Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? - 1968
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (retitled Blade Runner: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? in some later printings) is a science fiction novel by American writer Philip K. Dick, first published in 1968. The novel is set in a post-apocalyptic San Francisco, where Earth's life has been greatly damaged by nuclear global war. Most animal species are endangered or extinct from extreme radiation poisoning, so that owning an animal is now a sign of status and empathy, an attitude encouraged towards animals. The book served as the primary basis for the 1982 film Blade Runner, and many elements and themes from it were used in its 2017 sequel Blade Runner 2049.
The main plot follows Rick Deckard, a bounty hunter who is tasked with "retiring" (i.e. killing) six escaped Nexus-6 model androids, while a secondary plot follows John Isidore, a man of sub-par IQ who aids the fugitive androids. In connection with Deckard's mission, the novel explores the issue of what it is to be human and whether empathy is a purely human ability.
The first chapters of Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep were confusing to me and not engaging, reinforcing my disinterest in sci-fi. Perhaps a regular reader of the genre has the formula to fill in background. As I kept plugging, I began to make connection with characters and setting and became curious as to how the path would end...if at all. Instead of a linear plot line, I felt I was free floating in a space bubble without definition or boundaries. Empathy is required to connect to a character, and the brilliance of the author is that empathy was the missing ingredient in his robots, no matter how cleverly they were produced to fool humans. Thus if the reader can’t attach, the point is validated. In comparison we have the beloved R2D2 and C3PO, who do show limited emotional connection in Star Wars.
ReplyDeleteLooking down on “others”as less than human is our sad human nature which keeps the world in tension and conflict. This book is a collection of others, raising the question of whether a person who lacks empathy can fit into humanity. Can a robot programmed to be intelligent find ways such as art or music to express feelings even if it doesn’t extend them directly to others? Is reality only that which our brains are capable of perceiving? Is it better to know the truth even if it makes us unhappy, as Decker decides?
ReplyDeleteNot having seen Blade Runner, I wonder if it raises the same philosophical questions or was it just a shallow movie adaptation to highlight Harrison Ford’s box office popularity as Han Solo?
ReplyDeleteThe book is unsettling. Dad tells me he likes sci fi as a window into an imagined future. For me, the scenario is the stuff of spooky dreams described by authors with LSD-like creative minds. No thanks. I find it interesting that the exacting scientist would be attracted by the genre, while the art driven brain is repelled. Maybe the person who is successful in writing such stories must excel in both.
The movie had a more definite ending. The book ends in such a way that I understand is a prime example of PKD's works. An ending that could then veer out into multiple directions a universe, "where reality is never what it seems and there are infinite possibilities for any situation." Generational separation, national identity crisis, etc. led to a probable fear of loss humanity. I believe both the film and book reflect that but in different ways.
DeleteI came into this book having seen the movie and lived through its coronation to science fiction sainthood. Within both cinema-philes and sci-fi communities the movie and the book became sacrosanct so there was some trepidation as I admit to not really being crazy about the film. Not joining in on the movie vs book debate now that I have made it through both formats. I watched the film because I had to according to most movie buffs or so THEY said. I did know that Dick is considering a founding father of modern sci-fi so figured it was worth it just to cross it off the list.
ReplyDeleteThe material was a lot heavier than I remember from the film and the amount of symbolism was intense. I say this even knowing that the film is praised for its smoggy, dense, grainy tone. Given the time period in which it was written, the insecurities and number of possibilities where the future could end in such a bleak matter are understandable. Commentary on humanity’s philosophical conundrum, religion, technology, and the basic human condition are deftly fit into a relatively short novel. It is an intense study, along the same lines as Lord of the Flies, of human nature/human psyche and how our animal nature/societal learning impact our concept of life. The book has a lot of texture and I would best describe the feeling I had reading it like seeing the residue left on the bottom of the sink after washing some freshly harvested lettuce. It is a credit to Dick that he creates an atmosphere of such bleakness but one laced with human emotion or the specter thereof and does not just resort to dark adjectives and ominous language. It gives it a tangible quality that lots of apocalyptic sci-fi does not quite manage to obtain.
ReplyDeleteThe emphasis on the sacred nature of life as seen by the use of animals as status symbols is profound, especially during a period of time where the world population has exploded after the ravages of WWII but the threat of WWIII loomed large with the weapons of the time threating an utter annihilation of life. Compassion was a word that was bandied about but the Cold War, African civil wars, Vietnam, etc. seemed to make the extension of feeling and empathy something that was limited to the known and the familiar only. The other side, much like the replicants, may have looked like us but lacked an essential quality that would allow us to grant them humanity. The ability to love and show compassion is, according to “Sheep”, what makes us human and what enables us to survive as a species. Perhaps Decker’s own realizations, his questions about himself, and the nature of replicants reflect Dick’s opinion that the direction of world geo-politics was trending toward a march toward destruction.
ReplyDeleteRemoved from the brunt of physical exertions and coddled by status as the financially secure and physiologically pure, humankind, particularly those in the colonies, lost sight of empathy, sympathy, and any other emotion spawned form the greater interaction with the world around them. The mood organs show that self-emotional correction and mental health are beyond the average human and certain feelings can only be experienced through psychological hacking. The elevation of animals to a sacred level shows a longing for the past. A connection to the birth place of humanity and way of life that is no longer accessible due to human action and cannot even be successfully longed for due to the inability to successful emote and relate needs beyond one’s immediate personal life and fulfillment of basic life-sustaining needs. The ability to care for another creature, electric or not, is the one trait that humanity can still claim to make them feel superior to the replicants created to serve them and it is used ruthlessly to suppress the android population. Such a feeling of attachment and custody is the only thing that still makes the human population, especially the tainted and untainted alike left on earth, feel meaning in their existence.
ReplyDelete