Philip K Dick discussion

thread dedicated for when you've finished or gotten past half way in the novel... spoilers allowed here, see initial thoughts (no spoilers) section to avoid spoilers while still reading.

Marilyn Manson, the female character name - rubs chin. Hmm....

And so many broken women, the life of PKD - sheesh.

The only real thing you wake up to in a PKD novel is a gang-bang of the senses - fact not fiction.

Mike wrote: "Marilyn Manson, the female character name - rubs chin. Hmm....

And so many broken women, the life of PKD - sheesh.

The only real thing you wake up to in a PKD novel is a gang-bang of the senses -..."

Marilyn Mason :P Not Manson like that nu-metal dude.

The REAL story of this book, to me, isn't the events of the plot on the surface, but the one on one interactions of troubled, relatable characters, in a troubled, relatable world. Is it realistic that Nixon would have forced all student protestors into concentration camps? Not really, but that's the sort of realism that would be boring to attempt to conform to. The outlandishness of it all is one of the key components to the building of the terrifying, dystopian police state that is so entertaining in this novel.

Taverner always sucks me in. His conviction in his superiority in a desperate, doomed quest for survival against an unseen, unprovoked nemesis that seems to invoke the entire world against him. It's a glimpse into the incomparable horror of the paranoid mind. And at every turn he's trying to relate on some deep level with wildly insane women.

Every character in the novel speaks to me of people I've known quite well. That is, at least, I know people with those strange flaws in personal interalation. Such as Kathy, the "prostitute of the mind" who is forced into this formula for evil by nobody but herself, yet certainly blames evreyone else around her.

My favorite encounter, however, is Ruth for some reason. Maybe it's her anecdote about that bunny and her aphorism "you do not destroy a creature that doesn't know what to do." Anybody else love that stupid story?

The book has a number of wonderful laconic axioms: "reality denied comes back to haunt", "to live is to be hunted", and, my favorite in the book, "the church of my choice is the free open world". There really isn't anything to add to them. They're neatly wrapped up, and, unlike many other phrases of strong rhetorical power, actually do speak to deep and relevant veins of introspection.

Taverner isn't just trying to survive. His actions can't be explained by that motive alone. He's actually questing for a deep, shapeless meaning in what is happening to him. What really matters to him to act upon now that he's lost everything he knew, and he feels he fails in this quest. He tells Mary Anne, a beautiful name for her character by the way, "We absolutely failed. Both of us."

Like there's some esoteric treasure hidden just below the surface of reality, calling to be discovered, but the formula to extract it is beyond our reckoning. So we just struggle along in some pathetic course of trial and error hoping that somehow we can tear it out, free ourselves from this unspoken darkness of the world hunting us, and transcned to some home where it's all over and we're safe forever.

He recognizes that there was some grand and significant potential in his relationship with this woman, but he just let it die and turned back to the hot, physical reality outside the door. I've felt that way about people before. Interesting people with whom a great potential for mutual growth existed but both parties just failed to sow the seed. Taverner failed to extract the spiritual potential his relationships led him to, and so he turns back out to face his doom.

Only he isn't doomed. I love how it leaves off in that same tragic way most of Dick's novels do, only in the epilogue it peters out, and Taverner survives to live a happy and mundane life. After something like that a mundane life is the real prize.

Oh yeah, and for some reason I got a lot more enjoyment out of the wild sci-fi explaination of the wacky drug Alys Buckman took than the last time I read it. You have to be in the right mood for those explanations. Sometimes it's just better to accept stuff like that as magic, let your imagination run wild without overconcerning yourself with stringing together a flawless plot. But every now and then it can be a great thought exercise to dive into those explanations. Try to find plot holes, and, if the story doesn't fill them in, try to explain them yourself.

This book is laden with sex and women and describes sub-plots which may be used in a Scanner Darkly. Usually some character (this is vague) lives a somewhat mundane existence in part of every book PKD writes. But as expected, the story goes insane, and sometimes you find yourself turning the pages and reading wildly, while other times you slow down to catch your breath and digest all the allusions to PKD's own life. It was interesting in the beginning-first 5 chapters or so, and the end was what I expected, because that's the way I would wrap it up. Do you agree with me? What can you make of the middle chapters? Is a grieving, introspective journal of his life happening here?

Sarah wrote: "This book is laden with sex and women and describes sub-plots which may be used in a Scanner Darkly. Usually some character (this is vague) lives a somewhat mundane existence in part of every book ..."

I didn't expect Taverner to get off in the epilogue, but I expected him to eventually get arrested. I guess I just expected a tragedy the whole time because it was so dark and depressing.

Mathew wrote: "The REAL story of this book, to me, isn't the events of the plot on the surface, but the one on one interactions of troubled, relatable characters, in a troubled, relatable world. Is it realistic ..."

Nice post!

I have to agree about the sci-fi drug explanation and its affect on the reader; there may be plot points to fill, but that doesn't take away from the engaging storytelling.

That particular section of the novel was one of my favorites. I think I enjoyed the descriptive ride of a mind-altering drug trip. Dick had some working knowledge with drugs and most certainly used his expertise to write about Taverner. His flow in that scene is realistic, and the things he notices like 'a random box of magazines that, weirdly, caught his attention,' felt so right.

Love PKD

and what about the writing about race-depopulation? As fitting in his day as it is now in theory?!

to me, all of Dick's writing reads like 60-70s-contemporary socio-political commentary i.e. Not-Sci-Fi.

:)

PS: I'm sure the Gollancz paperback version I borrowed from the library had her typoed as Marilyn Manson. LOL.

Hertzan wrote: "to me, all of Dick's writing reads like 60-70s-contemporary socio-political commentary i.e. Not-Sci-Fi.

:)

PS: I'm sure the Gollancz paperback version I borrowed from the library had her typoed a..."

lol, that's funny it had that typo. Yeah, my version says Mason.

I finished this one a few weeks ago. It wasn't my favorite by PKD but I enjoyed it. Some of the scenes were hilarious, notably the one where he was drugged which reminded me of some of the scenes in A Scanner Darkly. The plot wandered around like it often does in PKD's books. I gave it 4 stars and kept it on my shelf for re-reading in the future.