Microworlds: Writings on Science Fiction and Fantasy

by Stanisław Lem

In this bold and controversial examination of the past, present, and future of science fiction, Lem informs the raging debate over the literary merit of the genre with ten arch, incisive, provocative essays.

Reflections on my life --
On the structural analysis of science fiction --
Science fiction : a hopeless case --
with exceptions --
Philip K. Dick : a visionary among the Charlatans --
The time-travel story and related matters of science-fiction structuring --
Metafantasia : the possibilities of science fiction --
Cosmology and science fiction --
Todorov's fantastic theory of literature --
Unitas oppositorum : the prose of Jorge Luis Borges --
About the Strugatsky's Roadside picnic

Genres: Science Fiction, Essays, Literary Criticism, Criticism, Writing, Speculative Fiction, Short Stories

285 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1984

About the author

Stanisław Lem (staˈɲiswaf lɛm) was a Polish science fiction, philosophical and satirical writer of Jewish descent. His books have been translated into 41 languages and have sold over 27 million copies. He is perhaps best known as the author of Solaris, which has twice been made into a feature film. In 1976, Theodore Sturgeon claimed that Lem was the most widely read science-fiction writer in the world.

His works explore philosophical themes; speculation on technology, the nature of intelligence, the impossibility of mutual communication and understanding, despair about human limitations and humankind's place in the universe. They are sometimes presented as fiction, but others are in the form of essays or philosophical books. Translations of his works are difficult and multiple translated versions of his works exist.

Lem became truly productive after 1956, when the de-Stalinization period led to the "Polish October", when Poland experienced an increase in freedom of speech. Between 1956 and 1968, Lem authored 17 books. His works were widely translated abroad (although mostly in the Eastern Bloc countries). In 1957 he published his first non-fiction, philosophical book, Dialogi (Dialogues), one of his two most famous philosophical texts along with Summa Technologiae (1964). The Summa is notable for being a unique analysis of prospective social, cybernetic, and biological advances. In this work, Lem discusses philosophical implications of technologies that were completely in the realm of science fiction then, but are gaining importance today—like, for instance, virtual reality and nanotechnology. Over the next few decades, he published many books, both science fiction and philosophical/futurological, although from the 1980s onwards he tended to concentrate on philosophical texts and essays.

He gained international fame for The Cyberiad, a series of humorous short stories from a mechanical universe ruled by robots, first published in English in 1974. His best-known novels include Solaris (1961), His Master's Voice (Głos pana, 1968), and the late Fiasco (Fiasko, 1987), expressing most strongly his major theme of the futility of mankind's attempts to comprehend the truly alien. Solaris was made into a film in 1972 by Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky and won a Special Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival in 1972; in 2002, Steven Soderbergh directed a Hollywood remake starring George Clooney.

He was the cousin of poet Marian Hemar.

Reviews

[Printable Tire · Rating 5 out of 5]

An extremely dense and provocative collection of essays on science fiction by one of the masters of the genre. Lem's insights are always on the spot, and his criticisms of such sub-genres as the time-travel story are scathing. In the final analysis, the only other science fiction writer besides Lem himself he seems to appreciate is Philip K Dick, specifically his novel Ubik, and perhaps Lem only likes him because he hasn't read enough of Dick's work.

More often than not, I feel Lem has the tendency to not see the forest from the trees (or perhaps the other way around). He criticizes science fiction for falling into the routine of individuals being confronted by science fiction phenomena, and is critical of the fact that the genre pays too much attention to the individuals than with the universal consequences of the phenomena (this is his main bone to pick with Roadside Picnic). It's certainly a valid point, especially when the plot in questions resolves around an unnecessary romantic relationship or something like that, but there would be no science without people, and no people without individuals confronting science. The only novel I've read by Lem, Solaris, is an excellent example of good science fiction precisely because it tackles both the universal and the individual affects of unexplained phenomenon. Apparently Lem would like us all to read some sort of platonic, dry form of science fiction totally devoid of personality, a science fiction that is simply science-fiction, of scientists experimenting in a vacuum. Such work wouldn't be very interesting or entertaining, and this goes a long way to explain why later in life Lem went on to write books that were catalogs of fake books, as if he realized that such science fiction stories would only work as synopsis, that as richly developed concepts they wouldn't be able to breathe.

An extremely intelligent book that shows Lem's well founded embarrassment with the genre of science fiction.

[Simona B]

"It is meaningless to discuss either side's being right or wrong when total destruction has become possible; the only argument worth articulating on the verge of the ultimate catastrophe is that the catastrophe must be averted."

Given Lem's incredible originality as a thinker, I don't know why it surprises me so that his literary criticism should be so idiosyncratic. I found his insistence on the attention that SF should pay to scientific fact at once unexpected, but also, retrospectively, totally in line with his character as a writer. His reasons in supporting this vision are perfectly logical and mostly shareable, from my point of view, but they lead him to formulate somewhat preconceived judgments which I find have actually little to do with the literary phenomenon as such. In other words, the collection is absolutely worth reading for the insight it gives into Lem's own thought, in my opinion, but scarcely so for the critiques it bears in themselves.

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the book that killed my interest in Science Fiction. The reason this book was so important is because Lem dissects the genre without mercy - it's absolutely important for anyone who is interested in reading a scathing (and in my opinion correct) critique of science fiction.

[Melanti · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting; though admittedly I just skimmed a couple of the essays - Neither a PKD nor a Borges fan nor am I familiar with Tordorov's literary theories, so those essays weren't particularly meaningful to me.

I enjoy the occasional Eastern European sci-fi book for the reason that they tend to be incredibly different from mainstream English Language sci-fi, so reading Lem ripping into them for being too formulaic and building off each other's tropes was rather amusing.

However, hearing him dismiss every story that wasn't 100% scientifically and logically accurate nor innovative or creative as "trash" was rather depressing; I have bad memories of a particular literature teacher calling my sci-fi books "trash" so, that brought up some rather unpleasant associations.

Which isn't to say he isn't correct in his criticisms - he completely is.

But he seems pretty set on getting rid of all "trash" books to pull sci-fi up out of the genre gutter, and that, I can't agree with.

I don't always want "great" books. Sometimes I just want Horatio Hornblower set on a spaceship... Is it innovative? No. Is it logical? No. Does it do things you can't do with other genres? No. Is it fun? Oh, yes!


(This is a pretty hypocritical review for me to write cause I'm always nit-picking books and the easiest way for a sci-fi book to earn a low rating from me is for it to have bad science... At least I'm admitting my hypocrisy, though I don't think it makes it any more acceptable.)

[Spacewanderer · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you don't like literary criticism, this isn't the book for you. So, you can just stop reading this review now (or you can just keep going because it isn't that long anyway). However, if you do like literary criticism, and science fiction, I recommend "Microworlds." Aside from a few essays that seem unnecessarily dense and overdrawn, which is relatively common in literary criticism since people who write it are generally egotistical asses, it's quite an enjoyable read. Hell, I finished it in two days and I am world renowned for my slow reading!

What's most interesting is Lem's overall hatred for most science fiction, which he repeatedly refers to as market-driven trash...which I agree with. He does see the brilliance in Philip K. Dick, though, which is good as I don't think I could handle it emotionally if he didn't like Dick (double entendre not intended). At times, though, he is so critical it's as if he's trying to iron all the fun out of the genre. But, overall, it's easy to see his point. On the occasions where I don't agree with him, I still believe he's right and I'm wrong; he was, after all, much smarter than I.

[Williwaw · Rating 4 out of 5]

The full title is "Microworlds: Writings on Science Fiction and Fantasy."

The book contains critical essays on the topics just mentioned, including essays on Philip K. Dick, Jorge Luis Borges, the Strugatsky brothers, and time-travel.

I just read the essay on Dick; some time ago I read the autobiographical essay that opens the book. This is definitely challenging stuff, not beach reading.

[Eric · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dated and cranky.

[Timons Esaias · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first read this collection of essays and articles in the mid-80s, fairly soon after it was published in English. I remember key bits of it (though in some cases I'd forgotten just where I read them) to this day, and was aware that several of my themes were spurred or hardened by this collection.

Closing on four decades later -- having chased down a quote to my copy of MICROWORLDS -- I decided it would be a good idea to read it again, to attach the cables back to the battery, if the terminals aren't too corroded.

I am very glad I did it. I should admit that I am a Big Fan of Stanislaw Lem's fiction, and especially admire his satire. Also his ability to switch from genre to genre, from style to style. If forced to pick the best SF writer of all time, his name would be the one to argue with, for me.

I should also admit that a curious thing about this collection of essays is that I disagree with many of his arguments, and quibble with many of his formulations. The interesting thing, though, is that I don't feel like putting the book aside. I tend to say something like, "That's a very strong formulation of that argument, despite my not admitting its force." This is a book with which I had a lively, extensive, yet productive debate with, almost all the way through.

In one of the pieces here, Lem observes that if you declare a "rule" of science fiction, dozens of writers will immediately set to work writing stories that contravene that rule. That you can do that, and find a market for the product, is what drew me to writing SF in frequent preference to Literary fiction. And my Muse works in this exact perverse way. (I recently wrote, and won an award for, a story with a pillow as the protagonist. When I started taking notes for the story, I realized that I was imagining it from pillow POV. So, I wrote a note to remind myself not to do that; and my Muse and I concurred that one really couldn't do that. But then the Muse said, "But if you did...." and so it happened.) So, this book was the spur to many story ideas, some of which I'm still working with today, all these decades later.

Back when I first read this, I had neither read ROADSIDE PICNIC nor seen the movies [a set of omissions I corrected last year], so I had read the final essay on the book as an abstract discussion about SF in general. I had been drawn to the idea of the incomprehensible (and/or oblivious) alien before I read this, but it confirmed and solidified my intent to follow up and write stories of that type. They have done well for me, so far.

I am reminded by the introduction that "One of Lem's recurrent nightmares is the flood of information whose sheer volume makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find the few good works in the mass of the bad." Fear of the flood of information is itself the theme of Infinite Jest and a good number of other modern works, for good reason. And the specific concern for sorting the good from the weak is why I post here in Goodreads.

One quote, from the end of "Science Fiction: A Hopeless Case --- with Exceptions" is: "Perhaps culture itself will be drowned in the Great Flood of information."

I learned a great deal from Lem's discussions of Kant and Dick (and I wish I'd remembered that he refers to William Tenn in here -- since I read this ten years before I met him) and Ballard and Bradbury, whether I quite agreed or not. That Borges also gets considerable discussion is a definite plus. I also benefitted from his lists of complaints about time travel stories (which helped turn me against them, but helped me sell the ones I have written), and other lists of tropes that pop up here and there.

Favorite observation: "Writers require the resistance of matter as they require air. In literature it is particularly meaningless to storm gates that are standing wide open."

On this reading I marked the book up considerably, with underlinings and snippy marginal notes, like "Says who?" But I wasn't marking books in the 80s, so there is only one thing I underlined back then, and I chose red ink: "A theory of literature either embraces all works or it is no theory."

I could go on and on, but my goal is to suggest that you take this up, especially if you're a writer. I leave this fresh reading of the text encouraged, and with another quiverful of ideas, and with a clearer vision of what I am trying to do as a writer. Obviously, I can recommend it.

[Carolina Silva Rodé · Rating 3 out of 5]

De acuerdo con mucho (me encanta quejarme, como todo el mundo sabe, y a Lem, a todas luces, también), en desacuerdo con bastante. Muchos comentarios sencillamente ya no están vigentes. En particular, la discusión sobre "Upper Realm" vs "Lower Realm" de la literatura ya no tiene ningún sentido, porque todo lo que Lem dice del lower realm ahora es verdad de absolutamente todo.
O sea: rip Stanislaw Lem you would have loved the inexorable degeneration of the publishing industry.
En una tira una muy cómica tipo "idiotic stories are written for idiotic readers" y la verdad que sí, Estanislao, pero si todas las stories son idioti stories realmente ahora quién podrá ayudarnos.

Y otra cosa: mientras leía a este loco dando vueltas para nunca admitir que algo le gusta o le parece bueno, hacer unas piruetas para encontrar, en todo, algo de qué quejarse, pensaba: ¿así es hablar conmigo? Dios santo. Hay algo que uno capaz siente a los 22 o 23 cuando es un tuitero misantrópico, como una noción de que disfrutar cosas es cringe, o más bien un riesgo porque las opiniones cambian (la propia también) y capaz lo que hoy elogiamos nos parece malo cuando sabemos más del tema. Lo entiendo porque yo era así, o soy así, pero ahora al menos lo tengo presente y lo controlo. Hay una valentía en admitir que algo nos gusta mucho sin abrir el paraguas, sin anticipar las críticas de otros, sin prepararnos para la eternidad del tiempo. Lem tiene como una inseguridad, que identifica en otros en el primer ensayo del libro pero no la ve en sí mismo. Es como que le da un poco de vergüenza la ciencia ficción, y dice que es por la calidad paupérrima de la mayoría de las obras, que ok, cierto, pero parece que es más que eso. Le da vergüenza la ciencia ficción y se pasa hablando de ese "Upper Realm" que parece que imagina leyendo sus ensayos y cringeando cuando halaga a Philip K. Dick, por ejemplo, entonces para esa audiencia imaginada agrega "bueno, igual ya sé que es una mierda Dick, todas sus fortalezas son accidentales, pero bueno, es mejor que otros, yo qué sé, me gusta, pero en serio ya sé que es malo, perdónenme". Menos! Menos de esto! No sos un tuitero de 22 años! Basta!

En fin, se me hizo cuesta arriba pero quizás por razones extratextuales, como mirar una foto mía de hace 10 años. No sorprende a nadie que hace 10 años leí este libro y lo icé como bandera.
✨ growth ✨

[Derek · Rating 3 out of 5]

For some reason, Lem's choice to announce his 180 IQ on page 3 makes this less convincing rather than more so

[Jake Theriault · Rating 4 out of 5]

Certainly some of the most provocative writing on the SFF genre, even if some of Lem's more pessimistic views of the future of SFF writing have been proven blessedly wrong by the authors of the 21st century. I dread that I may one day write something that prompts the pen of another, would-be literary analyst to write of me as Lem did some of his contemporaries, but conversely I can dream that someone might one day write of me as Lem did of Philip K. Dick, as A Visionary Among the Charlatans. Heck of a title.

[Eva Gahn · Rating 3 out of 5]

DNF for the time being to focus on other things. I enjoy literary criticism, but the English translation of these essays is difficult to follow if one isn’t seriously locked in, and my attention is elsewhere right now.

[Carrie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have been looking forward to reading Lem for a while, having heard how brilliant he is. No doubt his fiction is (just started Solaris). This book of criticism, however, is dated beyond being useful, in my opinion. He excoriates the landscape of SF as it existed in the 50s and 60s, maybe earlier. Even if he was right about how unimaginative and vapid it was, the current landscape doesn’t resemble his descriptions at all. Furthermore, he betrays a very narrow perspective on what makes for “good” literature, in ways that are rightly rejected today for being elitist and limited. He seems to think that for a book to be good it must accomplish a brief list of particular things that mid-twentieth century (white European) literature snobs valued and if it doesn’t, its low-brow trash. For these reasons and more I just found his long-form rants difficult to read and, frankly, a waste of time. Aside from being verbose and repetitive, he was railing against something that just doesn’t exist anymore.

It makes me sad to see people write that this book made them less interested in reading SF. Go read some Ted Chiang, Dan Simmons, Octavia Butler, Frank Herbert, Neal Stephenson or so many others who write brilliant things, even if they are brilliant in ways that differ from James fucking Joyce (now there’s some truly unreadable “canonical literature”).

This book was very disappointing. Hopefully Solaris is better.

[Zach · Rating 4 out of 5]

Microworlds is Lem at his most haughty, but it would be difficult to refute his arguments. He absolutely rips American science fiction, and on the whole I agree. He praises PKD but also criticizes him harshly -- and I agree entirely with Lem's criticism of Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep? -- but Lem needed to be more careful in his discussion of Dick because he hadn't read a number of Dick's key works, such as A Scanner Darkly and The Man in the High Castle, to name a couple. Still, very high praise from Lem, particularly for Ubik. Lem's analysis of Ubik and his refutation of certain criticism of Dick's masterpiece is spot on.

Anyway, it's not all about Dick. One of my favourite pieces in the collection is "The Time-Travel Story and Related Matters of Science-Fiction Structuring", in which Lem overviews various paradoxes of time travel and how they have been treated in science fiction writing. He then proceeds from this perspective to a discussion of what makes good science fiction writing in general. The result is an excellent, useful essay for science fiction readers and writers alike. "Cosmology and Science Fiction", a short piece in which Lem discusses the unused potential of science fiction to explore cosmological theories (and gets in the obligatory roasting of his contemporary science fiction writers in the process), is another of my favourite essays in the collection.

Lem totally disassembles and scatters the shreds of Todorov's theory of literature, quite convincingly. Then the collection concludes with two critical pieces: one on Borges, and another on the Strugatsky brothers' Roadside Picnic.

Lem could not heap higher praise on Borges, but progresses to sharp criticism: Borges, in Lem's view, had a limited imagination, and while his greatest stories are among the greatest stories ever written, if you read too much Borges you see the same literary formula recycled again and again, which spoils the magic to an extent. (It is important to note that this criticism applies only to Borges' fiction; Lem does not discuss Borges' non-fiction, which in my view includes much of his greatest writing.)

Lem follows a similar formula with Roadside Picnic, heaping well-deserved praise on the novel before explaining how the Strugatskys slipped dearly by failing to address and reject a possible theory of the Visitation Zones: that they were the product of an accident, that is, that an advanced alien civilization intended to send a "consignment" of wondrous, beneficial artifacts to Earth for the betterment of human society, but due to a catastrophe when entering Earth's atmosphere (e.g. a malfunction in the spacecraft or other storage equipment onboard the craft) the contents of this consignment were damaged, spoiled into a dangerous malformation of what was intended. Lem opines that the Strugtaskys avoided this possibility because it did not fit well with their goal of making the Zones seem intentionally menacing. But by not canvassing this possibility and showing why it could not have been the case, the novel cannot escape such an interpretation, leaving a glaring, inexplicable hole in the story and the behaviour of the characters. I thought that was a pretty solid point.

To conclude, in Microworlds Lem brings to bear the full force of his structured, independent thinking, and damn is he an able critic.

[Googoogjoob · Rating 2 out of 5]

This isn't really a cohesive work- it's a collection of writings assembled of reviews, essays, afterwords, etc, all but the first of which have to do with speculative fiction. They're of greatly variable interest- eg the chapters specifically about Philip K. Dick, Jorge Luis Borges, or Roadside Picnic will be of no particular interest unless you're familiar with the relevant works; and even the more broadly-interesting pieces are very dense and arcane. I did not get a lot out of the book as a whole.

The main thing that struck me about the work is how high and how rigorous Lem's standards were- he's dismissive of most science fiction, including most of his earlier work.

He wants intellectual rigor, and speculative premises pursued to their reductio ad absurdum and beyond, and he disparages authors who simply use their premises as stages for the re-enactment of hoary old story-types. In this he would seem to be in sympathy with the "hard" sci-fi authors of the old "golden age" school, but he disparages them as simple artisans rather than true artists, incapable of producing or recognizing literary greatness.

He wants science fiction to be capable of occupying the "upper floor" of high art, where an informed audience is capable of selecting and savoring the best works, and eventually building a canon of essential pieces. And yet he is also not especially in sympathy with the New Wavers- he has little time for psychology or drama, and seems to want a literature of pure ideas.

Really, Lem's issue was with the way in which science fiction is produced and consumed, which is probably intrinsic to an era of mass media and mass literacy. Probably his ideal literature of ideas would not have so great a time even under the optimal conditions of production and consumption- few of even the most refined readers would consistently prefer totally cerebral works exploring ideas as far as they can be taken with minimal or no narrative or human components.

In his focus on the purely intellectual aspects of literature, and his disparagement of the viscerally human elements- adventure, drama, escapism, etc- Lem sort of painted himself into a corner. Holding himself close to his ideals, he was able to produce incredible art that bears little similarity to anything anyone else was doing, but it became ever more arcane and ever less influential in turn- eg his early and relatively accessible Solaris has been more influential and imitated than has been the very dry, difficult, and yet more idea-rich A Perfect Vacuum. I imagine his raising standards also have much to do with the tapering-off of his production of fiction- Lem lived until 2006, but his last novel was published in 1986, and he wrote almost no new fiction in the last two decades of his life.

[SciFi Pinay · Rating 4 out of 5]

"...whatever reaps immediate applause as a best seller will be identified with what is most worthwhile. That would be a gloomy prospect."

Not sure how to feel about the overall mercilessly cynical tone, Lem has probably burned bridges with Microworlds -- a collection of critical essays pertaining to the SF genre. He has come off almost snobby with his criticisms of SF writers even when he's probably right, but I guess someone has to say it. Some of the essays are:

Reflections on My Life: a glimpse of Lem's childhood, including anecdotes of his father's brush with death and almost making his existence impossible, to his writer's mindset to explain his thought processes in creating his popular works

On the Structural Analysis of Science Fiction: slamming most scifi as an "empty game", as well as creating strict literary boundaries separating science fiction and fantasy passing off as empirical science in the Golden Age of SF; "The difference between the real world and the fantastic world arises... step by step... as that which turns a head full of hair into a bald head... when does balding begin--with the loss of 10,000 hairs or 10,950? ...the paradox of the balding head exists also in realistic fiction, but there at least we have a guide... We lose this guide when reading portrayals of the future or of galactic empires."

Science Fiction: A Hopeless Case--with Exceptions: the exception would be PKD (somewhat; he has praised "Ubik" and disliked "Do Androids Dream...?"); attacks gimmicky advertising and Damon Knight; "Perhaps culture itself will be drowned in the Great Flood of information."

Philip K. Dick: A Visionary Among the Charlatans: lol, what more can I say...

Cosmology and Science Fiction: "A singularity is a place that... cannot be domesticated."

About the Strugatskys' "Roadside Picnic": whew, Lem has found this praiseworthy while "the overwhelming majority of science-fiction texts can serve as examples of how not to tackle the theme of invasion"

As uncomfortable as I am with what he has *really* thought of the genre as a whole aka the blunt truth, if Lem was still alive today, I wonder what he would think of contemporary SF...

[Gregory Wallace · Rating 4 out of 5]

I mostly checked this book out so I could read one of it's essays: Science Fiction: A Hopeless Case - With Exceptions. Lem had been given an honorary membership in the Science Fiction Writers of America which was revoked after the publication of this essay or at least excerpts from it. The essay is highly critical of both science fiction and the subculture which surrounded it. He considers most science fiction full of banalities and its fans to be bordering on the illiterate. I don't necessarily agree with his assessment, and I think science fiction readership has changed significantly since that time.
However Lem was quite prophetic in singling out Philip K. Dick as the one exception. Dick was not all that well known at that time (1972 or so) compared to other authors such as Isaac Asimov whom Lem disparages. Certainly not nearly so well regarded either. However, Lem finds in Dick a brilliant if flawed author whose best work (The Three Stigmata Of Palmer Eldritch and Ubik are the books most highly regarded by Lem and I would concur) is truly visionary. Also quite interesting is another essay called Philip K. Dick: A Visionary Among the Charlatans, which continues along the same lines.
I also enjoyed Unitas Oppositorum: The Prose of Jorge Luis Borges and About the Strugatskys' Roadside Picnic.
Generally I prefer it when Lem writes about specific works as when he doesn't the discussion gets pretty hard to follow. One thing I can say about Lem is that he always writes on a high intellectual level and "dumbing things down" is not something he ever does.

[R · Rating 5 out of 5]

IVE SAID IT BEFORE AND ILL SAY IT TIL I DIE. LEM YOU ARE THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wow this is an insanely good collection. i need to read more of his essays it’s sooo crazy imperative.
a lot of the other reviews mention his cynicism or say it made them hate science fiction but if this is the reaction that you had to his writings here then you never really loved science fiction in the first place. because stanislaw lem LOVES science fiction and it’s only through hatred and criticism that he can express that love. and if you dont understand that then you are neither a real hater or a true lover.
anyway. what a collection. firstly im very glad i paused in the middle of this to familiarize myself with dick and borges not only because it would have been useless not to, but because those reads and this one were immensely elevated by doing so. specifically his writings on ubik gave me a huge dose of perspective. and it's not just what he had to say about the genre, but the culture, i mean entire essays on FANDOM, from 40-50 years ago that i still think should be read by everyone who engages in fan culture today.
even when i disagreed with lem i still think the fact that he was compelled to say it shoud such a deep level of both understanding, care, and respect that the genre has been lacking in for the entirety of its existence. ugh.
im going to reread solaris asap i miss him. like that is a braaaaain.

[Nathan Hopper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not ashamed to say that I was very humbled by this book initially. I squirmed and struggled my way up to the 106th page before everything started to really come together for me, and even then it required my complete attention.

It's an odd twist of fate that I even ended up with this book in my hand in the first place, because I just about passed by without even seeing it incorrectly filed under "spy and war" at my local thrift store. By this same twist of fate, I had most recently finished 3 of the 4 books Lem references in his critiques of science fiction: Dick's Ubik, the Strugatski brothers' Roadside Picnic, and select stories from Borges' Ficciones. While I often found myself needing to vocally read out entire (very verbose) passages, Lem's logic is so surgical and intuitive that even if you may disagree with the overall concepts he brings forward, you cannot argue that the base upon which it stands is not completely sound.

I am happy to own a copy of this book, as I will definitely be revisiting it, especially as I inevitably return to the 3 novels previously mentioned.

[Robert Hudder · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of essays critiquing science fiction. I enjoyed this quite a bit. I mean, it stops in 1984 before there was some movement towards a better science fiction. I think that some later sci fi might temper some of his harshness about the traps that this genre has set for itself.

One of the main arguments is that sci fi often functions the same way as fantasy and doesn't set itself any real problems. Because of that, it falls flat as literature. I am oversimplifying the whole thing but the dude has a point.

For anyone who wants to write genre fiction, I think this is a good challenging set of essays. There is nothing wrong with writing entertainments but to set yourself up to be a future telling or important genre while undermining runs counter. There are some clear ideas on how to stay out of this trap included or at least a good description of the problems.

[Luke Dylan Ramsey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Overall grade: A-/A

I didn’t love every single essay in this collection, but I did love the collection overall. Lem is a truly innovative thinker who shows how smart he is on nearly every page. I did find some of the essays a bit nebulous in terms of what they were attempting to communicate. Lem can come off as nitpicky and a bit of a curmudgeon. He is super smart though, and it’s really cool, also amazing, that he chose to write science fiction as his vocation, given that, with his monstrous intellect, he could have chosen almost any job. His choice to write vindicates my own creative writing endeavors.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

For a collection of essays on science fiction, there are actually a lot of ideas of broad relevance here, such as Lem's thoughts on the role of criticism as a substitute for first-hand experience of a medium, or the commercialisation of genre fiction as a disposable product. I dare say that there are many other genres and media that these lessons could be applied to.

[Sellmeagod · Rating 3 out of 5]

Personal takes on writing about the universe: lots of criticism for those who do it thoughtlessly. Lem knows what he wants great sci-fi to look like, and he's unafraid to make an aesthetic argument. Lots of great takeaways and philosophical points as well, even when you don't get all the references.

[Iris · Rating 4 out of 5]

literary criticism by lem. my takeaway:
-philip k dick - hints of genius but leans towards trash writing. masterpiece = ubik
-jorge luis borges - writes as he was, a librarian. recommends = three versions of judas
-thomas mann is the aspiration for high-brow writing

[Joshua Friesen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Classic Lem fun.

[Audreyx · Rating 4 out of 5]

first book i finished during school that’s not assigned in a class😍we love u lem🥰🥰4.5 stars

[Paola]

- sulla mia vita
- per un'analisi strutturale della fantascienza
- fantascienza: un caso disperato con qualche eccezione
- le disarmonie prestabilite di philip k. dick
- viaggi nel tempo e altri temi di fantascienza applicata
- congiunzioni metafantastiche
- fantascienza e cosmologia
- lo scienziato immaginario: tzvetan todorov teorico del fantastico
- unitas oppositorum: la prosa di j. l. borges
- strategie fantascientifiche: arkadij e boris strugackij

[Vince · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book as it is more about the author, what he thinks, and why he writes the why he writes. Good insight. I would recommend this to folks who not only love Science Fiction but want to see into the mind of an author.

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Critical essays rather than fiction, not bad so far. It turns out there are a few interesting things to say about science fiction.

[Lolotehe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not short-stories, but essays by a master. His monograph on "Roadside Picnic" is a good look at alien invasion tales and should be required reading for any sci-fi author.