the iussues this entails. The recent film with George Clooney tends to stick to the central theme of the book quite well. Having seen the film before reading the book, naturally my view of the characters were strongly influenced by those created in the film. Excellent science fiction.