First let’s get the translation straight; Wikipedia states there is only one English translation, by Joanna Kilmartin and Steve Cox, and that this is actually a translation of the French translation and, further, that Lem himself, who read English fluently, repeatedly voiced his disappointed in this translation. It further states that an improved translation seems unlikely due to rights issues. However my edition states ‘This is the first English translation directly from the original’ by one Bill Johnston and I have absolutely idea whether this is considered a better or worse translation but I found the prose clumsy and extremely heavy going. So please bear that in mind regarding my comments below!
So what is the book about? I’m not sure I can answer that question. I’m not even sure Lem could have answered it. On a purely prosaic level it is about the planet Solaris. Largely ignored when first discovered as it was calculated that its unstable orbit around a binary pair of stars meant it would shortly be meeting its end, but it later turns out that orbit was somehow being actively managed to maintain stability by what was now interpreted to be a sentient planet; at least the ocean of plasma covering the surface is thought to be sentient. This new understanding has generated much renewed interest in the planet and the possibility of making Contact with it. By the start of the book this research has been ongoing for over a hundred years with the only real progress being the creation of whole libraries of books cataloguing the unfathomable behaviour of the ocean of plasma, of Solaris. Many theories abound but there has been absolutely no success in creating any plausible interpretation of these phenomena. Into this scenario steps Kris Kelvin the newest recruit to the permanent research station on Solaris numbering just four members including Kelvin.
The narrative divides quite distinctly into two separate threads; the human interactions of the research team and the description of the behaviour of the Solaris over the many years it has been studied. The first is handled as a fairly straight forward story narrative as the crew try to understand the ‘ghosts’ so disturbingly created by Solaris from their own memories. The second is handled through an immense amount of incredibly dense pure exposition. Hard to read and simply documenting the history of observations of Solaris’ behaviour over the years and the abortive attempts to understand them. This latter makes up a good half of the text and its sole purpose seems to be to present Solaris as being utterly impenetrable and that ultimately all attempts to understand it are doomed. So effectively half of the book is just descriptions of the incomprehensible actions of the planet which remain to the end of the book unexplained and unexplainable. Very unsatisfying; the only philosophical conclusion seems to be that any attempt to understand any alien intelligence will be inevitably doomed to the same failure.
Due to this lack of understanding and explanation these two threads never really coalesce; the human interactions are almost entirely driven by the actions of Solaris but there is no understanding as to how or why and, most disappointingly, the book never makes any attempt to give any conclusive explanation. It is interesting to consider the three cinematic adaptations of the book; the first was a 1966 Russian two part film for TV, the second another Russian Film made in 1972 and the third, and the one probably most familiar to people in the West, a Hollywood film starring George Clooney made in 2002. What is interesting about these films is that they highlight the dual nature of the book; the first adaption concentrating on the planet Solaris whilst the second two concentrate on the human interactions. Lem himself states that these last two have got it wrong, that ‘This is why the book was entitled "Solaris" and not "Love in Outer Space."’
So we can take it from Lem himself that the main drive of the book is the unfathomable nature of alien intelligence. He provides us with excessively longwinded and dense descriptions of the behaviour of Solaris and never provides any sort of conclusion or explanation for them. Ultimately it all seems rather pointless; to go to such lengths to describe all the bizarre and fantastic activities of Solaris and then to tell the reader that this behaviour can never be understood. I was left feeling why bother? It’s a short book but it took a long time to read, ploughing through all that dense exposition, and at the end left me feeling cheated with no reward for all that effort. Solaris is described as Philosophical SF and maybe I’m just not philosopher enough to appreciate it. A somewhat grudging three stars; it did have some very interesting ideas.
Have one to sell?
Flip to back
Flip to front
Follow the author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
OK
Solaris Paperback – 1 Jan. 2003
by
Stanislaw Lem
(Author)
|
Amazon Price
|
New from | Used from |
|
Kindle Edition
"Please retry"
|
— | — |
| Paperback, 3 Feb. 2003 |
£3.86
|
— | £1.06 |
|
MP3 CD, Audiobook, MP3 Audio, SACD
"Please retry"
|
£5.78 | £5.64 |
-
Kindle Edition
£0.00 This title and over 1 million more are available with Kindle Unlimited £6.99 to buy -
Hardcover
from £350.211 Used from £350.21 -
Paperback
£3.869 Used from £1.06 -
MP3 CD
£8.571 Used from £5.64 4 New from £5.78
-
Print length224 pages
-
LanguageEnglish
-
PublisherFaber & Faber
-
Publication date1 Jan. 2003
-
Dimensions12.6 x 1.5 x 19.8 cm
-
ISBN-100571219721
-
ISBN-13978-0571219728
School Books
From pre-school to A-levels, find School Books for all ages
Shop now
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Customers who bought this item also bought
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Product description
From the Back Cover
When Kris Kelvin arrives at the planet Solaris to study the ocean that covers its surface he is forced to confront a painful, hitherto unconscious memory embodied in the physical likeness of a long-dead lover. Others suffer from the same affliction and speculation rises among scientists that the Solaris ocean may be a massive brain that creates incarnate memories, but its purpose in doing so remains a mystery . . .
'Solaris' raises a question that has been at the heart of human experience and literature for centuries: can we truly understand the universe around us without first understanding what lies within?
'Solaris' raises a question that has been at the heart of human experience and literature for centuries: can we truly understand the universe around us without first understanding what lies within?
About the Author
Born in 1921 in Lvov, Poland, Stanislaw Lem is the prolific and versatile author of novels, short stories, literary criticism, philosophy, parodies and screenplays. Lem is the recipient of many literary awards, most notably the State Prize for Literature in Poland (1976) and the Austrian State Award for European Literature (1985).
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
-
Apple
-
Android
-
Windows Phone
Start reading Solaris on your Kindle in under a minute.
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Kindle Storyteller 2021
The Kindle Storyteller contest celebrates the best of independent publishing. The contest is open for entries between 1st May and 31st August 2021.
Discover the Kindle Storyteller 2021
Product details
- Publisher : Faber & Faber (1 Jan. 2003)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 224 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0571219721
- ISBN-13 : 978-0571219728
- Dimensions : 12.6 x 1.5 x 19.8 cm
-
Best Sellers Rank:
600,646 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- 361 in Radio Communication Studies
- 2,014 in Science Fiction Alternate History
- 3,396 in Film & Television Tie-In
- Customer reviews:
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Customer reviews
4.3 out of 5 stars
4.3 out of 5
1,043 global ratings
How are ratings calculated?
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyses reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Top reviews
Top reviews from United Kingdom
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 12 July 2018
Report abuse
Verified Purchase
28 people found this helpful
Helpful
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 1 April 2017
Verified Purchase
First read this in the late 70s. Since seen the classic Russian sci-fi film and the mediocre American sci-fi film. Treated myself to a new copy and just finished reading it. Still as fascinating as it was when I first read it. The sentient ocean on Solaris digs into the deepest recesses of your mind and brings to life your darkest memory. How can we understand a seemingly intelligent planet when we have only scratched the surface into trying to understand our motives? What is real and what is imagined? Deeply philosophical read.
Ray Smillie
Ray Smillie
22 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 22 September 2018
Verified Purchase
This is a good book, but my heart started to sink whenever the protagonist of the really interesting story about an alien intelligence playing with researchers' minds went "too the Library", as it meant said story was going to be interrupted for several pages with pretentious and pointless (as the book itself is at pains to point out!) exposition about the planet.
The story itself is great, but don't be afraid to skip several pages whenever it descends into dry exposition about previous research attempts and theories.
The story itself is great, but don't be afraid to skip several pages whenever it descends into dry exposition about previous research attempts and theories.
9 people found this helpful
Report abuse
VINE VOICE
5.0 out of 5 stars
It was the Philosophy (very Humean) that I loved and the story and its questions and ideas is a great vehicle.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 22 December 2016Verified Purchase
Having read the Cyberiad and really liked it, this felt necessary. It (or the translator) doesn't share the Cyberiad's extreme inventive vocabulary and it is much darker. Much of the power of the text consists in what we are not told and many questions remain at the end.
Philosophical speculation abounds and the discussions of anthropomorphism in human understanding are interesting. There are allusions to Hume and Paley in discussions of beginnings.
Compare, p.178 “Grastrom set out to demonstrate that the most abstract achievement of science… nothing more than a stumbling progression from our rude anthropomorphic understanding of the universe around us”
With
Hume Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion:
“Anyway, even if we do take the operations of one part of nature on another as our basis for a judgment about the origin of the whole (which is something we should never do), why would we select as our basis such a tiny, weak, limited cause as the reason and design of animals on this planet seems to be? This little agitation of the brain that we call ‘thought’—what special privilege does it have that entitles it to serve as the model of the whole universe? It looms large for us because we are always in the presence of it; but sound philosophy ought carefully to guard against this kind of natural illusion.
So far from admitting, continued Philo, that •the operations of a part entitle us to draw any conclusion about •the origin of the whole, I won’t even allow •any one part to justify conclusions about •another part, if the two are very unlike one another. Is there any reasonable ground to conclude that the inhabitants of other planets have thought, intelligence, reason, or anything similar to these faculties that men have? When nature has operated in such a wide variety of ways on this small planet, can we think that she incessantly copies herself throughout the rest of this immense universe”
And this of course resonates with Lem’s effort to avoid making the other here explicable in human terms; not just a civilisation much like ours, but with a few extra tentacles.
Further compare, pp.206ff “do you happen to know if there was ever a belief in an imperfect God…a sick God…a childish” with Hume:
Secondly, your theory gives you no reason to ascribe perfection to God even in his capacity as a finite being, or to suppose him to be free from every error, mistake, or incoherence in his activities... You must, at least, admit that we with our limited knowledge can’t possibly tell whether this system contains any great faults, or deserves any considerable praise, when compared to other possible systems and perhaps even when compared to real ones. If the Aeneid were read to a peasant, could he judge it to absolutely faultless? Could he even give it proper place in a ranking of the products of human intelligence—he who had never seen any of the others? Even if this world were a perfect product, we still couldn’t be sure whether all the excellences of the work could justly be ascribed to the workman. When we survey a ship, we may get an exalted idea of the ingenuity of the carpenter who built such a complicated, useful, and beautiful machine. But then we shall be surprised to find that the carpenter is a stupid tradesman who imitated others, and followed a trade which has gradually improved down the centuries, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies. ·Perhaps our world is like that ship·. It may be that many worlds were botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, before our present system was built; much labour lost, many useless trials made, and a slow but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the world-making trade. In such subjects as this, who can •determine what is true—who indeed can even •guess what is probable—when so many hypotheses can be put forward, and even more can be imagined? And what shadow of an argument, continued Philo, can you produce, from your hypothesis, to prove that God is one being? A great many men join together to build a house or ship, to found and develop a city, to create a commonwealth; why couldn’t several gods combine in designing and making
a world? This would only serve to make divine activities more like human ones. By sharing the work among several gods we can reduce still further the attributes of each one of them; we can get rid of the extensive power and knowledge that we have to suppose the one God to possess (if there is only one)—the extent of power and knowledge which, according to you, serves merely to weaken the argument for God’s existence. And if such foolish, vicious creatures as men can often unite in forming and carrying out one plan, think how much more could be done by those gods or semi-gods whom we may suppose to be quite a lot more perfect than we are!
I like Hume, so no surprise that I loved this.
Philosophical speculation abounds and the discussions of anthropomorphism in human understanding are interesting. There are allusions to Hume and Paley in discussions of beginnings.
Compare, p.178 “Grastrom set out to demonstrate that the most abstract achievement of science… nothing more than a stumbling progression from our rude anthropomorphic understanding of the universe around us”
With
Hume Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion:
“Anyway, even if we do take the operations of one part of nature on another as our basis for a judgment about the origin of the whole (which is something we should never do), why would we select as our basis such a tiny, weak, limited cause as the reason and design of animals on this planet seems to be? This little agitation of the brain that we call ‘thought’—what special privilege does it have that entitles it to serve as the model of the whole universe? It looms large for us because we are always in the presence of it; but sound philosophy ought carefully to guard against this kind of natural illusion.
So far from admitting, continued Philo, that •the operations of a part entitle us to draw any conclusion about •the origin of the whole, I won’t even allow •any one part to justify conclusions about •another part, if the two are very unlike one another. Is there any reasonable ground to conclude that the inhabitants of other planets have thought, intelligence, reason, or anything similar to these faculties that men have? When nature has operated in such a wide variety of ways on this small planet, can we think that she incessantly copies herself throughout the rest of this immense universe”
And this of course resonates with Lem’s effort to avoid making the other here explicable in human terms; not just a civilisation much like ours, but with a few extra tentacles.
Further compare, pp.206ff “do you happen to know if there was ever a belief in an imperfect God…a sick God…a childish” with Hume:
Secondly, your theory gives you no reason to ascribe perfection to God even in his capacity as a finite being, or to suppose him to be free from every error, mistake, or incoherence in his activities... You must, at least, admit that we with our limited knowledge can’t possibly tell whether this system contains any great faults, or deserves any considerable praise, when compared to other possible systems and perhaps even when compared to real ones. If the Aeneid were read to a peasant, could he judge it to absolutely faultless? Could he even give it proper place in a ranking of the products of human intelligence—he who had never seen any of the others? Even if this world were a perfect product, we still couldn’t be sure whether all the excellences of the work could justly be ascribed to the workman. When we survey a ship, we may get an exalted idea of the ingenuity of the carpenter who built such a complicated, useful, and beautiful machine. But then we shall be surprised to find that the carpenter is a stupid tradesman who imitated others, and followed a trade which has gradually improved down the centuries, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies. ·Perhaps our world is like that ship·. It may be that many worlds were botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, before our present system was built; much labour lost, many useless trials made, and a slow but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the world-making trade. In such subjects as this, who can •determine what is true—who indeed can even •guess what is probable—when so many hypotheses can be put forward, and even more can be imagined? And what shadow of an argument, continued Philo, can you produce, from your hypothesis, to prove that God is one being? A great many men join together to build a house or ship, to found and develop a city, to create a commonwealth; why couldn’t several gods combine in designing and making
a world? This would only serve to make divine activities more like human ones. By sharing the work among several gods we can reduce still further the attributes of each one of them; we can get rid of the extensive power and knowledge that we have to suppose the one God to possess (if there is only one)—the extent of power and knowledge which, according to you, serves merely to weaken the argument for God’s existence. And if such foolish, vicious creatures as men can often unite in forming and carrying out one plan, think how much more could be done by those gods or semi-gods whom we may suppose to be quite a lot more perfect than we are!
I like Hume, so no surprise that I loved this.
6 people found this helpful
Report abuse










