Talk:The Futurological Congress

old talk
Just started reading this book, but it seems plausible that Ecstasy takes its name from the drug that the protagonist ingests from the bathroom tap:

"In just the last issue of Science Today there had been an article on some new psychotropic agents of the group of so-called benignimizers (the N,N-dipmehtylpeptocryptomides), which induced states of undirected joy and beatitude. Yes, yes!  I could practically see that article now.  Hedonidol, Euphoril, Inebrium, Felicitine, Empathan, Ecstasine, Halcyonal and a whole spate of derivatives!"

Apparently, MDMA was called "window" at the time of writing, and was later called "empathy" before getting its current name. I might try to add this to the main text once I've read the rest of the novel and can safely look at the spoilers. If this idea can be vetted, maybe I'll even put it on the drug page.--Polyparadigm 06:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the notability of this is: It seems that you're saying there should be a note in the main article stating that the fictional drug consumed in the book sounds a bit like Ecstasy, but actually it isn't. Is that you're intention? If so, I'd disagree. I don't think clarification needs to be provided where there isn't uncertainty in the first place. It'd be like adding a note to an article on William Shakespeare stating that "Although his name suggests otherwise, Shakespeare neither shook or resembled a spear." Blibbka 15:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Nightmare
This 2000 TV movie borrows very heavily from TFC, despite a rather different storyline. The revelation of Trottelreiner's true appearance is taken essentially verbatim (in the film applied to the protagonist's father), and the constant inexplicable coughing by the denizens of the film's world exactly parallels the inexplicable panting that Tichy notices in TFC. Repeated references to René Magritte suggest that the screenwriter, like many English-speakers, discovered Lem via Hofstadter.--99.226.67.91 (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up
I just came across this humongous page while checking the cross-referencing for the article for Lem in portuguese, and I couldn´t help cleaning it up. I´m sorry for the guy who wrote the huge summary, he probably loved the book, but this is completely off for wikipedia. GustavoHime (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And sure enough, someone reverted the change. All in the best wikipedia interest. Someone who didn´t see good articles on books, most likely. Sad. GustavoHime (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't see how the interest of improving the article was served by gutting large sections of it, and replacing it with a rather rudimentary book-report which uses rather idiosyncratic language, such as "Rip Van Winkle´s" employed as a third person singular present-tense finite verb form! Why not try for incremental improvements first? AnonMoos (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear reviewer. I don´t see how the interest of wikipedia is served by providing readers with a four page long abridged version of a book, full of subjective, passionate, emotional, partial and opinionated comments, lacking structure, cohesion and uniformity in its narrative and in correspondence with the book in question, with the rest of the author´s work and with the related works of fiction, instead of a very short, concise and encyclopaediac summary (and the use of encyclopaedia in the adjectified form, and the use of adjective in the adjectified form, are both intentional).

I would like to believe that the reviewer has actually read not only this book, but is truly an expert in fiction literature, science fiction in particular, and that he has an extensive record of reviewing articles on the matter. I find it odd that a certified reviewer is oblivious of the meaning of the word summary, as I find the use of the aggressive tone in the above commentary ("gutting large sections" "rather rudimentary", and the exclamation point). Most odd of all is the reviewer´s apparent revolt with the use of Rip Van Winkle as a verb, which is something I actually took from a reference and is quite common place, due to the pervasive use of the tale as starting point for fiction, and in accordance with the tone of the book in question and the work of the author as well. Surely the work of Lem does not use a rather rudimentary language.

I would point out that wikipedia is NOT served by adding whatever one feels like, but in many cases reducing an article (drastically, yes) is a major improvement, because it makes room for new, more thought through additions. If this article is properly cut down, then missing information will eventually be added. If it is not added, it is because it was not supposed to be there to begin with. This article in particular is so pathetic that it is impossible to improve it without starting over - unless the reviewer means by "incremental improvements" the **addition** of new material. The reviewer seems to be of the opinion that quantity is the same as quality, much like the users who made it this way to begin with. And he is probably right, given his long time record reviewing the wikipedia shows that lots of quantity in contribution provided him with prestige and recognition enough to award him reviewer status. In my (not humble) opinion, too bad, too sad. This is what earns wikipedia its ambivalent reputation of questionable quality - to which I concur, and why I have refrained from contributing in the past, and have decided to do so on a sparingly basis. Thank you for the edifying lesson.

GustavoHime (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You spend so much time taking umbrage and deciding that you're offended, and discussing general principles, that relatively little of the above is actually directly about improving this article. In any case, the word "reviewer" as you used it is not too meaningful, and I'm not sure what the purpose of using third-person references instead of second-person pronouns is (it lends a rather stilted tone to your remarks).  I never made any claim to have professional credentials in the area of SF literature, but I've read a lot of it over the years, including the book which is the subject of the article.


 * As for the problems with your edits, it seems to me that you replaced a serviceable (if over-long) summary of the plot-line of the book, with a rather abbreviated and perfunctory overview which omitted a number of important points, and had some rather idiosyncratic features of language usage. I'm rather skeptical that such major radical surgery is a useful road to article improvements in this case, which is why I suggested incremental improvments as an alternative — less dramatic but probably more useful — strategy... AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid being rude. I put this before on your personal page, but you keep bringing it to the article. Look up umbrage and stilted, and when you do, take to heart that I´m not offended, and that informal chatter does not go hand in hand with violence - which is what this is about, in the form of arbitrary meddling with other peoples contributions to a shared asset, as we both appear to perceive in each other´s attitude. And while at it, please do look up the word summary, and check the size of pages for other more complex books, such as Fiasco by Lem and Bouvard et Pecuchet by Flaubert, or War with the Newts by Capek. It is ludicrous to think the summary for these books can have similar or shorter length.

You failed to perceive the obvious, that asides from the first and last sentence, my post was not directed at you. That is why I used the third person exclusively. The post is about general principles as made evident by how they can be applied and exemplified by this clash of attitudes. I write for the benefit of all AND this article in particular. You are incidental and instrumental. The word reviewer is extremely meaningful, both because you acted as such, reviewing (and in so doing, reverting) my changes, and also because you acted with the status of a certified reviewer. You also make a mess as to disclaiming to have "professional credentials", which I never implied nor should I or anyone expect from wikipedia contributors.

And "as for the problems with [my] edits", I recommend you read (again) my last paragraph from the previous post, and this time I´ll give you a hint as to what is between the lines there. The article NEEDS to be reduced. One reduces it DRASTICALLY. That makes room for others to - SLOWLY, GRADUALLY - add GOOD material to it, because the reverse process, slowly, gradually removing BAD material from it is much harder (if not impossible) and leads to worse results. Starting over is something no creative person should be afraid of, be a writer, a painter, a software engineer or a mathematician. These are very good examples, as all four, if they produce quality work, usually throw away (literally) dozens (literally) of drafts before starting on what is to become the final version. Your skepticism as to language constructs could easily have been addressed by you in rephrasing my words. My perfunctory overview could have benefited from your addition of a number of missing important points. But it was much easier and comfortable to qualify my edits as "major surgery", "gutting" and so forth, and to click the reverse button away.

GustavoHime (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ijon Tichy, is hit by various psychoactive drugs, which are being used as weapons by both the government AND REBELS
Give me a quote where it is mentioned that rebels also used any psychoactive drugs. That's just not true. --46.158.90.45 (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming Movie?
The movie that the article cites as being related to TFC does not, in my opinion, seem related to TFC in any way beyond a similarity of the title. A brief overview of the upcoming films wraps up with this line: “The film explores the ramifications of how [a] new digital actress affects the future of the woman and society as a whole.” I don't think I've ever outright deleted anything on Wikipedia (aside from obvious vandalism) so I'm wondering if somebody else would agree that the cited movie is NOT based on TFC. Timothy Campbell (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right that description doesn't sound like TFC at all. But the film is billed as being an adaptation of the book by decent sources, so who are we to argue? Films "based on" books with only superficial similarities are common. Remember Stalker and Roadside Picnic? Staecker (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"a mishmash of words with clear enough English roots"
Should not be "Polish"? I think, this novelwas written in Polish. Reciprocist (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)