Thread: Russian Science Fiction - Recommended books?

What are the classics and latest hits of Russian science fiction?
Are there any books with credible female characters (rare in sci-fi)
Which books would you recommend to read in Russian, or as a translation.

Самое свежее и удивительное, что я читал — это Ибатуллин Роберт, "Роза и Червь". Эта книга еще не издана, существует только в электронном виде.

Вот отзыв, с которым я полностью согласен — такой качественной научной фантастики не было уже очень давно.

Credible female characters там тоже имеются. (Если я правильно понимаю это выражение.) Во всяком случае, Зара Янг и Гвинед Ллойд, на мой взгляд, выписаны очень достоверно.

Absolute classics are A&B Strugatsky. They are Tolstoy and Dostoevksy of Soviet\Russian sci-fi. Some (especially later) works closer to "serious literature" with sci-fi elements, like Vonnegut's. Most important books are Roadside Picnic, The Doomed City, Hard To Be a God, The Ugly Swans.

Well, the Strugatsky brothers were writers of so called soft (social) SF (in contrast with Роза и Червь which is a brilliant example of hard SF). To the Strugatsky's books you mentioned, I'd like to add The Kid and Inhabited Island. They are absolutely must-read too.

And if we talk about soft SF, there is yet another talented SF writer. Eugeny Lukin. In my opinion, he is much more Russian in spirit than Soviet Strugatsky. I do not want to offend anyone, the Strugatsky brothers are good SF writers too. But if one wants to read Russian SF, one definitely should read Lukin's books.

Евгений Юрьевич, как вы пришли в фантастику? И почему — в фантастику?

В фантастику я пришел 5 марта 1950 года. Проще говоря, родился. Долгое время жил, учился и работал, не подозревая, что живу, учусь и работаю в фантастическом мире. Слова Достоевского о том, что нет ничего фантастичнее обыденности и что истина в России имеет характер вполне фантастический, искренне считал парадоксами. Потом все кажущееся действительностью (в том числе и Советский Союз) затрещало по швам — и стало окончательно ясно, что классик не шутил. Точно так же, как лягушка видит лишь движущиеся предметы, мы прозреваем исключительно во время перемен. Потом опять слепнем. Но мне повезло. Я не только не смог срастись с нынешней небывальщиной, которую мы опять называем реальностью, — всматриваясь в нее, я понимаю, что и тот, ушедший, мир был не менее невероятен. Одна фантастика сменила другую — всего-то делов.
Таким образом я попутно ответил и на второй ваш вопрос: некуда было больше прийти.

Евгений Лукин в Википедии, на сайте fantlab.ru и на сайте flibusta.net.

(I'm pretty sure I've made some grammatical mistakes in this post. Corrections are welcome. )

Originally Posted by RedFox

Well, the Strugatsky brothers were writers of so called soft (social) SF (in contrast with Роза и Червь which is a brilliant example of hard SF).
...
And if we talk about soft SF...

Hmmm. To me, the term "soft science-fiction" in English often implies a "space opera" in which faster-than-light spaceships, time travel, telekinesis, and other very unlikely things are simply taken as real and scientifically explainable (i.e., non-magical), though without any attempt to explain how they actually work. Both Star Trek and Star Wars could be considered "soft" in this sense. But Star Trek, which frequently discussed 20th-century problems like racism and the Cold War in allegorical terms, could also be called "soft" in the "social" sense.

In contrast, Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress describes in believable and realistic terms the technical possibility of using a rail-gun catapult to launch cargo from the Earth to the Moon, without using "magical" techno-babble. For this reason the novel is often regarded as exemplifying "hard" science fiction. (Of course, Heinlein certainly gets some things quite wrong -- he assumes that photo-realistic CGI video doesn't get invented until around 2075, a time when the Moon already has several cities and a permanent population of 3 or 4 million humans!) On the other hand, to the extent that it discusses libertarian theory and male/female sex roles, TMiaHM is "soft social" sci-fi.

The en.wikipedia article about "soft science fiction", by the way, gives Orwell's 1984 as an example of "social" sci-fi, and Čapek's R.U.R. as a example of sci-fi that's "soft" in the sense that the robots might as well be magical golems.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

a rail-gun catapult to launch cargo from the Earth to the Moon, without using "magical" techno-babble. For this reason the novel is often regarded as exemplifying "hard" science fiction.

I remember those scenes from the book and I thought it was one of the silliest aspects of that book. Can anyone explain how that is scientific?


My fave Heinlein book is a kids adventure about two boys in a boarding school on Mars, who outsmart an evil corporation with the help of ancient Martians. Forgotten the name. Too bad it's totally unrealistic based on what's now known about the geology of Mars. No canals to skate on, and no exotic plants.
Love everything about Mars though - Red Mars series was fantastic, but gosh the amount of bizarre bias about Russians and other nationalities.

I realise that warp speed etc has no scientific basis, but my smart phone is probably on par with the pads from Star Trek Voyager!

Originally Posted by Hanna

I remember those scenes from the book and I thought it was one of the silliest aspects of that book. Can anyone explain how that is scientific?

Well, unlike faster-than-light travel, it doesn't blatantly violate known laws of physics; unlike telepathy, it doesn't suppose that there is some "fifth fundamental force" completely unknown to science; unlike the X-Men, it doesn't ridiculously ignore basic principles of how REAL gene mutations work; etc.

But the railgun described by Heinlein is a technically plausible extrapolation of known science. You could, of course, object that such a catapult is totally unrealistic from an economic POV -- in that it would be so enormously expensive to build that it could never pay for itself. You could also foresee that because it might take decades to build something so huge, someone might in the meantime invent a better and cheaper way to get stuff beyond Earth's orbit, thereby making the railgun project obsolete before it was finished!

There is, however, nothing inherently non-scientific or "magical" about the concept, as discussed in this Wikipedia article on Mass drivers.

Originally Posted by Hanna

My fave Heinlein book is a kids adventure about two boys in a boarding school on Mars, who outsmart an evil corporation with the help of ancient Martians. Forgotten the name.

Found it -- the title is Red Planet, first published 1949. The Wikipedia article notes that the native Martians here are physically and culturally very similar to the ones that would appear 12 years later in the much more adult-oriented Stranger in a Strange Land. (Apparently, SiaSL was originally proposed by Heinlein's wife in the late '40s as a kids-oriented "Jungle Book on Mars", so Red Planet may have been an early experiment in this direction.)

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Hmmm. To me, the term "soft science-fiction" in English often implies a "space opera" in which faster-than-light spaceships, time travel, telekinesis, and other very unlikely things are simply taken as real and scientifically explainable (i.e., non-magical), though without any attempt to explain how they actually work. Both Star Trek and Star Wars could be considered "soft" in this sense. But Star Trek, which frequently discussed 20th-century problems like racism and the Cold War in allegorical terms, could also be called "soft" in the "social" sense.

In contrast, Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress describes in believable and realistic terms the technical possibility of using a rail-gun catapult to launch cargo from the Earth to the Moon, without using "magical" techno-babble. For this reason the novel is often regarded as exemplifying "hard" science fiction. (Of course, Heinlein certainly gets some things quite wrong -- he assumes that photo-realistic CGI video doesn't get invented until around 2075, a time when the Moon already has several cities and a permanent population of 3 or 4 million humans!) On the other hand, to the extent that it discusses libertarian theory and male/female sex roles, TMiaHM is "soft social" sci-fi.

The en.wikipedia article about "soft science fiction", by the way, gives Orwell's 1984 as an example of "social" sci-fi, and Čapek's R.U.R. as a example of sci-fi that's "soft" in the sense that the robots might as well be magical golems.

Поясню, что я хотел сказать. Я использовал понятие мягкая научная фантастика в следующем значении:
Это фантастика, которая основной акцент ставит не на научной достоверности, а на описании различных социальных процессов, характеров людей и т.п., или просто на "историях про космос" ("space opera"). Например, "Обитаемый остров" Стругацких — это история о том, как человек с европейским складом ума боролся против тоталитарного государства. Инопланетные реалии в этой книге просто декорации, они не имеют решающего значения. Хотя Стругацкие пишут про людей будущего, будущее в их книгах играет роль декорации, на самом деле они описывают процессы современного общества.
Другой пример, Лукин в своих книгах свободно смешивает науку, фэнтези, мистику, сказки и т.п. Некоторые его книги можно отнести к научной фантастике, другие же это что-то вроде русского фэнтези.

Книга "Роза и Червь", о которой я говорил в самом первом посте, — противоположный пример. Автор ставит задачу описать, как было бы устроено сообщество людей в космосе, если бы в 22-м веке Земля была уничтожена пришельцами. Он описывает все аспекты жизни: технологии, производство, коммуникации, политическое устройство общества, военные конфликты, характеры людей, их привычки, обычаи, отношения и т.п. Подобные книги я называю истинная научная фантастика, в противоположность "мягкой".

Не уверен, насколько такая классификация совпадает с принятой в английском языке.

Classics: Strugatsky brothers of course. My favorite is "Monday starts at Saturday". Also there are some classics from 1920s like Belyayev and Alexey Tolstoy. Also Ivan Yefremov is considered classics but his books are too boring for me. From the modern writers I like early works of Sergey Lukyanenko. I didn't like his most recent books though. Btw, Ramil translated the whole Lukyanenko NOVEL (not the best one imho) into English here at this forum:

S. Lukyanenko. The Dreamline . Proofreaders are welcome )))

Originally Posted by Basil77

Classics: Strugatsky brothers of course. My favorite is "Monday starts at Saturday". Also there are some classics from 1920s like Belyayev and Alexey Tolstoy. Also Ivan Yefremov is considered classics but his books are too boring for me. From the modern writers I like early works of Sergey Lukyanenko. I didn't like his most recent books though. Btw, Ramil translated the whole Lukyanenko NOVEL (not the best one imho) into English here at this forum:

S. Lukyanenko. The Dreamline . Proofreaders are welcome )))

Super helpful, thanks! 1920s is too far back for me, I am more into newer things, say 1960s and onwards.
Sergey Lukyanenko. I'll check out Sergey Lukyanenko. Incredible that Ramil translated that novel! What a star. Haven't seen him here for ages. Maybe he got tired of all the trolling lately.

I think this is perfect for actually reading in Russian, or even listening to, on iPod.

There is a book called Metro 2033 I'd like to read too. Author is an interesting person called Dimitry Glukhovsky.

Originally Posted by SergeMak

Иван Ефремов is one of the mainstream si-fi writers of the Soviet period. His books are not bad, just overburden with the communist ideology. For my opinion his best book is "Час быка", an anti utopian novel. Another well-known writer is Александр Казанцев with his books about an ancient civilization from the exploded planet Faeton.

I'll definitely check him off and a little ideology doesn't put me off. All the American sci-fi books are full of it, so that would just be a different angle. Anti-utopian?! sounds interesting. Not sure about the planet Faeton book - sounds like it might be too deep.

Originally Posted by RedFox

Well, the Strugatsky brothers were writers of so called soft (social) SF (in contrast with Роза и Червь which is a brilliant example of hard SF). To the Strugatsky's books you mentioned, I'd like to add The Kid and Inhabited Island. They are absolutely must-read too.

And if we talk about soft SF, there is yet another talented SF writer. Eugeny Lukin. In my opinion, he is much more Russian in spirit than Soviet Strugatsky. I do not want to offend anyone, the Strugatsky brothers are good SF writers too. But if one wants to read Russian SF, one definitely should read Lukin's books.
Евгений Лукин в Википедии, на сайте fantlab.ru и на сайте flibusta.net.

(I'm pretty sure I've made some grammatical mistakes in this post. Corrections are welcome. )

Strugatskis is a must-read, I think and Lukin sounds interesting - I like the "more Russian" aspect, it sounds interesting.

Going on the hunt for this, to put on my ipod and e-reader!

Иван Ефремов is one of the mainstream si-fi writers of the Soviet period. His books are not bad, just overburden with the communist ideology. For my opinion his best book is "Час быка", an anti utopian novel. Another well-known writer is Александр Казанцев with his books about an ancient civilization from the exploded planet Faeton.

Kir Bulychev created a credible female character. Alisa Selezneva. Short stories are pretty good.

Александр Казанцев was an advocate of paleo-contact theories. I think he strongly believed that representatives of extraterrestrial civilizations had visited the Earth many eons ago and influenced the development of humanity. So he elaborates this theme in his books.

Сергей Павлов. "Лунная радуга"
Лунная радуга. Книга 1. По черному следу (fb2) | Флибуста
Лунная радуга. Книга 2. Мягкие зеркала (fb2) | Флибуста

Classic sci-fi is traditionally modern-problems oriented technical and social. Yes, it is not about credible characters, it is about ideas. Nowadays sci-fi usually treated as easy reading in fictional setting that makes the genre more flexible for experiments. That is what fantazy, and many contemporary Russian writers often write in both genres (sci-fi and fantasy) or even mix them up so it is hard to distinguish them. In the same mix often alternative history.

Here some of my preferences (a bit outdated) in both genres as I don't separate in contemporary literature in random order.

Lukyanenko is today's easy reading in sci-fi with acceptable literary quality.

Kirill Eskov - I can recommend two books actually The Gospel of Afranius and The last ringbearer. He used scientific approach to the Gospel and Tolkien's universe and gained nice action adventure novels. The first one may be too boring if you don't know well the background.

Parfenova - her debute trilogy contained all typical mistakes of the beginning writer but at the same time was of extreme quality and really refreshing. The books full of female emotions, that a techno&science&logic man like me was able to enjoy. Though the language is rich and intensive and can be hard to read.

...to be continue... maybe

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Classic sci-fi is traditionally modern-problems oriented technical and social. Yes, it is not about credible characters, it is about ideas. Nowadays sci-fi usually treated as easy reading in fictional setting that makes the genre more flexible for experiments. That is what fantazy, and many contemporary Russian writers often write in both genres (sci-fi and fantasy) or even mix them up so it is hard to distinguish them. In the same mix often alternative history.

Here some of my preferences (a bit outdated) in both genres as I don't separate in contemporary literature in random order.

Lukyanenko is today's easy reading in sci-fi with acceptable literary quality.

Kirill Eskov - I can recommend two books actually The Gospel of Afranius and The last ringbearer. He used scientific approach to the Gospel and Tolkien's universe and gained nice action adventure novels. The first one may be too boring if you don't know well the background.

Parfenova - her debute trilogy contained all typical mistakes of the beginning writer but at the same time was of extreme quality and really refreshing. The books full of female emotions, that a techno&science&logic man like me was able to enjoy. Though the language is rich and intensive and can be hard to read.

...to be continue... maybe

Whereas I don't make a lot of sense when I am tired, and writing in a hurry, you do, lol ! That was interesting. Please continue whenever...

Yes, probably science fiction gets dated eventually; or it becomes clear that technology moved in a different way than what the writers imagined, so the technical premise of the novel seems irrelevant. Social ideas and values. The sexism in older American science fiction is very tiresome - just have to try to ignore it to enjoy the story. Of course, it was normal at the time of publishing, and almost all the readers were men anyway.

I know some of the older sci-fi it is literature in its own right; philosophical etc. Definitely including some Russian science-fiction.
But it's not for me. I like the social aspects of sci-fi, the politics and the technology. The Foundation saga (Asimov) is still one of my favourite books. Asimov was unable to imagine how computing would develop though - and some aspects of the books seem very dated today.

Same for films: Watched a an episode of "Star Trek Voyager" from the late 1990s (I believe). All the computing and communication looks ancient and very clunky!

[off to work, more later]

Originally Posted by Hanna

The sexism in older American science fiction is very tiresome - just have to try to ignore it to enjoy the story.

For me the most prominent person in old American SF is Ursula Le Guin. Not much sexim I believe - she was a feminist. Though even feminism in those times was different.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

For me the most prominent person in old American SF is Ursula Le Guin. Not much sexim I believe - she was a feminist. Though even feminism in those times was different.

I LOVED the Earthsea saga as a kid. Particularly the one about the girl who was a priestess over a labyrinth. Probably read that about 5 times.
But I've only read one adult book by her. Christmas gift, I think it was called "Playing human" or something like that. Didn't really get into it. Based on your approval that will definitely change!

Originally Posted by Hanna

I LOVED the Earthsea saga as a kid. Particularly the one about the girl who was a priestess over a labyrinth. Probably read that about 5 times.
But I've only read one adult book by her. Christmas gift, I think it was called "Playing human" or something like that. Didn't really get into it. Based on your approval that will definitely change!

There is a general opinion that her best work is "The Left Hand of Darkness". On me personally the strongest influence had "City of illusions". Her books are very poetic and in the same time they discuss some problems that are or can become actual - that's what makes her books classic SF.

In the google list - yes, there are some Polish translations and few duplicates.

In the list:
Strugatsky - the best of Soviet SF. Good literary quality though I don't remember women among their central heroes.
Lukyanenko - the most popular post-soviet SF.
Dyachenko (actualy married co-authors) - reputation of intellectual writing but I find them pretentious rather than meaningful.
Bulychov - Soviet times. I found him not enough serious mostly.
"METRO" series - Postapocalipsis. I didn't read.

Small offtopic. For me the best SF writer forever and ever is Polish Stanislaw Lem. He's not only the brilliant writer but also a futurologist. His main work in futurology Summa Technologiae issued in 1964 was a Bible of Soviet technichal intelligentsia and I believe it is not obsolete in a single letter even now. In 2013 it finally got the first English edition:

• Lem, Stanisław (2013). Summa technologiae. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0816675767.