The Polish Book Institute

Michał Protasiuk, two-time winner of the Jerzy Żuławski Literary Award, is an after-hours writer and works for a technology company by day. In an interview with the Book Institute, he talked, among other things, about his fascination with speculative fiction, the topicality of Philip K. Dick's books, and why it is worth reading the works of the Strugatsky brothers.

You work for a technology company where you are involved in market and media research. Why did you decide to write books?

For as long as I can remember, I have always read a lot. In my youth it was mostly science fiction, and later on, I turned more often to broader mainstream literature. In the last few years, I have returned to reading speculative fiction. Literature has always been a springboard for me, and writing gives me a lot of enjoyment. The proceeds from book sales are not my main source of income, and I can give myself more time to concentrate on what I really want to write without worrying. I have the luxury of not having to look at the reactions of the market and, in part, the readers.

Where did your interest in speculative fiction come from?

It is difficult for me to answer this question, because between the ages of twelve and fifteen, I was a very different person than I am today, in the middle of the fifth decade of my life. In the first half of the 1990s, which was the most formative reading period for me, there was a lot of speculative fiction published in Poland. The Polish publishing market was then catching up with science fiction and horror stories at an accelerated pace. A lot of speculative fiction of very different quality was being published at the time - from higher-end science fiction, i.e. writers such as Robert Silverberg, Ursula Le Guin, and Philip K. Dick, to a lot of literature that was simply poor. As a kid, I tried to read most of what was published. The magazine “Fantastyka”, which later became “Nowa Fantastyka”, also played a gigantic role in forming me as a reader.

Which writers impressed you most at the time?

Some of them have stayed with me to this day, and it happens that I rediscover their work years later. Philip K. Dick is a good example, but on the other hand, returning to Roger Zelazny's Amber series didn't prove to be a good idea - it no longer impressed me as much as it once did. Although fantasy was never my thing, a very important read from my youth was Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. By contrast, I read Kurt Vonnegut in high school - his novels stand the test of time very well, and Slaughterhouse-Five, reread two years ago, made a colossal impression on me.

What is new that you find in the works of Philip K. Dick?

Rediscovering the books of this writer, now deceased for 40 years, is something absolutely amazing for me. In his works, Dick posed the fundamental question of the existence of objective reality. It could be said that he wrote the same book each time, and in each book, he faced the same question. When read from the perspective of the 1990s, he was dazzling in his ideas, imagination, and courage in the creation of his visions, but when read today, from the perspective of the third decade of the 21st century, he turns out to be an author who addresses themes that we can read about in our contemporary press. We live in an age of fake news, belief in conspiracy theories, and a very strong undermining of the scientific paradigm, which is nothing less than a questioning of the existence of objective reality. Dick wrote about this forty or even sixty years ago. It is incredible fun for me to revisit not only his acclaimed books, such as The Man in the High Castle or, most notably, Ubik, but also the lesser-known and perhaps forgotten ones. Some time ago, I read The World Jones Made, a novel that few Dick fans will probably remember. In it, he described a quasi-totalitarian US society governed by the principle of relativism. This means that any view is admissible provided you can argue for its truth. This diagnosis perfectly reflects the world we live in, e.g. discussions about climate disaster, the effectiveness of coronavirus vaccines, or vaccines in general. Supporters of one thesis have their arguments, while the other side tries to use quasi-rational arguments. In my opinion, Dick was an absolutely amazing prophet who not even so much should but needs to be read in order to better understand the world we live in today.

Did you have a similar goal in mind when writing books such as Anatomia pęknięcia (“The Anatomy of Fracture”)? Is this supposed to be an attempt to predict the future or a form of warning?

I do not think it is the duty of speculative fiction to try to make plausible predictions or to create plausible scenarios for the development of reality. In my opinion, speculative fiction isn't exactly for that. I could give many examples of speculative fiction that is worthwhile but poor from a futurological point of view. One does not exclude the other. My aim is certainly not to build plausible futurological visions that will stand the test of time. The Anatomy of Fracture is not an attempt at prognosis. Most of the stories in the book are set in the near future, but the directions in which reality unfolds are deliberately contradictory and mutually exclusive. Is this a warning? I believe it is, in part. Most of these visions are not optimistic predictions, and I tend to highlight various dark corners - not so much of the development of technology per se, but more of what humans can do or try to do with it. To me, writing is more of a sociological laboratory, where I define the initial conditions, set individual characters on a chessboard, give them the technology of the future, and try to see what the consequences of its development will be; to what ends the characters with their flaws, faults, and other typically human traits will use it.

The starting point of the story The Anatomy of Fracture is confirmation bias. What is it?

Confirmation bias, or cognitive bias, is a concept that has long been known in psychology, which means that our view of reality is highly distorted. We should believe what we see, and instead, we see what we believe in. If we have a positive attitude towards a person, we will be very sensitive to seeing the positive sides of their behaviour and ignoring the negative ones. And vice versa. The Anatomy of Fracture tells the story of what would happen if an unknown mind virus emerged that would drive confirmation bias to such an absurd level that we would not be able to change our view on a particular subject. Whatever evidence we might be provided with. The question is what consequences this would have for society and world development. Looking at the various conspiracy theories, one wonders if we don't already live in such a world. All along, I operate in a positive rational paradigm - in order to convince the opposing side of my arguments, I have to use rational arguments. But can such a discussion be had with anti-vaccinationists and flat-earthers? I am afraid such people cannot be convinced. A few years ago, I was more optimistic about this. I get the impression that the mind virus I described in The Anatomy of Fracture is already in effect, and rational arguments have no validity.

In The Anatomy of Fracture, you described, among other things, endless economic crisis and the end of progress.

Opinions on the crisis of progress vary widely. Some economists argue that progress ended as early as the 1970s, and we have not had any more major, ground-breaking technological innovations since then. All the technologies we are using already existed, and over 50 years commercialisation has taken place. Thanks to this, we have the internet, mobile phones, and other inventions that make our daily lives easier. The rapid development of artificial intelligence that has taken place in recent years is a result of the fact that we have suddenly gained access to powerful computing powers. Further progress depends on the attitude we adopt as a civilisation towards the climate catastrophe. I firmly believe what Jason Hickel has written about, which is that in the long run, capitalism and economic growth cannot be reconciled with keeping the climate within a rational framework so that rising temperatures do not threaten human civilisation. If we want to stop climate disaster, we will have to figure out how to live in a world without economic growth in the traditional sense. There has been a lot of talk in recent years about metaverse and expansion into the digital world. What if the entire economy was moved to the digital world? This would allow us to develop and generate economic growth without using the earth's mineral and natural resources.

At the end of The Anatomy of Fracture, you have included notes and recommended reading. Why did you decide to do this?

I've always wanted to create literature that I enjoyed reading myself, so-called hard science fiction, in which the science component is taken fairly seriously. I thought it was nice to show readers what my sources of inspiration were, which became the axis for constructing a particular storyline. Those interested in this topic can dig deeper and find more information.

You mentioned that you had a break from reading speculative fiction. Why?

In the first decade of this century, I felt over-saturated with speculative fiction - I was catching up on the classics at the time and trying to keep up to date with contemporary prose. The last few years, however, have been a time when I have been very keen to return to it. These readings give me a lot of childhood fun and are a source of inspiration for me. As I mentioned, I go back to the classics, sometimes reading Arthur C Clarke, Isaac Asimov, the Strugatsky brothers, and Philip K Dick. I was hugely impressed by Kim Stanley Robinson - he is an absolutely fantastic author who started creating ecological speculative fiction back in the 1990s and was not afraid to tackle climate disaster. For example, the excellent novel Antarctica talks about global warming and its consequences for civilisation.

Who else do you read?

Cory Doctorow is a writer whose work I am only just beginning to discover. I'm in the middle of reading a collection of four of his novellas called Radicalised - it's a reportage of late capitalism, but cranked up technologically, a bit like in The Anatomy of Fracture. The first of the novellas - with the excellent title Unauthorised Bread - tells the story of how the toaster one day refused to accept a slice of bread because it was not authorised by its manufacturer.

A bit like in Dick's work.

Yes, but with more anti-capitalist flair.

What other writers do you recommend?

Ian McDonald is also a very interesting author who sets the plots of his hard SF works in - very interestingly - non-Western cultural areas. In his novel The Dervish House, he told the story of Turkey of the future, and in River of Gods, he told the story of artificial intelligences in Hindu India. He has phenomenal ideas, a wonderful imagination, and a very sound approach to geopolitical realities.

What else is there on your to-read list?

This list is very long. In the coming years, I plan to properly revisit the works of the Strugatsky brothers, Philip K. Dick, Robert Silverberg, and Arthur C Clarke. Neal Stephenson is also a very important author for me. Ada Palmer's Terra Ignota series is waiting on the shelf for me to read - it's four volumes of hard SF about the future of human civilisation.

At the end of The Anatomy of Fracture, you mentioned that one of the most important novels for you is the Strugatsky brothers' One Billion Years to the End of the World.

The Strugatsky brothers managed to touch on mystical themes in this novel in a very believable way; something that goes beyond scientifically conceived hard SF, yet it is still very plausible - it can still be analysed and considered in scientific terms. It is about the fundamental idea that our universe is capable of acting as a self-aware entity and, in a sense, defending itself against the human species. This is close to the Gaia hypothesis of James Lovelock, who made a similar thesis in relation to our planet.

The question is whether the Strugatsky brothers should be read in the light of the war and the current political situation.

The Strugatskys were very anti-totalitarian and anti-establishment in their work. It is worth bearing in mind that quite a few of their novels, such as Prisoners of Power, were heavily censored and their much larger versions, with additional chapters, were only published after the fall of communism. The fact that they were Russians should in no way predetermine their guilt. The Strugatsky's attitude as a critic of the totalitarian system is by all means commendable.

Can pop culture books inspire you with how to write or not write? I am thinking, for example, of Dan Brown's novels.

The thing with light pop-culture reading is that everyone can see something in each of them and take it for themselves, although this works subconsciously rather than me thinking 'since the writer in question has done it so cleverly, I will do the same'.

I read Dan Brown's books a very long time ago, when he was becoming popular in Poland. I once did the following exercise: while reading two of his novels - The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons - one after the other, I drew out their plot pattern, which was identical in each of them. Although he used third-person narration in them, at certain points we do not know who the narrator is. It's deceiving - we think we're observing the world from one character's perspective, and, suddenly, this is not the case.         I made a step-by-step chart, worked it out, and found that Dan Brown approached the writing of these books with almost mathematical precision, recreating the same main story arc and all the twists and turns.

Do you analyse all the books you read?

No, I read prose for pleasure.

During the pandemic, the creators of the series Black Mirror wondered whether there was any point in creating further episodes since reality had surpassed fiction. How to create speculative fiction in this situation?

If we free ourselves from the assumption - which is what I am trying to do - that the value and duty of this literature is to predict the future, then we do not have to worry too much about reality overtaking it. If we aim to communicate something more universal, and I think I'm always trying to sneak in a message of this kind, then you shouldn't worry about something becoming outdated. The first of three scenes from my short story, entitled Fikcja polityczna (“Political Fiction”), is set in the near future. It turned out that we were already there or even much further away. Has this text therefore lost its meaning and its validity? I think not, because it is about something other than the simple extrapolation of the future.

I was struck by the topicality and timelessness of your short story Sześć (“Six”).

It was inspired by Nick Bostrom's super-intelligence - the conflict with artificial intelligence turned into a bit of a Cold War-era plot. Suddenly, it was clear that the grammar of conflict is universal - whether it is two nuclear superpowers competing against each other, or whether it is about humanity's conflict with AI, or a woman's strife with her abuser from years ago. The language and rules of conflict are the same everywhere.

Do you believe in happy endings or in crises that pass?

I tend to be an optimist, although I know this is not apparent from my stories - most of them have a pessimistic tone. As far as my civilisational and anthropological diagnosis is concerned, I stand on the light side of the Force. It's a very unpopular view, especially in the last three years, but I think humanity is rather heading in a fairly good direction. Many facts are difficult to dispute. I am referring to statistics on the incidence of infectious diseases, infant mortality, the number of the extremely poor and those who suffer from hunger, as well as the level of crime in the world. Each of these statistics shows that we have been heading in a very good direction for at least a couple of decades. Of course, there are temporary setbacks, but if I had to choose the historical era in which I would like to be born, I would not hesitate for a second - I would choose the times in which I live and have the chance to live as many years as possible in relatively good health and a relatively good economic situation. I don't think anything dramatic will happen unexpectedly that would cause this trend to reverse. At the same time, I am aware of two - in my opinion - major challenges that could lead to a gradual collapse of this trend over the next few decades if civilisation does not deal with them in time - climate disaster and global inequality.

Interviewer: Michał Hernes

Translated by Justyna Lowe