Talk:Memoirs Found in a Bathtub

Memoir

I have a copy of this book. It's actually called Memoir found in a Bathtub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverted myself. No so sure now. It seems to be known in English by both titles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Might want to fix the link ... I assume it was just dragged down from the URL bar by someone already logged in, so it's not much use to anyone else.

The original title(in Polish) is: "a diary found in a bathtub". Er, what a mess:P

title

The title refers to Count Potocki's novel Manuscript found in Saragossa and everyone in Poland knows that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.171.19.98 (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would second that; refs found. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The authorship of the Memoirs is NOT discussed in the book

The current Wikipedia-text says

 In danger of losing his mind, the protagonist starts keeping a diary, and it is this diary which details only a few days in his life that is ultimately found by a future society and given the title Notes from the Neogene, which constitutes the Memoirs Found in a Bathtub.

But to the best of my knowledge the book says nothing about the origin of the memoirs, except that they were found (stated in the Foreword as part of the book). The first-person narrator of the memoirs never says anything about keeping a diary, and no according action is recorded. Since the Instructions, as given to him originally, actually contain at least the beginning of his story (Section 4 of the book, English translation, first edition):

 I opened the bundle and glanced at the top of the first page:
 "... You won't be able to find the right room -- none of them will have the number designated on your pass. ..."

on the contrary to the assertion, that the memoirs are a "diary" of the first-person narrator, the reader might think that the memoirs constitute some kind of archetype of "the building".

Anyway, I do not think there is any indication about the author of the memoirs in the book, and so the text of the Wikipedia-page needs to be corrected. I assume that the English translation doesn't change such a fundamental fact.

So I propose to state in the Wikipedia-text, that the Introduction in the book mentions the memoirs, and that otherwise their origin is unclear.

Oliver Kullmann (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Very clever. But... By Occam's razor, when we deal with a book framed as a memoir, it is assumed that the memoir is written by the person in whose voice the memoir is written. Unless we have a convoluted regression that the (fictional) memoir is (fictionally) forged by someone other than the person whose memories allegedly are presented, or something even fancier. But such fancy turn must be hinted somewhere in the book, otherwise such smart idea is lost to the reader. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The. Current. Preamble. Was. Added. By. The. Author. After. Receiving. Critique. From. Censors.

https://rcin.org.pl/Content/64409/PDF/WA248_83681_P-I-2795_mojsak-w-labiryn_o.pdf

.

„Pamiętnik znaleziony w wannie”, zgłoszony do kontroli w lutym br., nie zo-

stał dopuszczony do druku w pierwotnej formie, ponieważ autor oddał w nim

niewłaściwie (aczkolwiek jest to powieść fantastyczna) aktualny układ sytuacji

międzynarodowej. Obecnie Lem dokonał pewnej poprawki, której celem było

wyeliminowanie z książki pierwotnej dwuznaczności politycznej. Trzeba przyznać,

że autor wywiązał się z tego zupełnie dobrze i dość sprytnie, gdyż przy minimalnej

przeróbce książki nadał jej zupełnie inną wymowę, tak iż w obecnej formie, moim

zdaniem, „Pamiętnik” nadaje się do druku. Co autor zmienił?

W pierwotnej formie „Pamiętnik” poprzedzony był jednostronicowym wstępem

odautorskim, który sugerował współczesne i realistyczne odczytanie tej fantastycznej

powieści jako groteski politycznej czy też karykaturalnej satyry na histerię wojenną

amerykańskich kół wojskowych (Gmach). Ponieważ przeciwnik polityczny Gma-

chu – Antygmach (zapewne obóz socjalistyczny) ustawiony został co najmniej

dwuznacznie, powieść nie mogła ukazać się w druku. Obecna przeróbka autorska

poszła w następującym kierunku. Lem odrzucił poprzedni, króciutki i gmatwający

sprawę wstępik, a na jego miejsce dał nowy i obszerny, który tak ustawił książkę,

że nie wymaga ona dalszych poprawek. Reszta „Pamiętnika” pozostała zupełnie

niezmieniona. Lem poprzez nowy wstęp nadał książce charakter niejako „arche-

ologiczny”. […]

.

“Memorois found in a Bathtub”, submitted for scrutiny in February this year, was

not approved for publication in its original form because the author rendered

inappropriately in it (although it is a fantasy novel) the current layout of the

international situation. Lem has now made some revision, the purpose of which was

to eliminate the original political ambiguity from the book. It must be admitted

that the author accomplished this completely well and quite cleverly, since with a

minimal reworking of the book he gave it a completely different meaning, so that in

its present form, in my opinion, “Memoir” is fit for print. What did the author change?

In its original form, “Memoir” was preceded by a one-page introduction by the author,

which suggested a contemporary and realistic reading of this fantastic novel as a

political grotesque or a caricatured satire on the war hysteria of American military

circles (Gmach). Since the political opponent of Gmach - Antigmach (presumably the

socialist camp) was positioned at least ambiguously, the novel could not appear

n print. The author's current rewrite went as follows. Lem discarded the previous

short and confusing introduction, and in its place gave a new and comprehensive one,

which set the book up in such a way that it needs no further revisions. The rest of

“Memoir” remained completely unchanged. Lem, through the new introduction, gave the

book an “archaeological” character, so to speak. [...]

.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

.

Though, good luck with finding the "original" one-page introduction.

.

Also, don't forget of "Then too, no agreement has been reached as to when and in what order certain parts of the manuscript were written. The Hyberiad Gnostors, for example, consider the first twelve pages apocryphal, an addition of later years.". In the context described above, it's clear that this part is intended to invalidate the preamble (removing first few pages of the "main text" wouldn't make sense). Udersyov (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The assertion "In danger of losing his mind, the protagonist starts keeping a diary ..." is not founded on anything in the book, it is a pure interpretation/speculation. Nothing in the book gives any hint that the protagonist is involved in writing the memoirs. If this absence is not to be discussed on the Wikipedia-page, then simply this speculation needs to be removed. The formulation "starts keeping a diary" is obviously wrong, since this asserts that this happens in the book (but it doesn't). Such speculations are typical for filling in perceived gaps, and thus are misleading. Oliver Kullmann (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

To further show that the book on purpose leaves open the question about authorship of the "memoirs" (and thus the Wikipedia-page should not mislead here, but leave it open as well), here the relevant parts from the first section of the book, called "Introduction", the foreword by future scientists:

 Only a few remarks remain to be added to this introduction to the "Notes".

We note here that "Notes" are used (not e.g. "diary").

 The "Notes" were discovered ... were two human skeletons and, beneath them, a scroll of papyr -- the "Notes."

This links to the end of the book, where the protagonist finds the first skeleton. We note here that the above statement does not claim any relation between the skeletons and the "Notes". Back to the book, its last sentence is:

 "Give me the razor!" I screamed. "Traitor! Bastard! Give me the razor!"

This doesn't sound like the beginning of a reflection, but it fits into the suicidal mood (the *two* skeletons). The only chance that the protagonist could have written the Notes himself would have been after the actions described in the book finished, since before that every minute seems accounted for! I don't think there is a single sign of the protagonist just thinking about making some notes during the time of the book.

Back to the "Introduction":

 The reader will see for himself that the daring suppositions ... 

 Our historiography has not yet passed final judgment on the "Notes," commonly called, for the location of their discovery, "Memoirs Found in a Bathtub." Then too, no agreement has been reached as to when and in what order certain parts of the manuscript were written. The Hyberiad Gnostors, for example, consider the first twelve pages apocryphal, an addition of later years. But the reader will hardly be interested in such technical matters. Let us then be silent and allow this last message from the Neogene, the Era of Papyrocracy, to speak to us in its own voice.

The language here does not evoke the image of a "diary", written by the protagonist of the novel. There is the aspect, that we, the readers, know certain things better than the authors of this Introduction. But this is left open, part of the book, and thus no wrong assertions should be made.

To emphasise, I do not want to add a different speculation, but I just want to remove the speculations on the Wikipedia-page: That the text is a diary written against the threat of madness, and this by the protagonist, and that this happens during the time of the book. Oliver Kullmann (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. I removed the "madness" part. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)