Talk:Solaris (novel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

Ok, who ever wrote this article should have read the book first. Kelvins wife name is Harey, while name Rhea appears in the film interpretation. If one gives an overview of a book, isnt it essential to read it first??? Marija

I read the book and don't recall her name as Harey, but that one seems to have been marketed as though it were a novelization of the new movie. Maybe they changed her name in that version, and this article was based on a reading of the new one. Or maybe my own memory fails me.Nektig (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.130.185 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source on the opera relating it to the book? A quick google search finds a couple of pages (and several dozen copied from this article) but none of them seem to indicate that it's based on this novel. One page seemed to indicate it was based on some German literature (the name escapes me) but I'd like to be more certain one way or the other. Thanks! --Zytsef 17:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel that the "Snaut/Snout" interpretation is reaching, as it is based on the english translation. Lordz 20:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the book in the original language, but Tarkovsky's film has him as Snaut (Снаут), so I assume he got that from the novel. It's not a Russian name or word and I don't think it means anything in Polish either (someone might want to correct me). In general the names of the characters are not Slavic ones, so my strong impression is that Snout's name is English. Garik 18:14, 13 May 2006 (BST)

'Snaut' is the name in Polish, eg.original version. In general - the names of characters in Polish s-f novels are not Slavic, because it would be funny and artifical (at least for the native speaker of Polish, like me). Astronauts' names usually are English (Aldrin, Armstrong) and there is no indication it is going to change in the future. This is the reason, why Lem novel characters are Pirx, Kelvin, Harey rather than Kowalski, Nowak or Brzeszczęczykiewicz. However, I do not understand, why 'Harey' and 'Snaut' had been translated to other names in English translation.

Stanislaw Lem's full quote about the Soderbergh version is as follows,

"I have not seen the film and I am not familiar with the script, hence I cannot say anything about the movie itself except for what the reviews reflect, albeit unclearly - like a distorted picture of one's face in ripply water. However, to my best knowledge, the book was not dedicated to erotic problems of people in outer space..." --[1]

Obviously the exclusion of the first sentence distorts his statement, but also comes across a rather puzzling criticism, since their was little overtly "erotic" about Soderbergh's Solaris. As this pertains to reviews of the film rather than the film itself, I have removed the mention. Is there any reference to the claim that Lem was not satisfied with the films and did not watch one (or both) to the end? The footnoted essay does not mention that... ~ Fluxist 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In general the man targeted America for his complaints. I'm sure he saw the later version and had some kind of complaint about it. 66.91.210.97 (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaking, the device Sartorius made only destroys the visitors. Their not reappearing is the result of another communication attempt by heavy X-Ray irradiation modulated by Kelvin's conscious mind. 87.97.46.98 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Language?

What language was it written in? Polish or russian? -66.108.148.222 04:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Polish. Staecker 12:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Metaphor?

How is "remote space exploration" a "metaphor" for whether or not the human mind will ever "understand a truly alien life form"? It seems like that is rather analogous to me saying that "making a ham salad sandwich" is a "metaphor" for whether or not I am going to "eat ham salad". lastcrab 10:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I second this thought. Solaris is not a metaphor for encountering an truly alien intelligence, it is a straightforward story of encountering an truly alien intelligence. Can this be fixed?

Fair use rationale for Image:Solaris Chichoni.jpg

Image:Solaris Chichoni.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Third film adaptation

There are in fact three film adaptations of Solaris - the third, or, actually, the first, being a close to the book made-for-TV movie. [Yes, I've seen it]. It's not widely known, but deserves a mention. I just didn't find a good source, but to keep in mind if you can. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct. A guy from Poland pointed out the following links - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_xZ0IG7K4t4, http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3vWid1xAYw and finally there happens to be a rapidshare link of this movie around... I'm not linking this final URL as the copyright status is uncertain.--Mrdini (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Names of characters

Does it really make sense to use the original names in the English wiki article? I would love to have their pre-translation names mentioned, but to use the name Snaut for a character that is known to the English readers solely as Snow is a bit over the top... This is English wiki, afterall. I'm changing the names and putting the original names in parenthesis. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

I've removed the two user-contributed images. I don't feel that images interpreted from the text belong in an article about a novel. If the images had been published in the novel, or perhaps created by the author, that would be another matter.

Don't get me wrong; they're nice images, particularly the symettriad, but they are fan art and don't belong here.

David (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Psychologist vs Physician?

The novel (English version) is not real clear, but Kelvin appears to be a physician, not a psychologist.... 74.99.21.154 (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The English-language version of the novel I read specifically states him as being a psychologist. Kuralyov (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cosmonauts?

The novel (again, English version) gives no real clue what the politics on Earth (centuries hence) will be like, or who (US vs USSR) prevailed in the Cold War. The nationalities of the characters are also not clear... but Kelvin is certainly a famous English name. ('Norway' and 'Europe' are mentioned, and so apparently they still exist... ) Thus, I question the use of the word "Cosmonaut" which does not appear in the book... 74.99.21.154 (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree- regardless of who won the cold war in Lem's future there's no point in referring to them as cosmonauts. These aren't guys who put on suits and blast off in little capsules, they live and work on a space station. Nobody would call captain Kirk an astronaut. Staecker (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Cultural allusions

Would not the Solaris operating system from Sun Microsystems (originally) have its name inspired from the novel? GermanicusCaesar (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. The word predates both. - Richfife (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Critical Reception

A summary with an example or two of the critical reception and lasting literary regard of this work is needed. – Mark K Adams (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sentient Planet?

It's been a while since I read (a german translation of) the book, but I can't remember it saying anywhere that the planet is sentient. Maybe I misremember, but I don't think it even acknowledged that the planet was alive at all.--Cyberman TM (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - Seems at least one critic of the novel Solaris by Stanislaw Lem refers to the planet Solaris as "sentient" on the official Stanislaw Lem WebSite - less direct wording/phrasing (or possibly, inferences?) of the "aliveness" of planet Solaris may appear in the novel I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In the novel there is only speculation about the nature of the planet. Actually the planet seems to be an ordinary rocky planet with a thick coating of a substance that might be alive. This article is about the novel, secondary sources should be included with proper sourcing. This article is extremely badly written: There is unsourced interpretation all over the place, especially in the first sentence of the introduction and in the plot summary. In my opinion interpretation does not belong in these two areas of the article, especially unsourced and possibly disputed interpretation. The important literary aspect that the entire book is written from the viewpoint of Kelvin is omitted. The article should mention that this is probably the most famous book by Stanislav Lem and that it was voted one of the most important science-fiction novels ever (in some survey, I do not remember the source, but Solaris was in the Top 10). A different interpretation could focus on the psychological aspect that when you travel, you always take yourself with you and that you have to face your demons. Or the relationship between Kelvin and his mentor and that Kelvin recognizes everybody's fallibility (Re. Jesus and the Adulteress). The planet is only the background and shows the limits and the great achievements and possibilities of science. The biggest problem for Kelvin sometimes seems to be the senior scientists and the suppression of data or rather lines of research. The fact that there is no mutually understandable two-way communication yet does not mean that it will never be established. There is a lot of room to improve this article, unfortunately I am not sure how to do that. (93.196.245.3 (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC))

One of the major points of the novel is that human concepts like, but not limited to, sentience and life don't work in relation to the planet either way. I'd definitely steer clear of anything about the planet and its covering beyond its physical properties. For all we know, everything observed is actually caused by an invisible teapot orbiting on the opposite side of the star. - Richfife (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Visitors?

The article uses the word visitor, apparently based on its meaning within the Solaris story, but fails to explain what visitors are, resulting in an incomprehensible plot description unless one reads the book :( I'd love to have a better description of the plot and an explanation of what a visitor is, so sources describing the Solaris visitors would be useful. Does anyone know of any such source? Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article didn't read the book.

In the novel the characters do NOT try to understand Solaris. And for this paragraph: "The ocean's response to this intrusion exposes the deeper, hidden aspects of the personalities of the human scientists, while revealing nothing of the ocean’s nature itself. To the extent that the ocean's actions can be understood, the ocean then seems to test the minds of the scientists by confronting them with their most painful and repressed thoughts and memories." the first sentence is correct, the second is NOT. I'm yet to read the last third of the book, but clearly the article here never reached to that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:373C:3080:9423:ADB1:5EF8:C752 (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether the second sentence correct or not, I agree that this is a judgement of the reader, rather than part of the plot, therefore I am removing it. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)