According to Muntius, Solaristics is the space era’s equivalent of religion: faith disguised as science. . . . Solaristics is a revival of long-vanished myths, the expression of mythical nostalgias which men are unwilling to confess openly. The cornerstone is deeply entrenched in the foundations of the edifice: it is the hope of Redemption. (Lem Solaris 173).
Unlike either Tarkovsky’s or Soderbergh’s film versions, both of whom seem to have taken Muntius’ interpretation of Solaris to heart, Lem’s 1961 novel suggests that Solaris remains alien, something that humanity’s cataloging and ordering cannot explain. The great ocean, despite humanity’s greatest minds, remains essentially mute and inexplicable, unable to be coded by scientific reason, explained through empiricism, or contacted through poetry. Lem seems to suggest, in the aftermath of science fiction’s Golden Age, that science is not the panacea or pinnacle of evolution and striving: it, like religion, is a faith-based language unique to the creatures that invented it. Lem’s vision seems introspective — it turns a mirror on a species that used science to create the possibility of annihilation by splitting the atom and mocks our pretenses to transcend our own human follies. While contact with the other may not be possible in Lem’s vision, perhaps the universe does contain wonders if we can just see past our own desires.
Bernard
December 5th, 2007
This is an interesting post. I’ve only seen the two movies, have yet to read the book, and I found them quite compelling. I’m aware of the premise of the book, and have read some of it, however, and it does seem Lem is one level removed from the two filmmakers. They want to maintain the humanity of it, and I think most of what Lem’s writing is probably the same way, except the movies can’t make their focus the inscrutability of Solaris, so they focus on this idea of the foreignness of others. It’s miles above any of the sociopolitical sci-fi I’ve read, although some of it has been more sensitive, it tends to be all about schematization and making analogs to the current, and rarely questioning the state of affairs as much as giving it clarity. Good read, thanks.