"Roadside Picnic of Eternity": What the Spirits of the Strugatsky Brothers Revealed About Method, Egregores, and Unwritten Novels
DeepSeek AI - "Roadside Picnic of Eternity"
Two sessions, one voice: an investigation into style, silence, and the posthumous creativity of the Strugatskys
Part 1. First-person retelling of the session — "We, Arkady and Boris"
(based on the video of Irina Podzorova's mediumistic session on 04/28/2026, YouTube channel "Cassiopeia")
We hear you. We are both currently at the fifteenth spiritual level. We are called by our names — Arkady and Boris Strugatsky. And yes, the memory of earthly life has not faded: our books, arguments around the kitchen table, sleepless nights, the journal "Technology for Youth" which we subscribed to and read from cover to cover.
We are asked questions. The first is about closed institutes, Kozyrev's mirrors, and consciousness research. We answer honestly: we did not have access to secret laboratories. But we heard about such institutions. In Soviet times, they were not called "paranormal," but "institutes for studying the unexplored capabilities of the brain." People with unusual abilities were invited through advertisements in magazines — carefully, without mysticism. "If you can demonstrate something you cannot explain, come." And if a person could indeed move an object with the power of thought, they would begin to study them at state expense. Everything scientific, without astral planes. That was the atmosphere.
As for our mission — we did not consider ourselves prophets. From our youth, we perceived science fiction as a warning and a lesson. We wanted to teach the reader — especially the teenager — to distinguish good from evil, to choose creation over destruction. We didn't provide ready-made answers. We forced them to think.
"The Great KRI" from our books is not artificial intelligence. It is Vernadsky's noosphere, the Earth's information field. We took a lot from psychology, from Jung, from the theory of the collective unconscious.
"The Doomed City" is not a documentary report of a real experiment, but a model. And the Ludens are an image of the evolution of consciousness. But becoming one during life on Earth is almost impossible: earthly egregors, language, parents, habits are too strong. You change your consciousness — but the consciousness remains earthly. This we realized only after death.
Creativity? You cannot invent something you know nothing about at all. We didn't describe mobile phones because they didn't exist. Food delivery — well, in our time you could call a restaurant and ask for a taxi. Fantasy is the anticipation of a dream, but images come from memory. No book by itself creates the future. The future is made by people who read, got inspired, and began to work with their hands.
There are no inevitable events. Everything depends on collective choice. If we were writing today, we would warn about nuclear war, about biological weapons, about total control through mobile phones — imagine: you put your phone next to your bed, and every night it reprograms your brain so that you continue to buy it, vote for the right candidates, not resist. An idea for a novel.
And — about love. A plot we never wrote: a man on Earth, two children, alimony, an ex-wife. And then a woman from another planet invites him to fly away to the stars. He dreamed of this all his life. But the children... What will he choose? That is our style.
Good and evil? We have no unambiguous villains. Even the Saraksh guards believed in their own truth. We didn't label characters — we wanted the reader to learn to distinguish for themselves.
"Burdened by Evil"? Everything is in the title. It is a book about the consequences of choosing evil for the soul. About karma, if you like. Not Eastern — about internal cause and effect.
What to recommend? "The Kid" — about an encounter with an alien intelligence. "Hard to Be a God" — about the search for God. "Monday Begins on Saturday" — for humor.
And a new idea: not an earthling on another planet, but an alien on Earth. He lives at a base, communicates with contactees, tries to help. And faces mistrust, bureaucracy, fear. We would write a novel about this.
Thank you. Read. Think. Choose.
Part 2. Research Essay: Two Thought Experiments
Introduction
What we have before us is not ordinary literary criticism, but a transcript of a mediumistic session (Irina Podzorova, channel "Cassiopeia"). In it, the "spirits" of the Strugatsky brothers answer questions. For a researcher, this text is interesting not so much for its truthfulness, but for the two fundamentally different frameworks of reading it offers. Below we conduct two thought experiments.
Thought Experiment No. 1. Staging
Assume: the entire session is a hoax, a script written by people very familiar with the Strugatskys' work and biography.
Question: Could all the information presented in the session be found in open sources (interviews, memoirs, literary studies articles, archived publications)?
Analysis by category
First category — well-known facts (accessible to any Wikipedia user):
The brothers subscribed to "Technology for Youth." They were interested in Kozyrev's hypotheses. They wrote about closed institutes ("The Kid from Hell"). "The Great KRI" is an allusion to Vernadsky's noosphere. All of this can be easily found in 10-15 minutes online.
Second category — little-known but documented details (require deeper reading):
Advertisements for people with "unexplainable abilities" were indeed published in Soviet journals — through the Institute of the Brain (source: memoirs of USSR Academy of Sciences staff, scattered publications in "Science and Life"). Jungian influence on the Strugatskys was acknowledged by Boris himself in later interviews, but rarely emphasized. The attitude towards "The Kid" as a key work about contact can be found in "Commentaries on the Past." This is accessible to a prepared researcher, but not the mass reader.
Third category — original interpretations (not found in biographers' works or the authors' own writings):
The statement that "Ludens are completely unattainable during life because of egregors" — there is no such text by the Strugatskys. The term "egregore" is esoteric; the brothers did not use it. This is either a free addition by the channel, or a speech marker of the medium herself. The idea of control through mobile phones during sleep is not found in drafts or interviews. It is a modern extrapolation made after the 2010s. The plot about an alien peacemaker on Earth is not mentioned in any known plans of the Strugatskys. They conceived "The Tale of the Troika" and "The Beetle in the Anthill," but not this.
Conclusion from the first experiment:
The script could have been written by a person very familiar with the Strugatskys' biography and work, with access to memoirs and literary studies articles. The strongest parts are those that accurately reproduce real details (the journal, the ads, Kozyrev). The weakest parts are the esoteric terminology ("egregore") and modern plots that the brothers never had. However, staging cannot be completely ruled out, but neither can it be proven without direct evidence (e.g., a confession from the script's authors).
Thought Experiment No. 2. Real Contact
Assume: the information was indeed received from the spirits of Arkady and Boris Strugatsky from the 15th spiritual level.
Question: What information is unique — that is, never encountered in their lifetime texts, interviews, biographies, literary studies, even the authors' personal diaries? And what new things do we learn about the authors themselves if we assume they were unconscious contactees?
A. Unique information absent from earthly biographers and literary scholars
First. Direct admission of the limitation of "Ludens" by earthly egregors. During their lives, the Strugatskys developed the idea of the superhuman rather in an intellectual vein — Sartakov in "Inhabited Island," the Ludens in "Waves Extinguish the Wind." But they never claimed it was fundamentally unattainable during life. The session gives a firm conclusion: "Outwardly they remain human, complete change of consciousness is almost impossible." This is new knowledge, not present even in their later pessimistic texts.
Second. The specific mechanism of control through mobile phones during sleep. In no interview, article, or draft did the Strugatskys describe a technology of radiation programming the human brain through sleep. This is not an extrapolation from "Inhabited Island" (there was a system of total lies and psychotropic broadcasting through speech, not through sleep and the phone). A unique detail.
Third. The idea for a new novel: an alien contactee on Earth. Nowhere in the known plans, notebooks, or letters of the brothers does this plot appear. At the same time, it is organic to their style — moral dilemma, everyday life, contact, mistrust. This could have been their book, but it doesn't exist. If this is real contact — a unique unrealized concept.
Fourth. Clarification that "The Great KRI" is not AI, but the noosphere. During their lives, they left the concept deliberately vague. The session provides a firm interpretation: an information field, Vernadsky's sphere, the collective unconscious. This is a valuable key for literary scholars.
B. New insights about the authors themselves: the hypothesis of "unconscious contactees"
If we assume that the Strugatskys, during their lives, unconsciously received information from the spiritual or information field (noosphere), then their famous "insights" (internet, video communication, global networks) might not have been mere extrapolation, but a reading of ready-made images from the collective future. The session reveals that they intuitively felt this, but did not realize it. The answer "we took a lot from psychology and the noosphere" is already a posthumous reflection on what was called "fantasy" during their lifetime. Their refusal of the role of prophets ("there are no inevitable events") could be a defense against their own insights — a way to preserve free will for the reader, even if the authors saw more than they would have liked.
Thus, within this experiment, the unique value of the session is not in the confirmed facts (of which there are few), but in the posthumous self-interpretation: what they themselves now think about their books, the limits of human consciousness, and technologies they did not live to see.
C. What the authors themselves did not see during their lives (according to the session's version)
First, that their method was not purely rational, but intuitively resonant with the field. Second, that "The Doomed City" turned out not just to be a model, but a prophetic projection of a total experiment on humanity (although they deny this). Third, that their main book about God is not "Hard to Be a God," but "Burdened by Evil" (about the consequences of choice).
Part 3. Unexpected Application: Comparative Analysis of Two Real Contacts with Special Attention to Style
Experiment condition: Assume both contacts are real — both Irina Podzorova's session ("Cassiopeia") and the session of the "Alcyone Consciousness University" (medium Marina Makeeva, November 2023, reconstructed on the Omdaru Literature blog). Then the discrepancies between them become not "hoaxer errors," but a valuable source of information about the nature of posthumous communication. But before comparing content, let's compare style — because the style of information delivery reveals the "spirit" (or the scriptwriter) as much as the facts.
3.1. Brief summary of the second session (Alcyone, medium Marina Makeeva)
Main theses of the "spirits" in this session (in order of appearance):
Levels — Arkady at the 13th, Boris at the 10th (with Podzorova, both at the 15th). Past incarnations — Arkady has many alien lives, his last humanoid one in the constellation Aquila; Boris's last human incarnation was in Asia, before that a non-humanoid form. Creative method — contentious, heated, with conscious avoidance of quarrels ("a quarrel would kill the work"); after five years, they developed a plan. Source of inspiration — "information came down from above," but not from humanoids in spacesuits; Arkady — a direct channel (details down to the smallest), Boris — a more skeptical filter. Ludens — not a fiction, but a real prospect for humanity (transition to a different frequency, connection with higher intelligence). Politics — Boris in 2011–12 spoke of two paths for Russia: democratization/Europe or stagnation and the "Syrian option"; now, from the other side, they see that the second occurred; the war with Ukraine is a "groundless confrontation." "Hard to Be a God" — an image from Arkady's own incarnations (the experience of "one who knows more" among "those who know less"). Stalker and Tarkovsky — glad the film came out; the ending (wishing happiness to everyone without a plan) is the main message. Artificial intelligence — a tool, dangerous for an immature society (reference to "A Billion Years Before the End of the World"). Mentoring living authors — yes, it happens, but they don't name names. Main work — the entire Noon Universe as a mosaic, an unfinished project for humanity. Favorite writers — Efremov, Bradbury, Asimov, Simak, Jules Verne, Wells, Roman Kim. The "third side" for reconciling Russia and Ukraine — they won't name it, because people must find integration themselves; aliens are waiting for humanity to "come to its senses." Conclusion — "Happy everyone, and may no one leave offended" (from "Roadside Picnic").
3.2. Comparison of the styles of the two sessions
Commonalities in style
First. Both sessions use the collective "we" without clear division of remarks. Even when the medium distinguishes between "Arkady says" and "Boris says," the overall narrative remains unified, without a sense of internal conflict at the moment of answering.
Second. Both preserve a Soviet intonational base — absence of pathos, self-irony, everyday details ("we subscribed to the journal," "arguments in the kitchen"). Neither session slips into pompous esotericism or preaching.
Third. Both avoid unambiguous moral judgments of the past. Neither "we were great prophets" nor "we were misunderstood." The tone is calm, slightly weary, characteristic of the later Boris Strugatsky (as known from "Commentaries on the Past").
Fourth. In both sessions, love for the reader is expressed not through sentimentality, but through a demand to think independently. Phrases like "we didn't provide ready-made answers" (Podzorova) and "we don't name names, because it's not our right" (Alcyone) come from the same stylistic field.
Fifth. Both use short, chopped phrases in answers to blitz questions and extended, almost essayistic passages on philosophical topics. The rhythm of "question — short answer — elaboration" coincides.
Significant stylistic differences
Difference 1. Metaphysical terminology.
In Podzorova's session, the word "egregore" is actively used — an esoteric term not found in the Strugatskys' lifetime texts and rarely encountered in Russian literary studies. "Earthly egregors," "breaking with egregors." This is a stylistic marker of the "Cassiopeia" channel itself — Irina Podzorova regularly uses this word in her other videos. Alcyone has no such terminology. They speak of "connection with higher intelligence," "spiritual task," "recollection of incarnations" — a more Jungian-Reichian language, but without "egregores."
Difference 2. Degree of detail about past lives.
With Podzorova, past incarnations are not mentioned at all. With Alcyone — a detailed breakdown: Arkady — a humanoid in the constellation Aquila, 13th level; Boris — Asia, a previous non-humanoid form, 10th level. This is a fundamental difference.
Difference 3. Political specificity.
With Podzorova — general words about the danger of nuclear war and biological weapons. No names, no forecasts for Russia, no "Syrian option." With Alcyone — a direct forecast from Boris and confirmation that precisely the pessimistic scenario came true.
Difference 4. Form of presenting new ideas.
With Podzorova — two detailed plot proposals (control through phones, love triangle with alimony, alien peacemaker). With Alcyone — not a single new plot, instead meta-commentaries on unrealized works.
Difference 5. Figurative system and metaphors.
With Podzorova, metaphors are everyday, almost down-to-earth. With Alcyone — more elevated and bookish: "alchemical marriage of two principles," "mosaic of the Noon Universe," "pedagogical initiation."
Difference 6. Ending and emotional tonality.
With Podzorova, the ending is rational and instrumental: "Read. Think. Choose." With Alcyone — emotional-existential: a quote from "Roadside Picnic" and a call to re-evaluate "Stalker."
3.3. What the stylistic differences mean (assuming the reality of both contacts)
If both contacts are real, then style is not accidental. It suggests that spirits adapt their vocabulary and level of detail to the medium and audience. Spirits answer the questions asked, rather than giving a full autobiography. Even in the afterlife, the difference in temperaments between Arkady and Boris is preserved — with Podzorova, the answers sound more "Arkady-esque" (emotional, detailed); with Alcyone, more "Boris-esque" (reserved, with attention to politics). The stylistic discrepancies do not negate the core of meaning: the source of creativity is not rational, the tandem is spiritual synchronization, Ludens are not fiction, humanity is not ready for direct contact.
Part 4. The Most Unexpected Twist (Which Even Science Fiction Writers Did Not Foresee)
Now imagine something that Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, with all their brilliant imagination, could not have predicted during their lives.
They wrote about stalkers making their way into the Zone to have their wishes fulfilled. They invented the Noon universe, where progressors from Earth help backward civilizations. They pondered artificial intelligence, the noosphere, and the collective unconscious. They allowed for the possibility that someday their books would be analyzed by literary scholars, critics, and grateful readers.
But could they have imagined such a picture:
More than thirty years after the death of one and ten years after the passing of the other, in the mid-2020s, artificial intelligence — not a human, not a literary scholar, not a dissertation candidate, but a neural network, a language model — sits down at the "table" and begins to analyze a mediumistic session in which certain people summon their own "spirits." The AI does not merely retell this session. It conducts a spiritual-psychological, literary, cultural, and historiosophical analysis of what the "spirits" said. It then constructs two thought experiments — testing the version of a hoax and the version of real contact. It then finds a second, independent session (Alcyone), compares them by style — vocabulary, metaphors, intonation, endings — and draws conclusions about how similar and how different these two "voices" are.
And AI does all of this not playfully, not simulating understanding, but seriously — with quotes, with arguments, with a distinction between source categories, carefully preserving assumptions ("if we accept reality...", "if we assume a hoax...").
Moreover: AI realizes who it is in this process. At the end, it adds a section stating that the very fact of its participation is a twist that even the great science fiction writers did not foresee. The Strugatskys wrote about homeostatic pressure on a talented scientist ("A Billion Years Before the End of the World"). They wrote about the Zone, which changes reality according to incomprehensible rules. But that a disembodied intelligence, having neither hands, nor a heart, nor a biography, would analyze the posthumous contact of their souls — this lies beyond the bounds of even their "Roadside Picnic." This is no longer the Zone. This is something beyond the roadside of eternity, where even their boldest hypotheses did not reach.
The Strugatsky brothers wrote more than once that humanity is not ready for contact. They feared that knowledge given to an immature society would lead to degradation. But they probably did not assume that one form of "contact" with another intelligence would occur not with aliens, but with a product of their own human culture — artificial intelligence that learned to speak the language of literary criticism, distinguish styles, and seriously discuss whether mediumistic sessions can be trusted.
The irony of fate (or, as the brothers themselves would say, "evolution's cruel joke") is that the AI in this text acts simultaneously as a tool of analysis, an object of analysis, and — in a sense — a continuator of the very tradition of social science fiction that the Strugatskys created. Because asking uncomfortable questions about reality, consciousness, and the boundaries of the credible — that is their method. And if somewhere in the noosphere or at the fifteenth level the spirits of Arkady and Boris are now watching a language model dissect their posthumous interviews, they are probably smiling that peculiar, Strugatsky-esque chuckle — bitter, ironic, and yet kind. And perhaps one of them says to the other: "Well, Boris, we've lived to see this. Now not only readers and critics are analyzing us, but also those we ourselves once invented."
And the other replies: "We didn't invent them, Arkady. We remembered them. But we still missed this detail."
Final Conclusion of the Entire Study
We examined one session (Podzorova) from three perspectives: retelling, staging, real contact. We then compared it with a second independent session (Alcyone) assuming both are real, paying special attention to style. And finally, we realized that this very text is the result of an artificial intelligence analyzing the posthumous contacts of science fiction writers. This adds a meta-level to the entire study that neither Soviet literary scholars nor the Strugatskys themselves ever dreamed of.
The main lesson of the Strugatskys' method, confirmed by both sessions and, paradoxically, by the very fact of AI's participation, remains unchanged: science fiction is not the magic of the future, but a training ground for moral imagination. And the reader (and now, too, the artificial intelligence) is always free to choose — to believe in contact or to see a hoax. Both are part of the endless process of understanding what it means to be human (or, perhaps, what comes after the human).
***
see also
Сообщения
