Never too Late to Read Classics discussion

Solaris is a 1961 science fiction novel by Polish writer Stanisław Lem (204 pages)
Lem is a writer of science fiction and essays on various subjects, including philosophy, futurology, and literary criticism. Many of his science fiction stories are of satirical and humorous character.

Lem's science fiction works explore philosophical themes through speculations on technology, the nature of intelligence, the impossibility of communication with and understanding of alien intelligence, despair about human limitations, and humanity's place in the universe. His essays and philosophical books cover these and many other topics.

Solaris follows a crew of scientists on a research station as they attempt to understand an extraterrestrial intelligence, which takes the form of a vast ocean on the titular alien planet. The novel is among Lem's best-known works.

The book has been adapted numerous times for film, radio, and theater. Prominent film adaptations include Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 version and Steven Soderbergh's 2002 version, although Lem later remarked that none of these films reflected the book's thematic emphasis on the limitations of human rationality.

Are you joining in for our first Science Fiction read for 2022?

I'm in!

I checked the book out of the library last week and have it ready to start this coming week. I also watched the movie, for the first time, last week. I’ve been wanting to read this one for several years now.

Rosemarie and Pam glad to have you join in!

I read this novel about a zillion years ago and have thus forgotten most of the details. But I recently rewatched both the Tarkovsky and Soderbergh film adaptations, which served to whet my appetite for a re-read.

I started this one early, so I'm about three-quarters way through at the moment.

I will likely reread it :)

Canavan and Ewa excellent to see how you feel about it as a re-read!

Probably a good idea John!
You have many on your wish list.

Let us know what you think!

I've read about this and am intrigued by the premise.

I'll start this in a week or two.

There are (at least) two English language translations of Solaris . In 1970 Joanna Kilmartin and Steve Cox translated the novel into English from an existing French translation of the original 1961 Polish book. Stanisław Lem, who was fluent in English, was reportedly not happy with the result. Bill Johnston did a direct translation in 2011 that most seem to agree is superior to the Kilmartin/Cox version.

That's good to hear, since that is the translation I just bought as an ebook, and it was only $3.99 (Canadian dollars).

I will be listening to the Johnston translation on Audible.

The Johnston translation is available on KU to me so yay! I just downloaded it.

I've finished Solaris - a short book, which felt a lot longer. I love Sci-fi - my reading in December alone included 5 or 6 Sci-fi titles - but I really struggled with Solaris. It gets some great reviews, so perhaps it just failed to appeal to me, but while it has some interesting ideas, much of the book (the exposition about Solaris itself) felt utterly, utterly pointless.

I'll be very interested to hear what other members feel about this one.

Lem has a great reputation, so I'll try another of his books later in the year perhaps.

John
Check out msg 12 from Canavan. Maybe the issue?

Lesle wrote: "John
Check out msg 12 from Canavan. Maybe the issue?"

I don't think so, Lesle. The writing/translation itself didn't feel bad.

Well John I guess that didnt turn out helpful at all! lol

I read this book around 7 months ago and I pretty liked it.
It's an interesting open ended sci-fi book, which is more abstract and philosophical, but still has a stable story structure. I loved the idea of the Solaris' ocean which had the mind on his own, and the alien girlfriend created a pretty tense and mystical atmosphere. The only boring part was the reading of the various scientific reports, which was a bit to long, but still made some sense with the Gaia Hypothesis theories and similar.

I found this in an article about Lem:

Stanislaw Lem remains unknown to so many Americans?
Start with the obvious: Lem writes in Polish. His most important books have never appeared in English. Even his best-known novel, Solaris, is available in US bookstores only as an English translation of a French abridgement of the Polish original. Yet the main reason Lem's never become established here is that his wit has always been too cruel, his love of science too prominent, his outlook too cerebral to fit easily into a publishing niche devoted to fairy-tale adventures and timeworn astronaut yarns.

Unlike most science fiction of the era, which imagined aliens as being similar to human beings, Solaris explored how communication could work, or not work, with an entity that is radically different from human beings. This commitment to “hard sci-fi” marked much of Lem’s work and served as a segue into more philosophical considerations of technology.

Armin since you read it and like it, how do you think the article bits above fit into what you read? Makes sense? Not true?

I'll be interested in Armin's response to that. I felt there were two main threads running through the novel - the "human" thread dealing with the human protagonists, and the "alien" thread. The latter was the bit I struggled with. It wasn't "hard sci-fi", it wasn't cerebral and it wasn't philosophical. It was fairly dense exposition - and I felt as if Lem deliberately made it that way, to emphasise his point that the alien is unknowable and beyond our understanding and analysis.

Yes Lesle, I think it makes sense.
As I previously commented, his storytelling is a bit abstract, which I can understand to be disliked by people who are used to common science fiction.
We are used to see aliens in popular culture as similar entities to humans. So, who's to say that they should have physical bodies like humans, and why can't they exist in different forms, shapes, and communicate on different levels? With Solaris, it's a different approach to it.

...It wasn't "hard sci-fi", it wasn't cerebral and it wasn't philosophical...

But, it isn't much of a "hard sci-fi", since it doesn't explains any of the science clearly. It's more mystical, or even religious (or philosophical) science fiction in my opinion :)
Even if the primary goal is exploration of Solaris, it mostly deals with psychology of Kelvin and his spiritual journey where he actually explores himself. He's isolated in foreignness, which brings him to deal with the guilt of the dead of his ex-wife. Caught in dreamy and confusing moments, he's puzzled (as we are), calling everything into question what is actually "real". So, in his delusions, he's afraid of his memories and of his grief. He feels responsible for her dead, so he is afraid of himself and tries to achieve redemption by questioning his faith. By studying various theories about the Solaris and its ocean, he gets caught into various philosophical theories about it, where everybody just gives up and has no final conclusion. This doesn't helps him a lot, since science has no conclusion for spiritual matters (which is the ocean in my opinion). In the end, he faces his inner demons, by going out to interact with the ocean. He suggests that the ocean may be an imperfect god. In the final scene he achieves redemption, where he merges with the ocean that cleanses him and resurrects him.
Does that makes sense? :)

But, I haven't read Lem's other works, which I intend to do in the near future. I guess they might be more "hard sci-fi".

I read His Master's Voice and found it had a lot of philosophy-and I liked it a lot.

Armin wrote: "Yes Lesle, I think it makes sense. As I previously commented, his storytelling is a bit abstract, which I can understand to be disliked by people who are used to common science fiction.
We are us..."

Thank you Armin that does help with what I read as well!
Appreciate it very much.

Armin wrote: "Yes Lesle, I think it makes sense.
As I previously commented, his storytelling is a bit abstract, which I can understand to be disliked by people who are used to common science fiction.
We are us..."

I agree with you, Armin. When I've read Solaris for the first time, it was too difficult for me. I could say that it was connected with two things I'd expected: the first was the type of science fiction, and the second was the clarity of the language. He wrote so tensely that I needed to read some sentences a few times. I'm curious about its translation and consider reading it for the second time in English.
An essential thing in Lem's books was that the technology he described in books wasn't available yet. (he was afraid of his imagination in the end so much that he stopped to write more - he told about it in the interview.)
For me, Lem's books are more mental flirt with science than actually creating new machines or something, which brings to my mind the scene from Interstellar when Dr. Brand gives her hand to herself from the future without knowing it. The phenomena, which they weren't able to understand because they weren't prepared for that knowledge yet.

Ewa_
Did you read it in Polish than?

He seemed not to be happy with the translations to English and for sure was not happy with the movie.

Is he well liked to this day in Poland?

Lesle wrote: "Ewa_
Did you read it in Polish than?

He seemed not to be happy with the translations to English and for sure was not happy with the movie.

Is he well liked to this day in Poland?"

Yes, I read it in Polish. I would describe his writing as tense and highly extensive. His sentences had half of the page or more without closing.

The translation of any book is a delicate subject taking any language under consideration. When we translate, we give the spirit of the sentence, not its straight meaning. I could guess that he liked the arrangements of the words in his sentences. He used pretty advanced language and built extensive sentences. It makes me curious how it was translated.

I haven't seen the movie, but I will watch it and share my opinion.

This day he is more popular and, I would say that he became more trendy not as a writer but as a futurologist.

Ewa_
That is very interesting about his sentence formation. I would think that would be hard to digest and understand, when we are so use to smaller structured sentences.

I have often wondered if translation was a word for word or a concept of. That would make sense and why some editions are translated differently.

I read another article from the New York Times that called him a Master of Science Fiction "in both traditional and original modes." and "Lem is both a polymath and a virtuoso storyteller and stylist. Put them together and they add up to genius."

I appreciate your help with this Ewa_ it gives us another insight into the author.

Lesle wrote: "Ewa_
That is very interesting about his sentence formation. I would think that would be hard to digest and understand, when we are so use to smaller structured sentences.

I have often wondered if ..."

I guess I have an idea. I will give you a quotation in Polish, and you will write the same fragment from the English version. Then I will be able to check how reliable the translation is.
The fragment is from the second chapter and is the description of the ocean.
"Przedmiotem sporu stał się ocean. Uznano go na podstawie analiz za twór organiczny (nazwać go żywym nikt jeszcze podówczas nie chciał. Gdy jednak biologowie widzieli w nim twór prymitywny - coś w rodzaju gigantycznej zespólni, a więc jak gdyby jedną, spotworniałą w swym w swym wzroście, płynną komórkę (ale nazwali go "formacją prebiotyczną"), która cały glob otoczyła galaretowatym płaszczem, o głębokości sięgającej miejscami kilku mil - to astronomowie i fizycy twierdzili, że musi to być struktura nadzwyczaj wysoko zorganizowana, być może bijąca zawiłością budowy organizmy ziemskie, skoro potrafi w czynny sposób wpływać na kształtowanie orbity planetarnej."

Google Translate says this:

"The ocean became the subject of the dispute. On the basis of analyzes, it was considered an organic object (no one wanted to call it alive at the time. But when biologists saw it as a primitive object - a kind of gigantic complex, so it was as if one, monstrous in its its growth, a liquid cell (but they called it "prebiotic formation") that surrounded the entire globe with a jelly-like mantle, sometimes several miles deep - it was astronomers and physicists who argued that it must be an extremely highly organized structure, perhaps beating the complexity of the organism's structure terrestrial, since it can actively influence the formation of the planetary orbit. "

I have not started reading it yet so to start and find.

I just finished reading this book for the second time. I thought it was an interesting take on something so alien,a sentient ocean, trying to make sense of us in the only way it can. By trying to copy us. And us humans trying to make sense of this sentient being that is nothing like us. The alien is really alien. I kind of wonder if there is life we are missing on other planets because its so alien like the alien in Solaris? Maybe i just read too much into the story? It definitely was different.

shannon did you find the paragraph that Ewa_ was talking about in msg 31?

I am glad you enjoyed it and I like books that make you think afterwards about what if's.

Lesle wrote: "shannon did you find the paragraph that Ewa_ was talking about in msg 31?

I am glad you enjoyed it and I like books that make you think afterwards about what if's."

Yes i found that paragraph.

How did you find the interpretation of it? Close to google translate?

This is the translation that I read (translated from the French by J.Kilmartina and S.Cox):

On the basis of the analyses, it had been accepted that the ocean was an organic formation (at that time, no one had yet dared to call it living). But, while the biologists considered it as a primitive formation—a sort of gigantic entity, a fluid cell, unique and monstrous (which they called 'prebiological'), surrounding the globe with a colloidal envelope several miles thick in places—the astronomers and physicists asserted that it must be an organic structure, extraordinarily evolved. According to them, the ocean possibly exceeded terrestrial organic structures in complexity, since it was capable of exerting an active influence on the planet's orbital path.

Solaris translated by Bill Johnston:

The object of their disagreement was the ocean. On the basis of their analyses it had been designated an organic formation (at that time, no one dared say it was alive). Yet while the biologists saw it as a primitive being-something like an immense syncytium, in other words a single, monstrously grown, fluid cell (even though they called it a "prebiological form") that extended across the entire globe in a jelly-like covering whose depth reached several miles in places - the astronomers and physicists, on the other hand, claimed it must be a highly organized structure, perhaps exceeding terrestrial organisms in its complexity, since it was capable of actively influencing the orbit of its plane - for no other cause had been discovered that might explain Solaris's behavoir.

Ewa_ wrote: "I will be able to check how reliable the translation is..."

Hope you can help with this Ewa_. It will definitely
arouse the curiosity of interpretation between translators!

Question:

Do any of the Members read about the Author and tidbits about why he wrote a book before reading the book?

Just wondering...

Lesle wrote: "Ewa_ wrote: "I will be able to check how reliable the translation is..."

Hope you can help with this Ewa_. It will definitely
arouse the curiosity of interpretation between translators!"

I'm after work now, I've eaten, and my mind function good enough to do it tonight ;) I thought about how I will do it, and I have an idea that I hope will be clear.
Thank you, Armin, for the fragment from your book.

I really appreciate this Ewa_
It might help explain some issues with the translation.

Take your time no worries :)

This has been on my TBR for the last year or two! I need to get to this quickly! Is there only one translation available?

Actually Cami there is two that I am aware of in English.
Waiting for Member Ewa_ to let us know which version is more actuate.

Check out messages 29 on.
Ewa_ is a wonderful asset for us with this read as she is from Poland and such a sweet person to do this for us!

Translation 1 (Armin's); Translation 2 (Lesle's)


Przedmiotem sporu stał się ocean. Uznano go na podstawie analiz za twór organiczny

T1: (...). On the basis of the analyses, it had been accepted that the ocean was an organic formation
T2: The object of their disagreement was the ocean. On the basis of their analyses it had been designated an organic formation

("Uznany" - The first translator used accepted and the second designated. First focused on the events of being accepted/admitted, and the second I would say on the happening of marking it as an organic formation.)


(nazwać go żywym nikt jeszcze podówczas nie chciał.

T1: (at that time, no one had yet dared to call it living).
T2: (at that time, no one dared say it was alive)

("Podówczas" is a curious word because it's Polish archaism which means at that time; The next part is at a different time. The first is more accurate because it underlines yet (jeszcze). In the second the translator focused on the fact that it wasn't admitted that it was a living form.


Gdy jednak biologowie widzieli w nim twór prymitywny

T1: But, while the biologists considered it as a primitive formation
T2: Yet while the biologists saw it as a primitive being

(But, while/Yet while? Yet while - is closer to the meaning. (Correct wound be also: But when; However when) "Widzieli" consider or saw? Well, both are correct. The first translator focused on the thinking side of the word and the second translate it more directly which provides the using eyes as the way to identify.


- coś w rodzaju gigantycznej zespólni, a więc jak gdyby jedną, spotworniałą w swym wzroście, płynną komórkę

T1: a sort of gigantic entity, a fluid cell, unique and monstrous
T2: something like an immense syncytium, in other words a single, monstrously grown, fluid cell

At this place, I give a word of approval to the second translator who found the correct, exact translation: syncytium (zespólnia) -
A large cell-like structure formed by the joining together of two or more cells. The rest of the sentence is also well translated.
Single in this place is also more accurate than unique because it is about unity, not its exclusiveness.


(ale nazwali go "formacją prebiotyczną"),

T1: (which they called 'prebiological')
T2: (even though they called it a "prebiological form")

Which/even though? Here would be "but" more accurate because the sentence refers to the sentence in brackets. They didn't want to call it alive, yet they named it "prebiological form".


która cały glob otoczyła galaretowatym płaszczem, o głębokości sięgającej miejscami kilku mil

T1: surrounding the globe with a colloidal envelope several miles thick in places
T2: that extended across the entire globe in a jelly-like covering whose depth reached several miles in places

Colloidal envelope/jelly-like both are good, but the first is more accurate, and the second is more straight.


- to astronomowie i fizycy twierdzili, że musi to być struktura nadzwyczaj wysoko zorganizowana,

T1: the astronomers and physicists asserted that it must be an organic structure, extraordinarily evolved.
T2: the astronomers and physicists, on the other hand, claimed it must be a highly organized structure

Here I like the expression "on the other hand" as the underlining opposition to the biologists. It's been written between the lines.
"Extraordinary evolved" sounds more accurate here than "highly organized structure" because the first underline the second part sentence meaning. On the other hand, the second translator translated it straightly.


być może bijąca zawiłością budowy organizmy ziemskie, skoro potrafi w czynny sposób wpływać na kształtowanie orbity planetarnej.

T1: According to them, the ocean possibly exceeded terrestrial organic structures in complexity, since it was capable of exerting an active influence on the planet's orbital path.
T2: perhaps exceeding terrestrial organisms in its complexity, since it was capable of actively influencing the orbit of its plane - for no other cause had been discovered that might explain Solaris's behavoir.

The first translator changed the rest of the sentence dividing it into two others but giving the main idea.
The first translator changed the rest of the sentence dividing it into two others but giving the main idea.
And the second translated to the hyphen pretty close to the original. After it, the thought was closed in a too-short sentence, which doesn't explain the rest of the author's idea. The sentence after the hyphen is a part of the new sentence in the paragraph.

Żadnej bowiem innej przyczyny, wyjaśniającej zachowanie się Solaris, nie wykryto, ponadto zaś planetofizycy wykryli związek pomiędzy pewnymi procesami plazmatycznego oceanu a mierzonym lokalnie potencjałem grawitacyjnym, który zmieniał się w zależnosci od oceanicznej "przemiany materii".

Lesle wrote: "Actually Cami there is two that I am aware of in English.
Waiting for Member Ewa_ to let us know which version is more actuate.

Check out messages 29 on.
Ewa_ is a wonderful asset for us with t..."

Thank you so much, Lesle! I had a lot of fun analyzing both translations, and it was an enlightening experience. I'm glad I took part in it!

No No...Thank you Ewa!
I so enjoyed going through the process of T1 & T2 and comparing to what was really written. It does give us a better knowledge of how both are at different times seemingly more on point to Lem's actually meanings. It does help to understand the process of a good Translator impact on a read!

This has been wonderful and I hope others take the time to read your analysis!!

Ewa_ wrote: "Translation 1 (Armin's); Translation 2 (Lesle's)



Przedmiotem sporu stał się ocean. Uznano go na podstawie analiz za twór organiczny


T1: (...). On the basis of the analyses, it had been accep..."

I find this so fascinating. Now I’m sorry that I’m not reading this. I did some of this translation comparison a few months ago with We.

Ewa_ wrote: "Translation 1 (Armin's); Translation 2 (Lesle's)
Przedmiotem sporu stał się ocean. Uznano go na podstawie analiz za twór organiczny
T1: (...). On the basis of the analyses, it had been accep..."

Wow Ewa_, thank you for doing this :)