
Philip K. Dick: A Visionary Among the Charlatans - gnosis
http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/5/lem5art.htm
======
teilo
I think his criticism is a bit overbearing, if not a bit curmudgeonly (in a
high-brow sort of way).

Yes, without question most SF published today is tripe. Yes, without question,
Dick is a visionary genius. But he is not the only one. There is still
excellent literature to be found in the genre. The works of Mary Doria
Russell, for example. I would also include Ray Bradbury. I would include Neal
Stephenson, but that might be stretching it.

The landscape is changing. Though the pulp SF publishers are not willing to
take risks on real intellectual talent, self publishing is beginning to bring
excellent work to audiences.

~~~
SteveJS
It looks like this was written in 1975. It is amazing how well the critique of
the genre holds up.

------
jfb
A fascinating read. I'm no fan of Dick (I am a raving Lem apologist, however),
but the case made here is really compelling. Too, it's a nice _long_ read.

~~~
JMStewy
Interesting. I am a fan of Dick, but before now had never heard of Lem. I
found this a moderately interesting read but nothing that would make me seek
out Lem's other writings. I'm curious what he's done that could inspire such
esteem. Is there anything in particular of his you'd recommend?

Edit: thanks for the recommendations, everyone.

~~~
StrawberryFrog
Do you want to start at the heavy end or the light end? Solaris is heavy. The
Cyberiad (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cyberiad> ) is light.

~~~
gnosis
I second the recommendation of The Cyberiad... especially for people
interested in computers, robotics, philosophy, and artificial intelligence.
It's really brilliant -- and a very easy, fun read.

~~~
hugh3
In addition to this, I recommend _A Perfect Vacuum_ and _Imaginary Magnitude_
, which both fall into the category of "books of reviews of books that don't
exist".

I've never been able to get into his novels, though. Mind you I'm not really a
fan of science fiction per se.

~~~
gnosis
I am a fan of science fiction, but haven't been able to get in to his novels
either. I think they're boring. His best stories, by contrast, are hilarious
and very fun and easy reads.

~~~
hugh3
Perhaps the issue is that, like so many science fiction authors, his ideas are
interesting but his actual writing, characters and dialogue have nothing in
particular to recommend them. In short story form, the ideas come and go
quickly enough that one doesn't have a chance to get too bored with them. In a
novel like Solaris, on the other hand, there's really only _one_ idea and it
takes a hell of a lot of words for it to actually get out there.

Asimov is similarly bad at _actual_ writing, but his ideas are sufficiently
good and they come sufficiently thick and fast even in his novels that he's
still pretty okay to read.

In contrast an author like Neal Stephenson manages to write a science fiction
story with _proper_ characters who are interesting to read about even when
they're not expounding on some science-fictional idea.

~~~
StrawberryFrog
It's harder to tell how good an author's writing is when it's in translation.
The Cyberiad's writing was absolutely fantastic IMHO. But I can't say if the
Polish original was that good. Lem's longer, more serious novels don't sparkle
like that, at least in the English translation.

~~~
hugh3
True, though good writing isn't just about good prose and putting well-chosen
words in an appropriate order, it's also about more macro-level structure and
tension and pacing and characterization.

~~~
StrawberryFrog
Good point. However, would you say that Dostoyevsky has tension and pacing? I
raise him because Lem does, and to my mind, Lem reads more like Dostoyevsky
than like Stephen King. How about Dickens or Victor Hugo?

I admit that I don't know enough (I fail at reading Dostoyevsky) but it is
counted as great writing despite lacking in the pace that modern readers
desire.

------
airlabam
What about Neuromanc--oh. 1984. Drat, that's a good 9 years later. Well, I
was/am still very fond of Neuromancer and can't wait to get around to reading
more of Gibson's other work, along with Dick's work. Does Lem address Gibson
at all at any point?

------
gambler
This essay is even more relevant now than it was in 1975, and the same
reasoning can (and should) be applied outside of science fiction books.

