Philip K. Dick: A Visionary Among the Charlatans(depauw.edu)
depauw.edu
Philip K. Dick: A Visionary Among the Charlatans
http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/5/lem5art.htm
4 comments
A fascinating read. I'm no fan of Dick (I am a raving Lem apologist, however), but the case made here is really compelling. Too, it's a nice long read.
Interesting. I am a fan of Dick, but before now had never heard of Lem. I found this a moderately interesting read but nothing that would make me seek out Lem's other writings. I'm curious what he's done that could inspire such esteem. Is there anything in particular of his you'd recommend?
Edit: thanks for the recommendations, everyone.
Edit: thanks for the recommendations, everyone.
Oh man, what a treat for you.
Lem also has another essay about Philip K. Dick in his book Microworlds, you might check that out as well. He is a serious critic of science fiction, and he pillories the genre without mercy; Dick is the only science fiction author he considers worthy. He has zero patience with crowd-pleasers.
Still, he's got a wicked sense of humor. My daughter is reading "Memoirs of a Space Traveller" right now. It's definitely on the light, even funny, end. Start with the light stuff and work your way to the denser material.
I'd say Lem's strengths are his intelligence, his incredible pessimism (rare in a futurist) and his sense of humor, although you'll find only the first two in His Master's Voice, Return from the Stars, and Solaris.
Lem also has another essay about Philip K. Dick in his book Microworlds, you might check that out as well. He is a serious critic of science fiction, and he pillories the genre without mercy; Dick is the only science fiction author he considers worthy. He has zero patience with crowd-pleasers.
Still, he's got a wicked sense of humor. My daughter is reading "Memoirs of a Space Traveller" right now. It's definitely on the light, even funny, end. Start with the light stuff and work your way to the denser material.
I'd say Lem's strengths are his intelligence, his incredible pessimism (rare in a futurist) and his sense of humor, although you'll find only the first two in His Master's Voice, Return from the Stars, and Solaris.
I would suggest reading "The Futurological Congress", compare and contrast to Dick's "Time Out Of Joint". It's pretty clear Dick was a big influence on Lem's later work.
"Return From The Stars" is also pretty good as I recall. Not a big fan of his early Tichy stuff though (it suffers from his own "Agatha Christie" kind of mediocrity IMSHO).
Of course, Solaris is considered his masterwork, for good reason.
[edit] Also, "A Perfect Vacuum" is a one-of-a-kind treat. And now that I'm thinking about it, "His Master's Voice" does "Contact" one better. (in fact it seems like Contact may have ripped Lem off pretty hard...)
[edit2] Damn, he did write a lot of good stuff. The short story "Non Serviam" presaged the Matrix and Greg Egan's Permutation City.
"Return From The Stars" is also pretty good as I recall. Not a big fan of his early Tichy stuff though (it suffers from his own "Agatha Christie" kind of mediocrity IMSHO).
Of course, Solaris is considered his masterwork, for good reason.
[edit] Also, "A Perfect Vacuum" is a one-of-a-kind treat. And now that I'm thinking about it, "His Master's Voice" does "Contact" one better. (in fact it seems like Contact may have ripped Lem off pretty hard...)
[edit2] Damn, he did write a lot of good stuff. The short story "Non Serviam" presaged the Matrix and Greg Egan's Permutation City.
Do you want to start at the heavy end or the light end? Solaris is heavy. The Cyberiad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cyberiad ) is light.
I second the recommendation of The Cyberiad... especially for people interested in computers, robotics, philosophy, and artificial intelligence. It's really brilliant -- and a very easy, fun read.
Thirded. Wacky, but far from mindless, comedy in easily digestible morsels. Also, the English version is probably a translator's master-work.
In addition to this, I recommend A Perfect Vacuum and Imaginary Magnitude, which both fall into the category of "books of reviews of books that don't exist".
I've never been able to get into his novels, though. Mind you I'm not really a fan of science fiction per se.
I've never been able to get into his novels, though. Mind you I'm not really a fan of science fiction per se.
I am a fan of science fiction, but haven't been able to get in to his novels either. I think they're boring. His best stories, by contrast, are hilarious and very fun and easy reads.
Perhaps the issue is that, like so many science fiction authors, his ideas are interesting but his actual writing, characters and dialogue have nothing in particular to recommend them. In short story form, the ideas come and go quickly enough that one doesn't have a chance to get too bored with them. In a novel like Solaris, on the other hand, there's really only one idea and it takes a hell of a lot of words for it to actually get out there.
Asimov is similarly bad at actual writing, but his ideas are sufficiently good and they come sufficiently thick and fast even in his novels that he's still pretty okay to read.
In contrast an author like Neal Stephenson manages to write a science fiction story with proper characters who are interesting to read about even when they're not expounding on some science-fictional idea.
Asimov is similarly bad at actual writing, but his ideas are sufficiently good and they come sufficiently thick and fast even in his novels that he's still pretty okay to read.
In contrast an author like Neal Stephenson manages to write a science fiction story with proper characters who are interesting to read about even when they're not expounding on some science-fictional idea.
It's harder to tell how good an author's writing is when it's in translation. The Cyberiad's writing was absolutely fantastic IMHO. But I can't say if the Polish original was that good. Lem's longer, more serious novels don't sparkle like that, at least in the English translation.
True, though good writing isn't just about good prose and putting well-chosen words in an appropriate order, it's also about more macro-level structure and tension and pacing and characterization.
Good point. However, would you say that Dostoyevsky has tension and pacing? I raise him because Lem does, and to my mind, Lem reads more like Dostoyevsky than like Stephen King. How about Dickens or Victor Hugo?
I admit that I don't know enough (I fail at reading Dostoyevsky) but it is counted as great writing despite lacking in the pace that modern readers desire.
I admit that I don't know enough (I fail at reading Dostoyevsky) but it is counted as great writing despite lacking in the pace that modern readers desire.
How about His Master's Voice? (I've been told it's one of his more dense works, but I haven't yet gotten around to it.)
Loved it. I've not read enough of Lem's output to compare it to his other work. A Lem SF novel that includes information theory works for me.
That's near the heavy end.
Solaris is a neutron star. Heavy.
Golem XIV, by all means.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem_XIV
[deleted]
Solaris.
I think his criticism is a bit overbearing, if not a bit curmudgeonly (in a high-brow sort of way).
Yes, without question most SF published today is tripe. Yes, without question, Dick is a visionary genius. But he is not the only one. There is still excellent literature to be found in the genre. The works of Mary Doria Russell, for example. I would also include Ray Bradbury. I would include Neal Stephenson, but that might be stretching it.
The landscape is changing. Though the pulp SF publishers are not willing to take risks on real intellectual talent, self publishing is beginning to bring excellent work to audiences.
Yes, without question most SF published today is tripe. Yes, without question, Dick is a visionary genius. But he is not the only one. There is still excellent literature to be found in the genre. The works of Mary Doria Russell, for example. I would also include Ray Bradbury. I would include Neal Stephenson, but that might be stretching it.
The landscape is changing. Though the pulp SF publishers are not willing to take risks on real intellectual talent, self publishing is beginning to bring excellent work to audiences.
It looks like this was written in 1975. It is amazing how well the critique of the genre holds up.
What about Neuromanc--oh. 1984. Drat, that's a good 9 years later. Well, I was/am still very fond of Neuromancer and can't wait to get around to reading more of Gibson's other work, along with Dick's work. Does Lem address Gibson at all at any point?
This essay is even more relevant now than it was in 1975, and the same reasoning can (and should) be applied outside of science fiction books.