Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

A novel that was 1968 Nebula Award nominee, was a basis of the movie that this year celebrates its 30th anniversary, but it was an inspiration to many other works in the movie industry and literature as well. It even has sequels that united it with its movie counterpart: Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human, Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night and Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon. They were written by K.W. Jeter, Philip K. Dick's friend whose authorization made them official.

This science fiction classic does not need much of introduction, maybe only a short synopsis, taken from :

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is a 1968 science fiction novel by Philip K. Dick. It tells of the moral crisis of Rick Deckard, a bounty hunter who stalks almost-human androids in a nuclear fallout-clouded, partially deserted future San Francisco.
Along with The Man in the High Castle, the novel is Dick’s most famous. It is one of the defining science fiction works exploring the ethical dimensions of androids.

So that would be it from me � now you may here discuss whatever you like about the book, its writing style and contents :) However, the movie based on this novel should be discussed in the movie thread, as usual :)

Ah Christ.. There's no available copies of this in our library system :/
And I've still got Atonement and Bourne Identity sitting on the shelf.. Along with The Night watch, Love in time of cholera and No country for old men.

On a positive note, I'm nearly done with my Adaptations challenge :D

Haha I perfectly understand you - too many books to read, never enough time :) Don't worry, read at your own pace, whatever you like. Maybe it's better that the book isn't currently available, so you can tackle those already on your shelf ;)

Congratulations for the challenge, and there are still four months till the deadline :D

I finally have time to participate again. Yay.
I didn't read the book nor watched the movie yet.

I read a Philip K. Dick book once and it was very.... weird.
I'm looking forward to this one then :) (and to watch the movie. can't believe i didn't watch it yet)

Dodo wrote: "I finally have time to participate again. Yay...."

Sorry, just seen the comment. Great, glad you'll join this discussion, I think the movie at least is worth seeing!

I've just read about a half of the novel - it is really really... wow, how to say that, original and provoking. There are so many topics interesting to discuss here... But I would first like to read it whole, do not wish to rush in.
Of course, if some members have already read it, feel free to post your opinions :)

Finally, I read it. I must admit that this genre is not my cup of tea, but the book is good.
I like the emphasis on the human component of a man (what it means to be empathetic). My favorite character is "chickenhead" John R. Isidore. His faith in humanity is great and he is a true altruist.

Oh, yes, I loved Isidore too. My heart tore apart at every mention of both androids and humans that he was ‘chickenhead� - so derogatory and mean, whilst he seemed so much better person than all of them.

By the way, I’ve read the novel this weekend, and now have some thoughts, quotes and questions that I would like to share with you. That’s how much it impressed me!

-- first of all, as a woman, I found myself a bit offended by the way Dick portrayed the relations with women: remember mood 594 right at the beginning? pleased acknowledgement of husband's superior wisdom in all matters. Ok, that's even funny (typical for Dick), goes perfectly well along with the mood 481: awareness of the manifold possibilities open to me in the future. But the situation with Deckard and Rachael -- in which Deckard didn't have not even a flickering thought of his own wife, although he wasn't in quite a good relations with her. Wow. I was truly aghast. But, not so much as for a blunt advice Go to bed with her first... and then kill her. I didn't see that coming, really! Did that offend you as well or I am a bit touchy?

-- my guess regarding the androids and Mercerism: androids couldn’t destroy Mercerism and they won't ever be able to fathom why, simply because Mercerism was based on an idea. Faith, belief in some idea, is typically human trait, which is not rational and requires no material proof. Maybe I got it all wrong? I found brilliant though that Isidore was the one that got what was going on between Buster and Mercer, in his own innocent way, I’ll quote here: Maybe Buster is jealous, Isidore conjectured. Sure, that would explain it; he and Wilbur Mercer are in competition. But for what? Our minds, Isidore decided. They're fighting for control of our psychic selves; the empathy box on one hand, Buster's guffaws and off-the-cuff jibes on the other. He didn’t go that far to conjecture who Buster really was, but he was close in estimating that he was jealous.

-- Mercerism � I must admit, I am still struggling with the whole revelation thing that happened to Deckard. I wrote the review based on my first impressions and thoughts, but really should ponder more about that part of the story. What do you think of it? Was there more to it than it seems on the front?

-- Rosen Association -- what do you think what was their agenda? They wanted smarter andies, yet they didn’t want to solve the issue of cell degeneration after four years. Smarter andies, more value for their customers? Shorter life-span, more money for them?

-- I found the most touching the last scene between Deckard and Iran, so much hope and childlike enthusiasm crushed in a single benevolent move. What was yours?

-- The remark that had impressed me the most: I wish I could do to you what you did to me, he wished. But it can't be done to an android because they don't care.

Luckily that’s all I can think of so far, this post seems way too long for discussion. Hope you find here something of interest for you!

For those interested, there is a good site dedicated to Philip K. Dick:



I found particularly interesting (and a bit related to the novel in question here) these interviews:

All in all I liked this story but I have also an adding to the question catalog.

-- Why are the androids a threat to the humans on earth?
The androids we were shown weren't voilent or criminals.
The tried to blend in, got jobs and didn't do anything harmful.
Why the hassle of hunting them down when they just want to live their life and expire after 4 years anyway.

-- Rosen Association -- what do you think what was their agenda? They wanted smarter andies, yet they didn’t want to solve the issue of cell degeneration after four years. Smarter andies, more value for their customers? Shorter life-span, more money for them?

Androids are created with the sole purpose of being servants or slaves.
Isn't an intelligent slave a recipe for disaster?

Dodo wrote: "-- Why are the androids a threat to the humans on earth?
The androids we were shown weren't violent or criminals..."

Good point except for the last one -- there's one sentence that said they kill their owners in order to escape, although I am not sure did that apply to all of them on bounty hunters' lists, they weren't specific. Yet it was a bit scary the way androids treated Isidore, his spider especially. I am not sure they could really blend in without causing any trouble, rather sooner than later :/

Isn't an intelligent slave a recipe for disaster?

The book itself is the answer to the question :D True, that's weird, I couldn't really get it, but it seemed so, at least to me, that Rosen Ass. strove to create such androids (view spoiler)[because it is said Rachael was actually sent to seek the weaknesses of these android escapees, in order to revise the next generation of androids (hide spoiler)]. The fact that the existence of such faulty androids was held secret didn't help (police) either.

On for , I stumbled upon brilliant note about the origins of the book:

Philip K. Dick first came up with the idea for his novel 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' in 1962, when researching 'The Man in the High Castle' which deals with the Nazis conquering the planet in the 1940s. Dick had been granted access to archived World War II Gestapo documents in the University of California at Berkley, and had come across diaries written by S.S. men stationed in Poland, which he found almost unreadable in their casual cruelty and lack of human empathy. One sentence in particular troubled him: "We are kept awake at night by the cries of starving children." Dick was so horrified by this sentence that he reasoned there was obviously something wrong with the man who wrote it. This led him to hypothesize that Nazism in general was a defective group mind, a mind so emotionally flawed that the word human could not be applied to them; their lack of empathy was so pronounced that Dick reasoned they couldn't be referred to as human beings, even though their outward appearance seemed to indicate that they were human. The novel sprang from this.

there's one sentence that said they kill their owners in order to escape,

Ah ok, seems like I missed that one. Of course that changes everything :)

I just finished this one today (I'm not as behind as I WAS, anyway...), and I enjoyed looking over all the comments afterwards, since they enlightened me more. I'll admit, reading a shorter book where the themes are expressed subtly and without all the unnecessary wordiness is a nice change from things I've been reading lately.

The Mercerism thing did have me a little confused, I'll admit. When Rick was on the hill, the wording was such that I was little confused over what actually happened (or didn't happen).


It was pointed out that the androids killed their owners to escape, but we don't really look at other escaped slaves, past or present, in a negative light when this happens. The problem is the distinction between artificial and natural intelligence. Where do we draw the line? Will we ever be able to bring artificial intelligence to the level of self-awareness? If not, we may never face the problem, but if so...so many moral dilemmas, very similar to the cloning dilemmas.

The Rosen Assn is pretty accurate to how corporations today work. We complain all the time "They just don't make 'em like they used to." Well, they don't, and that's done on purpose. People used to take pride in quality work and now they bring in more money if they engineer their products to break down after a period of time.

It's very similar to I, Robot in many ways. The storyline is different but the idea is the same. For that matter, the character Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation operates off of that exact premise. Is he his own entity, worthy of the same rights as any other intelligent being, or because he is artificially created, is he owned by the Federation? I wonder if this novel was even a little bit where the inspiration for that charater came from.

Wow great insights Alana!

All your statements are on spot, I liked especially that one that draws a parallel with the cloning issues. Very similar and huge ethical and moral problem if that level of artifical self-awareness would be ever possible to achieve. If they develop such self-awareness... Ugh. Animals are supposedly not so intelligent as we are (hm... that's a matter for debate), yet we are supposed to treat them as humanely as possible and to allow them freedom to live as they wish. So, an idea of having super-smart robot slaves feels gross, because they would be look like any other living beings. On the other hand, our pet animals are practically slaves... Uh, how full of hypocrisy humans are :/

Really good review, you made me think a lot (more than usual)! ;)

I hate to bring in the nerd card so often, but this is an issue that comes up often in sci-fi shows and books, particularly Star Trek. The thing is, it's not so far-fetched as it used to be. Bicentennial Man, another good example. SHOULD we develop that level of technology, and if we do, how should we proceed and what rights, if any, should our creations have? Is it any different than a bio-engineered child, where a parent can pick everything down to the eye color?

O, and I don't know about pets. Some of us are pretty much slaves to them. What was that email from ages ago? If aliens visited our planet, they would see us trailing behind the dog, picking up their poop, driving them around and feeding them? Who is the slave? :)

Alana wrote: "O, and I don't know about pets. Some of us are pretty much slaves to them. What was that email from ages ago? If aliens visited our planet, they would see us trailing behind the dog, picking up their poop, driving them around and feeding them? Who is the slave? :)"

Haha again you are right, that was not quite good example :D

I wondered just the same, why humans voluntarily go into such moral dilemmas, now with cloning, tomorrow with humanoid robots -- when they can see right now that it would cause more trouble than benefit. The most recent movie that tackles indirectly that issue is Prometheus where Ridley Scott presents us a new brand of android. This one is actually perfect example of PKD's androids, that freaked me even more out. Fassbender's David was the most disturbing presentation of what is wrong with trying to create humanoid artificial intelligence, especially so superior in every imaginable way. Even if we put aside the fact that we would probably develop an emotional attachment to them (while even if desired, the opposite wouldn't be possible), no way we would be able to contain it in the end, nor know how to respond to it. So friendly advice to scientists would be -- please, do not start something you would probably regret ;)