Well… Dick really does write like the speed freak he was.
For those of you in the know, this book was the basis for the very famous film Blade Runner. And, although I might be uttering blasphemy, the film was better.
Do Androids is the story of Rick Deckard, a bounty hunter hired by the San Franciso police force to “retire” androids who make their way back to Earth from human colonies off planet. Humans have mostly abandoned Earth post nuclear holocaust, and all that remain are a few people too poor or stupid to leave.
The title of the book is a play on the Deckard’s main obsession in life, to own a real sheep. Most of the animals have died, and the Earth is in a rapid decline. Consequently, it is the responsibility of all people to own and support and animal. Why? I still have no idea. You notice that this motif was left out of the film.
Dick’s idea plays, as many sci-fi books do, on a distopian future in which the boundaries of what it is to be human, and especially empathetic. The religion of this future Earth is based on “Mercerism”, the basis of which is the need to emphatise with animals and other humans, if not only to distinguish humanity from the androids.
While Dick tries to unpack the issues of artificial versus “natural” life-forms, the pulpy nature of his writing just seems to get in the way. Sometimes key events will take place that are glossed over so quickly it’s hard to follow the action, and sometimes non-key events are dragged out for pages while Dick seems to explore small ideas, tinkering with them and allowing himself an indulgence of relatively meaningless action.
One again, this book smacks of a long stream of consciousness. There is the glimpse of some great ideas in the book, and they must have been remarkable for their time, but Dick doesn’t seem to have given himself enough space to really work through the implications of what it was he was writing.
So, only read if you’ve not seen the movie, and are something of a buff for mid-c20th sci-fiction.
22 June, 2007 at 8:18 am
“Consequently, it is the responsibility of all people to own and support and animal. Why? I still have no idea. You notice that this motif was left out of the film.”
A vestige of it was left in the replicant interogation questions. And the snake lady telling Deckard thqat no way could she afford a real snake.
And if memory serves, the book is a lot more blatant with the concept that Deckard is an android (although I think they settle it that he is not?)
22 June, 2007 at 8:18 am
“Mercerism”
Iz in yor emoshuns empathizin.
22 June, 2007 at 9:14 am
i think what annoys me about dick is that he seems to completely neglect ‘mood’ in favour of whacking out ideas and having his characters sleep with slight brunettes…
and i didn’t actually get the “deckard is an android” stuff all that much. the greater emphasis was on his increasing empathy with the androids he’s retiring.
now, you could say that he’s empathising because he’s an android, but a more simple explanation is that the androids are becoming so human it’s harder to distinguish them from real people. hence the empathy.
bah.
22 June, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I think the last one. Is it a kind of re-worked Frankenstein?
Also I’m reminded of the Bird’s Nest Roys song, You’ve Got To Love Your Alien.
Some writing is kind of channeling the deeper psyche, maybe Dick was riffing on speed and drew up some pretty deep stuff and left it there, disconnected but interesting all the same.
I know Riddley Scott re-worked his ending, one of the few DVD’s worth owning. Sometimes things are OK as they are.
We know that we all have “another” inside us, almost an alien, because it is impossible to really know ourselves fully…as an eyeball cannot see itself or a sword cut itself, total self-knowledge is denied us, but with emapathy we can find a gateway to better understanding of ourselves through others = projection.
I’d have to discuss this with you in person, heh, so I could identify my projection into you!
22 June, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Oh and in the movie, the Unicorn is the best red herring of all, no?
22 June, 2007 at 12:33 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner
This is pretty definitive and so good that I would let it take my own impressions over, to a degree.
Obsessional? Nah, my own art is inspired by the idea of Human as Machine and Deus ex Machina or,
If the head is clockwork, what of the heart?
22 June, 2007 at 1:16 pm
yeah… but in the book deckard is facing two of the most dangerous androids ever faced, the “nexus-6″ variety.
how does he ‘retire’ them?
with a fast dodge during a showdown.
lame.
22 June, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I guess I need to read the book. One of the theme’s in the film is that Deckard is the best at retiring replicants because he has superior access to his feelings (instincts?).
There is a clue in there…but there are many ways of dissecting meaning.
If you ascribe to Jungian archetypal theory for art interpretation, the replicants may represent Deckards own un-assimilated inferior qualities, (have you ever dreamed of punching someone repeatedly with no affect?).
But this is a big stretch, not knowing your own disposition re. The Theory Of Types and how it can affect our P.O.V. (Point of view).
Too edgy for here methinks.
22 June, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Maybe more to Dick than meets the eye http://www.impermanentpress.com/pages2/pkd3.html
And this was interesting…
http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/archive/courses/warner/english197/syllabus.html
22 June, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I reckon he’s a replicant. At least in the film version I first saw, whichever that was, that’s what I came out thinking.
Love what the movie suggests about empathy and machines and the “human machine”. The book? Ahm, haven’t read it, I have read some short stories once, years ago! Dick had a heap of ideas and they just came out, not a lot of editing. Occasionally brilliant.
Sometimes it’s fun hunting in the junkheap for the diamonds; other times you just want to go to the diamond shop…
22 June, 2007 at 4:48 pm
good summary of dick.
ubik was a great idea with incredibly poor execution. starts out with a girl who can change the past with the power of her mind.
bad day at work? change the past!
but dick doesn’t develop that idea, we wanders off into this tangent about everyone being cryogenically frozen and dreaming they’re alive.
his estate shoudl sue those guys who made the matrix
26 June, 2007 at 9:55 am
“his estate shoudl sue those guys who made the matrix”
As should Arthur C Clarke (Lion of Commarre & Against trhe Fall of Night.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_of_Comarre_%26_Against_the_Fall_of_Night
26 June, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Damn plot thieves, we hates them we do…
27 June, 2007 at 1:05 pm
bah, if you’re going for plot thieves then everyone is going to sue everyone else. Though the ensuing (ho ho) chaos would a grand thing to watch, and film.
Because if we are honest even the great films have ripped off someone or something.
27 June, 2007 at 2:08 pm
The Bible mostly and Bill (Shakespeare guy). Not as much stealing as you think goes on, for a real writer, this is un-productive, unsatisfying work.
The talentless may try to steal, they will generally improve for it.
27 June, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Sorry I kind of meant that old line about there’s nothing new under the sun. I imagine the Matrix people (Los Bros Wachowski) came up with their version inside of the same discourse that created many similar sci-fi stories. Just look at the connected movies page on the IMDB. Often ideas aren’t stolen they are just good ideas and so many people come up with them.
27 June, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Some call them archetypes. Pi was connected to the Matrix, but for me it was tenuous. The Hero muth is pretty universal. I can connect anything if I really want to, but after a point things can get mighty strange again.
I liked the connection made between Blade Runner and The Unforgiven though.
27 June, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Muth, WTF, myth, I was saying it phonetically, obviously
10 July, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I thought maybe that was a book about a guy called Muth, who was a hero. Oh well.
BTW – on the subject of connected stories… have any of you seen a clever film called Dark City? It came out before the Matrix, but not so long that the Wachowskis would have seen it.
So yeah, coincidence.
10 July, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Well there was once this hero called Muth, who was evil, an very evil muther indeed…
There’s been a few Dark City films, 1950, 1990, 1998…don’t think I have seen them.
10 July, 2007 at 5:27 pm
…an very evil…jeebus I suck, need edit function fast…
4 October, 2007 at 6:01 am
Oh my gosh its just a freakin book guys