Rus Articles Journal

What works of art of S. Lem to me seem the best? As I already wrote

, Lem was first of all a thinker - one of the most honest, interesting and talented thinkers of the second half of the XX century. The thinker obviously suppressed in him the artist. Ideas and plans were restricted in Lem`s head, overtaking each other. Just there was not enough time and forces to display them within a usual work of art. Not without reason it published two original books - “Absolute emptiness“ and “Imaginary size“. The first represented reviews, and the second - prefaces to … to unwritten books!

Being the master of language, Lem nevertheless not always managed to bring a plan to art perfection. Psychological portraits of many characters of its books are a little schematical and one-sided, they as if are only plan conductors (as, for example, in “Eden“). Lem managed to reach original ART perfection and completeness only in “Solaris“.

This novel in general costs as if independently in series of other similar works of the writer. Not without reason later Lem spoke about “Solaris“, as about the only book which he also up to the end does not understand and which plot developed in the unforeseen whimsical ways. It is especially noticeable in its preface to the Russian edition of the novel written at the beginning of 1970 - x: “The Solaris had to be mankind meeting model on its road to stars with the phenomenon unknown and unclear. I wanted to tell this story that in space we are trapped for certain by surprises that it is impossible to expect and plan everything in advance that it “star pie“ cannot be tried differently, than having bitten off from it, and it is absolutely unknown that from all this will turn out. … I do not apply for a role of the prophet. But I did not write theoretically - the abstract treatise and therefore had to tell absolutely concrete story that by means of it, through it to express one simple thought: “Among stars we are waited by uncertainty“. by

It is surprising how the creator restrictedly treated the child! However already the first readers felt that the novel not absolutely about what the author tried to formulate in the preface. “Solaris“ told not only about the Unknown out of us, but also about the Unknown in us. The knowledge of the Ocean is wrapped in self-knowledge. It was felt also by Tarkovsky. However, the Russian director, as always (the same was also with “Picnic on a roadside“ of Strugatsky), went on the way, and having grasped one thread of work, pulled out it from the general carpet and rearranged accents after the own fashion. Lem remained is extremely dissatisfied with the screen version of “Solaris“, having told that Tarkovsky perverted a book essence, having turned it nearly into the “Crime and punishment “. And it is difficult not to agree with it.

S. Lem:

“At me Calvin decides to be left on the planet without any hope, and Tarkovsky created a picture in which there is some island, and on the lodge is mute. And when I hear about a lodge and the island, I nearly fly into a rage from indignation“.

So about what this novel? About the pangs of conscience embodied in reality? About formation of the personality who wants that Calvin loved her, but not THAT Hari? About the right of this personality most to decide the destiny even if at the price of suicide? About infinite and at first sight ineffectual dialogue of Internal Space and Space External? And it is unclear - whether communication with the Solaris is dialogue and whether it conducts it in general? And can do it the book about eternal human Expectation even if it is hopeless?

As well as any real work of art, “Solaris“ does not maintain unambiguous interpretation therefore it will be read and re-read still very long.

“Solaris“ became top of art creativity of Lem. “The sum of technologies“ recommended it as original thinker and researcher. But the form in which it was succeeded to combine for each other without damage a plan and artistic realization, gravity and irony became the most real find of Lem. Certainly, I tell about the whole arch of works which includes “Kiberiada“, “Fairy tales of robots“, well, and of course, a huge cycle about “the well-known zvezdoprokhodets, the captain of long galactic voyage, the meteors and comets hunter, the tireless researcher and the pioneer eighty thousand three worlds, the doctor of honoris causa of universities of both She-bears, the member of Society of Protection of minor planets and many other societies, the gentleman of awards of the Milky Way and fogs“ - Iyon Tikhy. Iyon Tikhy - such space Gulliver in half with Myunkhgauzen - probably, the most favourite and “hardy“ character who is thought up by the writer. Having for the first time appeared in “Star diaries“ (1957), Silent continually emerged in Lem`s creativity even until the end of 1980 - x until the writer gave up a fantasy at all.

Both “Fairy tales of robots“, and “Star diaries“ initially arose as comic and parody short stories. In them the surroundings of science fiction used in the form of Myunkhgauzen`s baizes, in fantastic and mythological stylistics was ironically beaten.

S. Lem of “Treasure of the king Bisklyar“:

“- I am the robot - the messenger, remotely-controlled, from all directions chained, riveted, stamped! Become a rivet to a rivet and you will see in four pig-iron glyadelka what I am a good fellow who I am an udalets as plays steel spirit suprotiv a chugunok of two! Strain the coils, it to you not toys and if decide to argue - lose electric life! “
with

B “Fairy tales of robots“ brave “elektrytsar“ and great iron princesses worked, designers put signets on atoms and minted uranium ducats, and engineers burned stars and twisted galaxies. Iyon Tikhy could meet easily with himself - both past, and future, hunted on Kurdly, blowing up them from within, and hopelessly tried to learn what is “sepulk“.

From S. Lem`s communication with readers in a chat, 2006:

“- All life since the childhood me is occupied by one question: what is sepulk and what their pornsphericity consists in?

- As I already repeatedly explained, sepulk are very similar to murkv, and the color scale remind soft pchma. Certainly, their practical function another, but I think, to you as to the adult, it is not necessary to explain me it“.

Gradually these works stop being a simple entertainment. Lem felt that such parody semi-fantastic form allows optimum brightly, interestingly and organically to embody also quite serious ideas. Ideas, so to speak, in pure form where it is possible to pass the excessive descriptions and details necessary for the full novel or the story. As a result the humour and phantasmagoria gain obvious lines of satire and a utopia. “Iyon Tikhy`s memoirs“, “The futurological congress“ and in particular the last stories of a cycle - “Survey on the place“ and “The world on Earth“ are already quite serious, philosophically deep and often quite volume works. It becomes heavier to read them, “the thought density“ and language “tsvetastost“ are so big here that not to do without thoughtfulness and savoring. Lem made an incalculable set of excellent neologisms - what is cost by one “besiln“ and “seksoubezhishcha“!

Those who read Lem`s books perfectly know that he was the convinced atheist, in the finest sense of the word. That is he was not either a militant atheist, or the snob - the cynic. we will not forget

that the writer lived in Catholic Poland - the most religious (at least, externally) to the country of the former socialist camp. Therefore religious (more precisely - metaphysical) questions are brought up in its books quite often (what there is one “The twenty second travel of Iyon Tikhy“ which the author called “theological“). But the belief in the highest force and immortal soul, as one would expect, did not maintain check neither logic, nor empiriky. Lem, as well as Socrates, believed first of all in reason, and brought all evil of the world out of human nonsense and ignorance.

Lem did not hide the literary relationship with such figures of Education as Swift and Voltaire. Lifting philosophical problems, he tried to do without “a stick - a lifesaver“, tried to be honest and fearless. But honesty and fearlessness of reason in combination with sensitive art soul could not but lead Lem to quite sad and pessimistic conclusions. The world appeared at the thinker in the form of blind game of accidents where emergence of the reason was only one of such cases. “Life is based on a mistake, a mistake corrects an error, a mistake comes back, mistakes creates so that accident becomes destiny of the World“, - Lem wrote. The culture and art were represented by the last stronghold protecting fragile community “predatory monkeys who were given the razor“ (under the razor Lem meant technologies).

From interview with S. Lem, December, 2005:

“- whether you think that the knowledge of this world can discourage from life?

- Can. But my personal opinion is as follows: in infinite star emptiness suddenly there is tiny, just microscopic gleam of consciousness - my or your, an ant or some birdie - and then when life comes to an end, it dies away, and this infinite nothing proceeds. It seems to me, this consciousness should flash“.

S. Lem “King Globares and wise men“:

“… What I told not resulted from knowledge. The science is not engaged in such properties of life as ridiculous and not ridiculous. The science explains the world, but only art can reconcile us with it“.
Hardly the similar belief is better for

than others, but it all - allocates existence with sense. Otherwise why Lem all the life would try to set mankind thinking over the future? Why he did not cease to remind that “the world needs to be changed, otherwise it uncontrollable will begin to change ourselves“? Probably because all - believed that “there did not pass time of awful miracles“ and the mankind has a future.