What do you think?
Rate this book
Microworlds: Writings on Science Fiction and Fantasy
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
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
285 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
About the author
Stanisław Lem
426 books3,992 followersStanisław 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
August 28, 2008
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.
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.
Read
February 19, 2022"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.
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.
February 4, 2008
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.
August 29, 2012
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.
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.
July 31, 2011
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.
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.
August 15, 2022
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.
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.
February 22, 2018
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.)
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.)
July 28, 2019
Dated and cranky.
March 12, 2024
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.
October 6, 2021
For some reason, Lem's choice to announce his 180 IQ on page 3 makes this less convincing rather than more so
January 5, 2023
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.
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.
September 18, 2019
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.
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.
May 11, 2023
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.
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.
June 28, 2019
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.
April 4, 2023
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.
June 18, 2022
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
-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
Read
April 29, 2011- 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
- 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
May 13, 2013
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.
December 1, 2008
Critical essays rather than fiction, not bad so far. It turns out there are a few interesting things to say about science fiction.
March 9, 2011
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.
May 4, 2013
My head hurts. Or is it spinning? I can't tell...
May 29, 2016
Fascinating but intense and sometimes difficult to follow - Lem is one of the classic science fiction writers and here he writes about writing sci fi.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews