Microworlds Page 25

  The authors claim — and I have discussed this point with them — that the convergence in the Golden Ball of fairy-tale motif and the Horrific originates solely in the human mind and is a product of chance and human fantasy. Yet, as we have previously stated, one must not arrange all too many “coincidences” that all point in one and the same direction; for it then becomes incredible that they came about by chance. Besides, the last expedition into the Zone does not have the generic attributes of science fiction. The realistic frame for the events transforms itself into that of a fairy tale,[21] because the “coincidences” following one upon the next amount, as we have already observed, to the stereotypic quest for the accursed treasure, though they ought not be identical with any stereotype. The mystery is not consistently preserved to the very end; behind it, the truth keeps shimmering through, since we no doubt have an idea about who the visitors are: they are, once more, monsters, albeit invisible monsters.

  The authors attempt to distract the reader from this thought, which flatly forces itself upon us. They stress, for example, that the Golden Ball seen from a distance gives the impression that an unknown giant has accidentally lost it. That, however, is not the correct tactic. It is not the authors’ commentary that should divert us from the structurally obtrusive solution, but the events themselves in their objective unfolding. Then, too, the strong impact the epilogue makes spoils the outstanding impression the book makes overall.

  Max Frisch transposed the Oedipus myth into our contemporary reality in his novel Homo Faber, wherein the father as unknowingly enters into an incestuous relationship with his daughter as Oedipus did with his mother. Frisch managed the events of the novel in such a way that each possesses a normal, realistic verisimilitude, while together they structurally correspond to the Oedipus myth. The difference between Homo Faber’s affinity for myth and Roadside Picnic’s for the fairy tale lies herein: that Frisch had in mind the achieved similarity while the Strugatskys by no means desired it. That is the very reason why I say that they “have defeated their own purposes,” because only discretion in the arrangement of events could have guarded the end of the story against an unwanted connection with the main plot and hence with the ethos of a fairy tale.

  A theologian would have had no difficulty preserving the mystery in Roadside Picnic, for he can employ contradictions. But since science does not have such a recourse, it is not an exaggeration for me to say that the difficulties of a fantasy writer who sides with science are generally greater than those of a theologian who acknowledges the perfection of God… .

  Translated from the German by Elsa Schieder and Robert M. Philmus

  Bibliography

  Essays

  “About Myself,” Poland, no. 124 (December 1964): 12-13.

  “About the Strugatskys’ Roadside Picnic” (“Poslowie”), Afterword to Arkady and Boris Strugatsky’s Piknik na skraju drogi (Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1977); in English: Science-Fiction Studies 10, no. 31 (November 1983): 317-331.

  “Cosmology and Science Fiction” (“Science Fiction und Kosmologie”), Science-Fiction Studies 4, no. 12 (July 1977): 107-110. Reprinted in Science-Fiction Studies: Selected Articles on Science Fiction 1976-1977, ed. by R. D. Mullen and Darko Suvin (Boston: Gregg Press, 1978), pp. 214-217.

  “Culture and Futurology” (a chapter from Stanislaw Lem’s Summa Technologiae), Polish Perspectives 16, no. 1 (1973): 30-38.

  “A Kind of Credo” (“Eine Art Credo”), Quarber Merkur 31 (July 1972); in English: The Yale Literary Magazine 150, no. 5 (1984), pp. 1-2.

  “Looking Down on Science Fiction: A Novelist’s Choice for the World’s Worst Writing” (“Science-fiction oder die verunglückte Phantasie”), Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (February 22, 1975); in English: Science-Fiction Studies 4, no. 12 (July 1977): 126-127.

  “Metafantasia: The Possibilities of Science Fiction” (“Zakonczenie metafantastyczne”), from Stanislaw Lena’s Fantastyka i futurologia, tom II (Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1970); in English: Science-Fiction Studies 8, no. 23 (March 1981): 54-70.

  “On the Structural Analysis of Science Fiction” (“Eine strukturalistische SF-Betrachtung”), Quarber Merkur 23 (May 1970); in English: as “Introduction to a Structural Analysis of SF,” Science Fiction Commentary, no. 9 (February 1970): 34-44. Reprinted in Science-Fiction Studies I, no. I (Spring 1973): 26-33, and in Science-Fiction Studies: Selected Articles on Science Fiction 1973-1975, ed. by R. D. Mullen and Darko Suvin (Boston: Gregg Press, 1976), pp. 1-8.

  “Philip K. Dick: A Visionary Among the Charlatans” (“Poslowie”), Afterword to Philip

  K. Dick’s Ubik (Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1975); in English: Science-Fiction Studies 2, no. 5 (March 1975): 54-67. Reprinted in Science-Fiction Studies: Selected Articles on Science Fiction 1973-1975, ed. by R. D. Mullen and Darko Suvin (Boston: Gregg Press, 1976), pp. 210-223.

  “Planetary Chauvinism: Speculation on the ‘Others’ “ (“Stimmen aus dem All”), Playboy (German edition), August 1977; in English: Second Look I, no. 10 (August 1979): 5-9.

  “Poland: Science Fiction in the Linguistic Trap” (“Polen: Science Fiction in der linguistischen Falle”), Quarber Merkur 20 (August 1969); in English: The Journal of Omphalistic Epistemology, Supplement No. 1 (August 1969): 1-6. Reprinted in Science Fiction Commentary, no. 9 (February 1970): 27-33, and in Science Fiction Commentary, no. 19 (January-February-March 1971): 89-94.

  “Reflections for 1974” (“Refleksja 1974”), Kultura, no. 26 (1974); in English: Polish Perspectives 17, no. 10 (October 1974): 3-8.

  “Reflections on My Life” (“Mein Leben”), as “Chance and Order,” The New Yorker, January 30,1984, pp. 88-98. Reprinted as “Stanislaw Lem, 1921- “ in Contemporary Authors Autobiography Series, ed. by Cedria Bryfonski (Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1984), I, 255-266.

  “Remarks Occasioned by Dr. Plank’s Essay ‘Quixote’s Mills,’ “ Science-Fiction Studies I, no. 2 (Fall 1973): 78-83.

  “Robots in Science Fiction” (“Roboter in der Science Fiction”), Quarber Merkur 21 (November 1969); in English: The Journal of Omphalistic Epistemology, no. 3 (January 1970): 8-20. Reprinted in Science Fiction Commentary, no. 19 (January-March 1971): 117-130, and in SF: The Other Side of Realism, ed. by Thomas D. Clareson (Bowling Green, Ohio: The Popular Press, 1971), pp. 307-326.

  “Science Fiction: A Hopeless Case — with Exceptions” (“Science Fiction: Ein hoffnungsloser Fall — mit Ausnahmen”), Quarber Merkur 29 (January 1972); in English: Science Fiction Commentary, nos. 35-37 (July-September 1973): 7-35. Reprinted in Philip K. Dick: Electric Shepherd, ed. by Bruce Gillespie (Melbourne: Norstrilia Press, 1975), pp. 69-94. “Appendix: Ubik as Science Fiction” reprinted, as “Science and Reality in Philip K. Dick’s Ubik,” in A Multitude of Visions, ed. by Cy Chauvin (Baltimore: T-K Graphics, 1975), pp. 35-39.

  “Sex in Science Fiction” (“Sex in Science Fiction”), Quarber Merkur 25 (January 1971); in English: Science Fiction Commentary, no. 22 (July 1971): 2-10, 40-49.

  “The Ten Commandments: Some Remarks on ‘Paingod and Other Stories’ by Harlan Ellison,” untitled letter in Quarber Merkur 20 (August 1969); in English: The Journal of Omphalistic Epistemology, Supplement No. I (August 1969): 6-7. Reprinted, as “The Ten Commandments for Reading the Magazines,” in Science Fiction Commentary, no. 6 (September 1969): 26; in Science Fiction Commentary, no. 19 (January-March 1971): 9496; and in Science Fiction Commentary Reprint Edition: First Year 1969, SF Commentary Nos. 1-8, ed. by Bruce Gillespie (Melbourne: Bruce Gillespie, 1982), p. 106.

  “The Time-Travel Story and Related Matters of Science Fiction Structuring” (“Struktura swiata i struktura dziela II: Fantastyka”), from Stanislaw Lem’s Fantastyka i futurologia, tom I (Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1970); in English: Science-Fiction Studies I, no. 3 (Spring 1974): 143-154. Reprinted in Science-Fiction Studies: Selected Articles on Science Fiction 1973-1975, ed. by R. D. Mullen and Darko Suvin (Boston: Gregg Press, 1976), pp. 16-27, and in Science Fiction, ed. by Mark Ros
e (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976), pp. 72-88.

  “To My Readers,” Poland, no. 225 (May 1973): 6-9.

  “Todorov’s Fantastic Theory of Literature” (“Tzvetana Todorova fantastyczna teoria literatury”), Teksty 5, no. II (1973); as “Tzvetan Todorovs Theorie des Phantastischen,” Quarber Merkur 34 (July 1973); in English: Science-Fiction Studies I, no. 4 (Fall 1974): 227-237.

  “Unitas Oppositorum: The Prose of Jorge Luis Borges” (“Unitas Oppositorum: Das Prosawerk des J. L. Borges”), Quarber Merkur 24 (January 1971); in English: Science Fiction Commentary, no. 20 (April 1971): 33-38, Reprinted in edge, nos. 5/6 (Autumn/Winter 1973): 99-102.

  Interviews

  “Amazing Interview: A Conversation with Stanislaw Lem,” by L. W. Michaelson, Amazing Science Fiction Stories 27, no. 10 (January 1981): 116-119.

  “The Future Without a Future: An Interview with Stanislaw Lem,” by Zoran Zivkovic, Pacific Quarterly 4, no. 3 (July 1979): 255-259.

  “An Interview with Stanislaw Lem,” by Anne Brewster, Science Fiction 4, no. I (n.d.): 68.

  “An Interview with Stanislaw Lem,” by Peter Engel (with John Sigda), The Missouri Review 7, no. 2 (1984): 218-237.

  “An Interview with Stanislaw Lem,” by Raymond Federman, Science-Fiction Studies 10, no. 29 (March 1983): 2-14.

  “Knowing Is the Hero of My Books,” by Andrzej Ziembicki, Polish Perspectives, 22, no. 9 (September 1979): 64-69.

  “Lem: Science Fiction’s Passionate Realist,” by Peter Engel, The New York Times Book Review, March 20,1983, pp. 7, 34-35.

  “Promethean Fire: An Interview with Stanislaw Lem,” Soviet Literature 5, no. 239 (1968): 166-170.

  “Stanislaw Lem — an Interview,” by Daniel Say, Entropy Negative, no. 6 (1973): 3-24 (unnumbered). Reprinted, as “An Interview with Stanislaw Lem,” in The Alien Critic 3, no. 10 (August 1974): 4-14.

  “Stanislaw Lem: The Profession of Science Fiction XV: Answers to a Questionnaire,” Foundation, no. 15 (January 1979): 41-50.

  “You Must Pay for Any Progress: An Interview with the Polish SF Writer Stanislaw Lem,” by Bozena Janicka, Science Fiction Commentary, no. 12 (June 1970): 19-24. Reprinted from Sovetskaya Kultura, November 30, 1968.

  Letters

  June 24, 1970. Science Fiction Commentary, no. 14 (August 1970): 5-6, 20.

  January 13, 1972. Science Fiction Commentary, no. 26 (April 1972): 28-29.

  “A Letter to Mr. Farmer.” Science Fiction Commentary, no. 29 (August 1972): 10-12.

  May 7, 1972. Science Fiction Commentary, no. 29 (August 1972): 9, 43-44.

  September 9, 1974. Science Fiction Commentary, nos. 41/42 (February 1975): 90-92.

  “In Response” (to criticism of his “Todorov’s Fantastic Theory of Literature”). Science-Fiction Studies 2, no. 6 (July 1975): 16-17.

  “In Response (to Professor Benford’s remarks on Lem’s essay “Cosmology and Science Fiction”). Science-Fiction Studies 5, no. 14 (March 1978): 92-93.

  February 6,1980. Science Fiction Commentary, nos. 60/61 (June 1981): 4.

  Reviews

  “From Big Bang to Heat Death,” extract from “Von Wissenschaft und Pseudowissenschaft,” Quarber Merkur 52 (January 1980); in English: Second Look 2, no. 2 (January-February 1980): 38-39. On Paul Davies’s The Runaway Universe.

  “Lost Opportunities” (“M. K. Josephs Roman The Hole in the Zero”), Quarber Merkur 27 (July 1971) and untitled review, Quarber Merkur 25, (January 1971); in English: Science Fiction Commentary, no. 24 (November 1971): 17-24. On The Hole in the Zero by M. K. Joseph, and The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin.

  “Only a Fairy Tale,” untitled review in Quarber Merkur 31 (July 1972); in English: Science Fiction Commentary, no. 51 (March 1977): 8-9. On Robert Silverberg’s A Time of Changes.

  “On Science, Pseudo-Science, and Some SF” (“Von Wissenschaft und Pseudowissenschaft”), Quarber Merkur 52 (January 1980); in English: Science-Fiction Studies 7, no. 22 (November 1980): 330-338. On Other Senses, Other Worlds by Doris and David Jonas; Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgement to Calculation by Joseph Weizenbaum; Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky; Lifetide: The Biology of the Unconscious by Lyall Watson; The Martian Inca by Ian Watson; The Crash of Seventy-Nine by Paul Erdman; and The Third World War: August 1985 by Sir John Hackett.

  “Robbers of the Future” (by Sakyo Komatsu), review in Quarber Merkur 27 (July 1971); in English: Science Fiction Commentary, no. 23 (September 1971): 17-18.

  “The Space Flight Revolution” (by William Sims Bainbridge), Science-Fiction Studies 6, no. 18 (July 1979): 221-222.

  “Two Ends of the World” (by Antoni Slonimski), review in Quarber Merkur 57 (July 1982); in English: The Missouri Review 7, no. 2 (1984), pp. 238-242.

  Copyright

  “Reflections on My Life,” The New Yorker, January 30, 1984, copyright © 1984 by Stanislaw Lem; reprinted by permission. “On the Structural Analysis of Science Fiction,” Science-Fiction Studies, Spring 1973, copyright © 1973 by R. D. Mullen and Darko Suvin. “Science Fiction: A Hopeless Case — with Exceptions,” Science Fiction Commentary, July-September 1973, copyright © 1972 by Stanislaw Lem and Franz Rottensteiner. “Philip K. Dick: A Visionary Among the Charlatans,” Science-Fiction Studies, March 1975, copyright © 1975 by R. D. Mullen and Darko Suvin. “The Time-Travel Story and Related Matters of Science-Fiction Structuring,” Science-Fiction Studies, Spring 1974, copyright © 1974 by R. D. Mullen and Darko Suvin. “Metafantasia: The Possibilities of Science Fiction,” Science-Fiction Studies, March 1981, copyright © 1981 by SFS Publications. “Cosmology and Science Fiction,” Science-Fiction Studies, July 1977, copyright © 1977 by R. D. Mullen and Darko Suvin. “Todorov’s Fantastic Theory of Literature,” Science-Fiction Studies, Fall 1974, copyright © 1974 by R. D. Mullen and Darko Suvin. “Unitas Oppositorum: The Prose of Jorge Luis Borges,” Science Fiction Commentary, April 1971, copyright © 1971 by Stanislaw Lem and Franz Rottensteiner. “About the Strugatskys’ Roadside Picnic,” Science-Fiction Studies, 1983, copyright © 1983 by SFS Publications.

  Requests for permission to make copies of any part of the work should be mailed to: Permissions, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, Orlando, Florida 32887.

  Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

  Lem, Stanislaw.

  Microworlds: writings on science fiction and fantasy.

  “A Helen and Kurt Wolff book.”

  Bibliography: p. 279

  1. Science fiction — History and criticism — Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Fantastic fiction — History and criticism — Addresses, essays, lectures.

  I. Rottensteiner, Franz. II. Title.

  PN3433.8.L4 1984 809.3’876 84-12837

  ISBN 0-15-159480-5

  ISBN 0-15-659443-9 (Harvest/HBJ : pbk.)

  Designed by Mark Likgalter

  Printed in the United States of America

  First Harvest/HBJ edition 1986

  A B C D E F G H I J

  Notes

  1

  Michel Butor once expressed the opinion that a team of science-fiction writers should cooperate in the construction of a fictitious world, because such an undertaking is beyond the powers of any single individual. (This was supposed to explain the poor quality, the one-dimensionality of the existing science fiction.) I did not take those words of Butor’s seriously when I read them. And yet I have, although many years later and by myself, tried to realize the basic essence of this idea as described above. And in Borges, too — in his “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius” — you can read of a secret society that creates a fictitious world in all its particulars, with the intent of turning our world into the imagined one.

  (<< back)

  2

  I shall add the autobiographical element in my discursive writings to this enumeration. In brief, I am a disenchanted reformer of the world. My first novels concerned naïve Utopias, because in them I was expressing a desire for a world as peaceful as that described in them, and they are bad,
in the sense in which a vain and erroneous expectation is stupid. My monograph on science fiction and futurology is an expression of my disappointment with a fiction and a nonfiction that pretend to be scientific, when neither of them turns the attention of the reader in the direction in which the world is in fact moving. My Philosophy of Chance is a failed attempt to arrive at a theory of the literary work based on empiricism; it is successful inasmuch as I taught myself with the help of this book what factors cause the rise and the decline in the fortunes of literary works. My Summa Technologiae, on the other hand, is proof of the fact that I am not yet a despairing reformer of the world. For I do not believe that mankind is for all times a hopeless and incurable case.