February 2009 SF BotM: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K Dick

[Hobbit]

The book under discussion this month is often regarded as an SF classic.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was first published in 1968. Written by Philip K Dick, an author often regarded in retrospect (he died in 1982) as one of SF's greatest (if not to say strangest!)

Like many of Dick's novels, it has been made into a film. Ridley Scott's Blade Runner should not need an introduction to SF readers, though it is very different to the book: something which annoyed me when I read it as an 18-year old in 1982!

This may be a case where the film is more famous than the original book: but is it better?

Over to you!

Mark

[Tanaros]

I'm half way through and i have only one thing to say, Philip K Dick was a genius. I have already secured a copy of Blade Runner, Director's Cut, and can't wait to finish the book to compare the two. Certain discrepancies are already evident but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
Anybody else reading it?

[Mike Lynch]

I will probably ruffle a few feathers here, but I thought the movie was far superior than the book. In many ways, they are two very different stories. I liked the direction the movie took when it explored the human qualities replicants sought to attain, and ultimately try to hold onto, even though their lives only lasted a few years. In some ways, this theme was explored with Data in ST:TNG, though in a more superficial way. In the book, it focused more on Dekkard, and what kind of life he wanted for himself. I know that 99% of the time, books are far superior than any movie, but in this case, I submit that Ridley Scott's movie falls within the 1%.

Mike

[Tanaros]

I will probably ruffle a few feathers here, but I thought the movie was far superior than the book. In many ways, they are two very different stories. I liked the direction the movie took when it explored the human qualities replicants sought to attain, and ultimately try to hold onto, even though their lives only lasted a few years. In some ways, this theme was explored with Data in ST:TNG, though in a more superficial way. In the book, it focused more on Dekkard, and what kind of life he wanted for himself. I know that 99% of the time, books are far superior than any movie, but in this case, I submit that Ridley Scott's movie falls within the 1%.

Mike

Blade Runner is the best movie based on one of PK Dick's stories, which is why many people will tend to agree with you that it is better than the book. In my opinion both are masterpieces and we should not waste time on bickering which is better.
At this point, I like the book better because of its complexity. There is a number of aspects that are not in the movie, and that I found very interesting.
For example, there is nothing about Mercerism, which is a religious aspect of human nature that cannot be grasped by androids, and there is also nothing about "specials", and one of them is a very important character in the book.
In addition, the book is less explicit with regards the androids' ability to empathize. The androids are gathering knowledge about correct responses to the test (in the book), and they will eventually be able to mimic human behavior perfectly but will that be enough?
Anyhow, I feel like I am jumping from subject to subject. I finished the book and it was great, though a bit confusing in the end. I will watch the movie again and I'll be back

[Monty Mike]

It's been a good while since I read this book, but I remember enjoying it tremendously. Mark/Hobbit had warned me to read it with an open mind and not let my thoughts on the film taint my experience. I found it stood well on it's own and only disappoints when you have certain expectations of how it SHOULD be. I also think that Dick, like with many of his stories, wants us to read between the lines.

This may also be of interest to some, found on Wikipedia:

Three novels intended to serve as sequels to both Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Blade Runner have been published: Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human (1995), Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night (1996), Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon (2000). The official and authorized novels were written by Philip K. Dick's friend K. W. Jeter. They continue the story of Rick Deckard and attempt to resolve many of the differences between the novel and the film.

I don't suppose anyone knows anything about these?

[aeryion]

Blade Runner was and is the standard for futuristic existentialism, as far as movies go. The book, like all of PKD's writings is fragmented and, if you nit pick, very poorly written; as hard as that may be to digest. BUT, that is not to say that his stories don't resonate: They do! I own nearly all of his works-- I'm a big fan for two reasons:

1) He's not afraid to write as he thinks, mindless of the mechanics, tone, tense, grammar. As an author myself it both frustrates and delights me whenever I read PKD. If todays author submitted work written in Dick's style, voice and tone it wouldn't make it past the near-sighted lit. grad-student reading the latest vampire romance while manning the slush pile. Ah, the days when stories were written and published because they were just damn good, even if they balked at the rules of writing. Go back and read Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and you'll see what i mean...

2) The stories are timeless and human... even in their sterility. If you're a PKD novice I strongly suggest reading a collection of his short stories before tackling his novels. There are a number of them and all the anthologies are good. You'll notice that most of the best have been co-opted for the screen.

My one knock on Dick is that he never really developed his thoughts much past the "reveal"... in other words he developed the conflict, took you to the edge, allowed you to peer over the precipice and then left you standing there with your thesaurus in hand. Sometimes, that's cool. But sometimes you want to know a bit more...

I also think Spielberg did a very nice job with Minority Report.

[Mike Lynch]

Why do you think publishers no longer let authors write their stories they they want to write them? These days, it seems they have to couch everything within the conventions of an unwritten manual entitled, "Today's writing parameters." When an author is "forced" to work within the confines of a publisher's expectations the way a story should be written, it does affect his ability to write that story, and not always for the better. When every story is more or less the same, mediocrity sets in pretty quick. However, when an author breaks from the norm, that book tends to be much more engaging.

Mike