Hmph! You know, I've read eight PKD novels this summer, and I'm still not sure whether to agree with you or not. Androids in script form -- Blade Runner -- is a marked improvement by any measure. And there's a sense of nausea that permeates all of Dick's novels. But on the other hand, Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch really hits you. So does Ubik, even if the prose is shitty because he wrote it in 30 minutes on speed. Man in the High Castle may've even deserved its Hugo. And there's something deeply disturbing about A Scanner Darkly that really makes it click ... when you learn it's a fucking autobiography. I want to say something like: if only PKD had been well-off he could have written 10 books in his life instead of 40 and the quality would be much higher, but I know that's not true. He was a one trick pony but sometimes it worked.'cuz it's a shit book. As are most Philip K. Dick novels.
If a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters for a million years will eventually produce Shakespeare, one monkey at one typewriter for forty years will eventually come up with "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale." That's pretty much where I am with Asimov and PKD - they wrote so goddamn much that one or two of their stories will be "Twilight" or "The Bicentennial Man." The rest of it is Dr. Bloodmoney. I've started maybe four PKD novels. I've finished two. Some day I'll do High Castle but fuck a duck, what I've read is not encouraging. It seemed like half of Androids was fuckin' Mercerism... and I just don't give a shit. I know Kilgore Trout was supposed to be Theodore Sturgeon, but I've always imagined him as Philip K. Dick.
While I disagree about Androids, that line made me laugh pretty fukn hard...enough to make my office mate look at me awkwardly. I will never dispute that PKD couldn't write for shit (his famous line about speed that you quote is evidence enough that even he admitted as much). I'm no expert on his work but I've read four or five of his novels and probably 15 or so short stories. Anyway, enough to get a sense of him. My take is that there's often signal in the noise. What I love about Androids is the human attentiveness to animals. That whole thing is almost never talked about when reflecting on the story, as we're perpetually stuck in the human/fabricant dichotomy, but I think the story was more about the search for empathy in a destroyed world. And how even empathy can be co-opted by corporate interests when it serves their bottom line. If I were you (and I had a few days to read a story), I would give High Castle a try. It's a vastly different book than any of his others, as it was penned before he was nuts and apparetly still cared about being coherent. It's also not a sci-fi so much as an alternate history. It certainly won't be Earth shattering, but it's a very good read, IMO.I know Kilgore Trout was supposed to be Theodore Sturgeon, but I've always imagined him as Philip K. Dick.
Agree. In the 12 or so of his books I've read, there's (almost) always one really neat idea -- Ubik being the prime example. Sometimes, as in Scanner, there's actually some half-funny prose to accompany the central idea. Not usually.My take is that there's often signal in the noise.
Oh, absolutely. He was not a talentless hack - I just haven't seen any examples where he can get out of his own way. Your take on empathy in Androids, for example: I agree with it completely but at the same time, Deckerd is a wholly un-empathetic character. He's without sentimentality. And then when we see a replicant version of Deckerd, you're like "so what?" Personality-wise, they're indistinguishable. Yet the replicants act irrationally vindictive towards humans. The humans, by comparison, are matter-of-factly committing genocide against the androids. So yeah, "empathy." But the humans are the ones who act dispassionately while the androids are just mean. So yeah- signal in there somewhere. But it's positively buried under conflicting narratives and inexpert metaphor. Too much noise to get anything out of it unless you're looking for faces in the clouds.My take is that there's often signal in the noise.
Asimov wrote more, yeah, but also his peak -- Foundation -- is better in some indefinable way than any of those others. My opinion, course. That said I'm short-handed when it comes to having read enough Zelazney (have you read the book he did with PKD? Should I?) and Ellison.