Talk:Fiasco (novel)

Ending

Does anyone understand what the ending of the story was all about? Peter Grey 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Quintans were given an un-negotiable ultimatum (a "face to face" meeting) which they had no possible means to satisfy. (They were sessile, ground-dwelling creatures similar to a fungus.) P's peculiar "greeting card" was their best effort at fulfilling the humans' demand.--70.24.207.57 21:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• My own interpretation was that despite the best efforts of the crew this civilization is so foreign, so alien, that no understanding of the Quintans is possible. William (Bill) Bean 06:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Added several lines of text... / <-- (visitor, 4 VII 2006)

== The point of the ending is... == The Quintans were no "fungus", they werent "ants", they weren't "insects" and they weren't "mounds". All those would have been easily recognizable. The quintans were just too alien for humans to comprehend. The whole point of the book (and its ending) is that we don't know what they were, and never will know. The only person who finally understood them (Tempe) died within seconds, along with the entire Quintan civilization. That is the point of the ending. RMN 21:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The true meaning of the ending is now explained in the article. This info is also given on the inside jacket of the 2nd hungarian edition of the Fiasco book, because so many people have realized and complained that fungus-like spores couldn't have created the steampunk-like metallic spaceships the humans have encountered in the Quinta system, in the first place. Andromeda holds the meaning to the ending. 82.131.210.162 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have more detailed discussion of the Andromeda connection. Did Lem himself say this is what happened? If so, we need a reference. I can't connect to the link given in the article. --345Kai (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

SL foresaw this

Japanese mad scientists just invented the exact kind of "solaser" cannon that was used in Fiasco's plot.

http://theinquirer.net/?article=42124 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Understanding the outcome

I have moved the following unreferenced discussion from the article to talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to understand the conclusion of Lem's Fiasco without prior knowledge of Fred Hoyle's work. The discovery scenario described at the very end of the novel is exact realization of the same solution/decision which concludes Hoyle-Elliot's "Andromeda Breakthrough", another acclaimed sci-fi novel. (Info from Lem's circle.)

The original, intelligent, mobile biological inhabitants of Quinta consciously transformed themselves in a project, AFTER they developed a technical civilization with a high level of automatation and their global politics degraded into an unsolvable, violent global conflict. They became a battery of statically existing, more or less vegetative systems, which are highly resistant to destruction and change - as well as immune to the instincts, which cause all biological civilizations to develop conflicts. The automated industry they had created keeps running and thus, the robotized conflict continues above their heads, while they are vegetating under.

Questions, questions

The ending of this book made me want to go back and reinterpret all of events leading up to it. The only things we can really trust are what Tempe observes at the end, and what the humans or their ships observe from earth, from the collapsar, from the Hermes, and from their probes. Everything else, particularly all of the human debate, philosophy, attempted explanations, and so forth that occupies most of the book has to be thrown-out-the-window (or at least questioned) - because it's probably partially or completely wrong. The only way to make sense of what's happening is to go back to first principles of what we know to be true based on all the facts we have, and then build an explanation afresh:

• For example, the Quintans built an ice ring with an orbit which decayed - but they presumably did this deliberately because they were vegetative/fungus/sponge/mound-like creatures who actually preferred a rainy and cloudy environment - and if so, the functioning of ring was entirely by-design, and not project abandoned due to war (as the humans had presumed).
• How do the Quintans see anything, if they have no eyes? How do they build anything, if they have no limbs? Is the above "Andromeda Breakthrough" explanation about the Quintans consciously transforming themselves from mobile to vegetative lifeforms correct? It's the only explanation I've heard thus far that answers this.
• However I was unclear about the purpose of the moving plasma "flame" on moon. Was it a warning ("stay away, we have rogue weapons in space!"), a form of SETI communication ("there's life over here!"), a failed experiment, or what?
• Was the attack on the Hermes on the moon a planned attack by the Quintans, or was it an automated attack by their machines, operating independently, and automatically responding to the attack on the satellites which were chasing the Gabriel?
• When the Quintans did not respond to the human ambassador satellite that beamed a laser signal to the planet (whilst they were still on the moon), was that because the Quintans got the message and were ignoring it, or was it because the Quintans don't have eyes or a means of detecting the ambassador's message, and therefore never received the human message?
• Are the Quintans still internally at war on their home planet, or are they at peace now?
• The cables everywhere were for communication between the mounds, yes? And the radio signals - were they intentionally jamming each other? Of was this just how they communicated over long distances?
• I know that it's got to be hard to get a reference or citation for any explanations, but wouldn't the article on this book be improved by having a "spoilers" section which contained some potential explanations? Or even a timeline of events, giving what the humans observe, what the humans interpret this as meaning, and a possible real explanation for it. For example - Humans Observe: No movement on the planet; Humans Interpret: Quintans are living underground; Actual Explanation: Quintans are living on the surface and cannot move. (and so on, for all of the facts/phenomena that the humans observe, the interpretations they make, and possible explanation).
• Are there any places on the web that discuss this book, and try to explain it? I've had a quick look through Google, but all I get are reviews of the book (which doesn't help me when I have already read it), and I can't see anywhere where people try to explain the book. But if anyone has any links to such places, I'd be happy to know of them.

-- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Reader, there is a web side created by author's son and available in English you can find some answers your questions i.e. http://english.lem.pl/works/novels/fiasco

Robert E. Masznicz (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)