Rating: 
Summary: Philosophy somewhat different - an interesting book!
Review: Philip K. Dick's novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" describes the aftermath of a nuclear war that left the earth devestated and thus forced its inhabitants to build up colonies on Mars. Some of the remaining corporations develop human androids destined to serve as slaves on Mars, who/which, however, sometimes kill their masters and escape. On Earth, these androids are trapped down by bounty hunters such as Rick Deckard, who is assigned the task to "retire" 6 extremely intelligent androids of the Nexus-6 type.While telling the story of Rick Deckard's hunt, Philip K. Dick also discusses big philosophical questions and uses metaphors to illustrate his ideas. Central metaphors that recur throughout the course of the novel are the kipple and the nuclear dust that seem to be omnipresent. Both the kipple and the dust seem to be an active force covering not only objects but human beings as well. Thus the dust in particular extinguishes life and makes it even harder for the remaining people to distinguish between artificiality and reality. Moreover, the dust rules feelings, emotions and life itself, and one cannot escape from it. Throughout the book the dust creates a mysterious atmosphere and forces the reader to not only concentrate on appearance, but rather take a closer look at the inherent character and someone's genuine emotions. One of the most important androids created by the Rosen Association (one of the corporations that manufacture androids for the use on the colonies) is Rachael Rosen, who ironically seems to accompany Rick Deckard on his hunt for the artificial human. Although he clearly detects her as an android (using the Voigt-Kampff test) in the beginning of the novel, he develops emotions and empathy for her and even considers the possibility of quitting his job because of the attraction that he feels towards her. Furthermore, her beauty and perfectly human features mislead him in the way that he fails to view her merely as an android prototype. Thus it becomes clear to the reader how closely connected human and artifical life with both their advantages and downsides really are. Equally interesting is the role that animals play in the world Rick Deckard lives in: His greatest dream is to own a real animal, the ultimate status symbol in a society that is characterised by the coexistence of human and artificial life. Since many animals are already extinct due to the nuclear dust, artificial animals are given a great importance. Thus the reader is asked to draw parallels between the influence of artificiality in both human and animal life, and to, one more time, appreciate the value of authenticity and true emotions. On the whole we (who are not big fans of science fiction) considered the novel to be interesting, because it made us think not only about futuristic but also present life by raising big philosophical questions, such as "What defines life?" Furthermore, Rick is a character that one can easily identify with, because he is questioning the system (e.g. the concept of Mercerism) and shows genuine emotions and empathy. The ending of the novel rounds up the topic, that is discussed, in a very realistic way, and at the same time serves as a warning of the ethical consequences that technical progress (such as genetic engineering etc) might bring about. Therefore we can recommend the novel to everyone who is willing to learn more about a futuristic society and the conflict between artificial and human life.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting Aspects of the Novel
Review: The Science Fiction novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by Philip K. Dick tells the story of Rick Deckart, a bounty hunter from San Fransisco in the year of 1992, which is in the future. His job is to "retire", means kill, humanoid robots who have escaped from their masters.
One of the main aspects the novel points out is the definition of life and therefore the evaluation of human and artificial life. In order to maintain the tension, the author purposly adds either human characteristics to the behavior of androids or the other way around. This keeps the reader guessing about the real identity of the persons in the novel (human or android?) and questions the low value of artificial life.
Empathy plays an important role in the topic. This so-called human characteristic is the key to distinguish androids from humans and makes it possible for the bounty hunters to detect androids. But in the course of the novel it becomes more and more clear to the reader that there is a lot more to genuine life than empathy.
Another aspect in the novel is the animal cult. Because of the harming dust, which has lead to the decrease and even extinction of animal species, animals have become a status symbol in society. As the example of androids, there are also artificial animals, which resemble the genuine animals astonishly. This aspect has the function of mirroring the situation between humans and androids.
Philip K. Dick has risen a very topical question, even though he wrote the book in 1968. Genetic engineering has become an important question that keeps us questioning about the definition and value of the life.
The story of the novel is very interesting and once you start reading, it is hard to put it away. What I personally disliked was the end of the novel. It was very confusing and did not reach me at all. For me, the story ended abruptly did not seem as precisly structured as it was in the rest of the book. Still, I would definitely recommend reading the book instead of watching the movie "Blade Runner".
Rating:
Summary: I dream of electric sheep!
Review: Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" is set in the year 2021 following a global war that wiped out almost all life on Earth. In particular, many animals were lost. Society in large part has emigrated to Mars, though several survivors cling to Mother Earth despite the dust and fallout. Rick Deckard, a bounty hunter, is one of them. Instead of humans, Deckard hunts androids that have gone AWOL. The androids are incredibly lifelike, so much so that they are almost impossible to distinguish from humans. Only their lack of empathy gives them away. Animals are the world's most precious commodities in this post-apocalyptic society. Because they are so scarce, they are very expensive. However not owning an animal is akin to say walking around naked. It's just not done. People that can't afford them, including Deckard, own electric animals because they are less expensive. Ashamed of his electric sheep, Deckard pines for a real animal; it's what motivates him to collect the bounty on the rogue androids. In "Do Androids..." Dick is interested in what distinguishes reality from artificiality, the truth from falsity, genuine life from simulated life. Deckard struggles with this idea. In one instance he feels empathy for an admitted android while feeling none for his human counterpart. Isn't that backwards, he wonders? How can one develop feelings for a machine? It is at this point that Deckard begins to seriously question his job. I truly believe this is a great work of fiction, not so much for Dick's style and diction but because of his imagination and attention to detail. In fact, I could go on for pages and pages about Sidney's Animal & Fowl Catalogue, Buster Friendly and His Friendly Friends, the Penfield mood organ (dial 888, "the desire to watch TV, no matter what's on it"), the Voigt-Kampff test, Nexus-6 androids, Mercerism, etc. The world is populated with such intricacies that as a whole it seems real. One can see it in their mind and imagine living in it. I could read this novel again and enjoy it just as much. And I'm sure I'd get even more out of it the second time. A very quick and easy read, I'd recommend this book to any sci-fi fan, or even general readers such as myself. For fans of the cult sci-fi flick "Blade Runner", which was based on this novel, "Do Androids..." is an absolute must.
Rating:
Summary: Read it.
Review: The inspiration for Blade Runner. Need I say more? If you love sci-fi, Philip Dick is a must read, and Androids is one of his best. And if you haven't seen Blade Runner, read this then rent that.
Rating: 
Summary: Ha, ha, ha.
Review: We are told below that this "one of the best books ever written by man", comparable presumably, then, to The Odyssey, The Bible, Canterbury Tales, Hamlet, Don Quixote, Walden, Critique of Pure Reason, The Sun Also Rises, and The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Let's assume, however, out of hand, for the sake of argument, that it really is "one of the best books ever written by man": How does it compare to the best books written ever by rooster, drake, or bull (speaking of bull)? What? Was its author awarded the Nobel Prize in Quasi-literate B Science-fiction Pulp? Is this a new category? Let's assume, however, out of hand, for the sake of argument, that it really is worthy of a Nobel Prize in Quasi-literate B Science-fiction Pulp: Wouldn't you still rather read the back of your box of Fruit Loops? (Or, for the that matter, the side panel listing ingredients?) I know I would -- that is, if I actually ate Fruit Loops.
Rating:
Summary: great, but not all it's cracked up to be
Review: This book has a huge cult following, as does Blade Runner (which was based on the book, in case for some reason you don't know this). But it didn't quite live up to what I expected it to be. Philip K. Dick is a great writer. And DADES is a great book, but I just didn't think that was all it was said to be. Perhaps his other books are the ones that hit you.
Rating:
Summary: I'll pass, thank you very much.
Review: I've a moderate tolerance for flat-footed prose, but I didn't get far with this before I had to give it up. Possibly it has compensating virtues: I don't care. Apparently the consensus about Theodore Dreiser, by the bye, is something like this: "Dreiser is not a particularly good writer. His sentences can be clunky, truncated and fragmented. His language is stilted and awkward at times. He has no ear for writing dialogue. But these technical limitations are more than offset by Dreiser's incredible insight into the interior lives of his characters." Still I'd be very surprised (I've not read him) to find his novels nearly as badly written as "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" (It seems to me, for that matter, that prose approaches poetry when it is especially felicitous, not when it is especially awkward and inept.)
Rating: 
Summary: One of the best books ever written by man.
Review: Do androids dream of electric sheep is perhaps one of the best books ever written by man. Philip K. Dick weaves an absolutely Crotch-numbing plot, filled with memorable, interesting characters. The Futuristic setting is so well designed it gives me chills. Bless Philip K. Dick for this wonderful novel!
d.
Rating: 
Summary: so-so for sci-fi
Review: Not to upset all you Bladerunner supplicants, but I thought this book was a little disappointing. (I quite honestly found Bladerunner a little disappointing too, since I saw it several years after my friends had filled my ears with praise for the flick.) Still, the story gives an interesting glimpse into the world of Philip Dick, who was nothing if not creative. (He also had less than a clean bill of mental health, but perhaps he's another example of madness being the flip-side of genius...) In a nutshell, check this out at your local library, and if you like it, pick up more of his stuff--he's written quite a few books. I've heard _A Scanner Darkly_ is a good one, so you might want to check that out.
Rating:
Summary: bad even for B science fiction
Review: PKD: "Maybe I'm a great writer in France because I've got good translators....Somebody suggested I write the translator, Japanese translator, and ask him specific questions about the book. And I could tell something about the Japanese edition that way. And he wrote back. And he was really - I thought the Japanese were suppose to be very polite because I was really wrong. In his first letter he said your book wasn't any good to start with....And he went on like that. I was really amazed how up front he was in his contempt for the book." Translations better than the original (they couldn't possibly be WORSE) might account for international reputation -- to the extent there is one....When I was a kid reading science fiction in the late sixties, I considered the concurrent A writers Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, and Fred Hoyle. (Robert Heinlein wrote a little A stuff, "A Stranger in a Stranger Land", for example, and a lot of B stuff.) I put Philip K. Dick resoundingly in the B category and mostly avoided him. Now re-reading and re-evaluting all these things I consider H. G. Wells and Stanislaw Lem the only consistently good science fiction writers. (Back then Lem wasn't available in English.) I was right on about Dick.
|
