Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

A strange experience! It reminded me of a short story, and I really wish it had been longer. It was very hard for me to separate it from the - very different -film. Scratch that, it was impossible.

So it was an odd reading experience. I felt I gained a little more insight into the film, insomuch as when I re-watch it I'll be looking out for signs of certain aspects of the book - similarities between characters, aspects of their personalities, details about the culture they live in.

But all that feels like it's on quite superficial and trivial level. The book really is very different from the film in overall feel, plot, character, and details.

It's not as good, but it is good in other ways. There is a definite religious theme, and an exploration of what it means to have faith, to lose it. Even a fairly profound, if brief, exploration of whether it matters if the thing you have faith in really exists or not. That, I did not expect, and would have relished a deeper examination of.

All in all, enjoyable, somewhat thought-provoking, left me with unanswered questions and wanting to understand more... that at least it shares with the film.

A very short story, nonetheless bringing up some interesting concepts and issues. The device where people can connect to alter they're mood and share experiences with everybody that is connected to it. The android hunters and the morality of “retiring” machines that might be able to have human emotions.

A bit weird at some points, somewhat poetic in concept, such as the Mercer entity.

The author could imagine a future where people fuse their minds with each other, but not a future where women are anything but receptionists, secretaries, or housewives. Also, he felt the need to describe the tits of every female character, sometimes more than once.

Putting aside from the author's gross sexism, the book was pretty weak. Rick felt he couldn't do some things; then in the next paragraph he felt he could; then in the next paragraph he felt he couldn't - and on and on for the entire book. And all that Mercer stuff! It was so poorly written I still don't understand what he was going for. Hard pass on this book, not a good read.

Classic sci-fi is not a great genre for me. Always need to preface my reviews with that :)

I think I must have listened to an abridged audiobook of this because it didn't really take very long. This might explain why it felt rushed or undeveloped. Rick seemed to develop feelings for Rachel Rosen during only his second meeting with her; this annoyed me. I don't like it when people develop relationships ridiculously quickly particularly when it's not plot-driven (ie quickly developing trust when you're forced to depend on one another).

I liked the premise; I would have liked more of the history of the world and why the androids need to be retired (I'm assuming it's because they are property).

These are the themes which popped into my brain when reading the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick. I'm not going to summarise the plot in this review so some of the references and characters I mention below won't make a great deal of sense unless you're familiar with the story and the main characters (note: don't think you can watch Bladerunner instead of reading the book as the story isn't exactly like the movie).

In general the story concerns two contrasting character types: androids and humans both of whom want to live and would kill to do so. At its most fundamental level the book asks what is life and what is reality, without giving any clear answers. The themes I identified are as follows:

Hopes and Dreams
As the title of the book suggests, do androids dream and if they do then what do they dream about? Dreams are not only the sort which occur when you fall asleep but also encompass the big dreams that we as humans have concerning our lives. If they do “dream” then what, apart from their physical forms, separates them from humanity? Indeed, Roy Baty (Rick's literary double) appears to have just as many dreams as Rick; he wants an improved life and he wants to have some spiritual fulfilment too. But Rick executes him and is then conflicted over what value should be placed on life: Rick kills to make a living whereas Baty kills to try to stay alive, which is more moral?

As the narrative progresses Rick Deckard discovers that his initial feelings and perceptions about androids become challenged and blurred. Are they actually alive? Can empathy exist in all “living” things as they try to realise their dreams and survive. The use of a false religion, Mercerism (see below) is used to bind these questions together and explore whether individualism is worse than a sense of collective humanity (again see below).

Empathy

...ultimately, the empathic gift blurred the boundaries between hunter and victim, between the successful and the defeated.

Religion

Decay

The Collective

Humanity

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is a story about bounty hunter Rick Deckard as he works to eliminate several illegal androids who have escaped to Earth. Throughout the story one of Deckard's main motivations is gaining the bounty so he can afford to buy a real animal, which are rare and expensive status symbols after the radioactive fallout has destroyed or mutated much of the life remaining on Earth. Throughout the story there Deckard questions the distinction between androids and humans, with much of the emphasis placed on empathy as a singularly human emotion.

This novel served as the inspiration for the 80s classic Blade Runner. While the premise and many of the characters are similar, there are quite a few distinctions between the film and the novel. The movie is a bit more action packed, and sets Deckard up as more of a traditional hero. In the novel, his morals are a bit more ambiguous. The novel also explores more themes, such as faith, hope, and depression, in greater depth. The film provides more closure at its conclusion, whereas the novel leaves things more open for the reader's interpretation. Although similar, I think the differences make each version well adapted to its format - the film left out details that would have been confusing to the viewer and slowed down the story, whereas they provide cultural context and interest in the book.

Overall I liked this book quite a bit. I very much enjoyed the character of Isidore - a “chickenhead” who is too affected by the radiation to leave Earth. Supposedly mentally damaged, he often provides the most clear and reasonable perspective of anyone in the story. Although some of the details were a bit odd to read at times (especially some of the details of Mercerism - Earth's new dominant religion), overall the details gave a very reasonable picture of what a possible post-apocalyptic Earth could be like. The idea of Empathy Boxes is quite fascinating, and something that I could easily picture happening in the very near future, even without nuclear fallout. Social media for emotions... really isn't that far fetched. The story was interesting and fast-paced, and contained some cool ideas about how futuristic societies will share human experiences. The ending was perhaps a bit less straightforward than I had hoped it would be, and it certainly isn't a very uplifting book, but the writing is quite good and the ideas are interesting to consider. Although it would probably be appreciated more by a fan of the science fiction genre, it isn't overly complex, technical, or lengthy. An interesting and enjoyable read, and one that I would recommend to almost anyone looking for something interesting in the sci-fi genre.

Okay, confession time. I've actually never read any Philip K. Dick before this... I know. Bad nerd. They've always been on my list, but the book club seems to the be only thing that gets me to bump the classics up to the top. Another confession, I've never watched Blade Runner start to finish (I always walked in when my dad was in the middle, so I feel like I've seen it a dozen times, but never in the correct order). I'm glad about this, because it let me appreciate the book without trying to predict the movie.

So onto the book: Naturally, I enjoyed it. I've never heard anything but good things about it, and it was everything I expected while still managing to surprise. The whole idea of empathy as the idea that makes us human while the story tugs at our own empathy throughout the story is incredibly well-constructed. I love the idea that animals are the way we demonstrate humanity, and that the most disturbing scene in the entire book operated on my empathy for a spider. Brilliant.

The android vs. human theme has obviously drawn a great deal from this book since the time of its publishing, and that alone makes it worth a read. The way our empathy shifts between them, Decker's preference of knowing the artificiality of his toad at the end of the day, but that not stopping his wife from declaring his attachment to it, it resonates through the science fiction of the seventies and onward. While the book wasn't an emotional revelation for me, I still feel I am a better person for having read it, and I hope many other people who have put off reading the classics as newer and shinier books arrive (I still need Ancillary Sword and I need it badly!) will take the time to explore where these new and shinier books came from.

Also, it's only 123 pages. I wish more modern authors could capture that amount of depth in that few words. Just brilliant. It's becoming a lost art.

It was hard to tell when this book was published from the writing. In some respects, it seemed really dated (eg. references to use of paper in a future with AI-powered androids and the sexism) and yet there are emotional complexities in a cast of characters who are almost universally loathsome. It makes sense that it was published in 2008.

I don't think this is a spoiler, but I kind of love the fact that when I finished the book I was convinced that humans are extinct (except maybe the specials) and everyone is an android.

I can see why this book has such popularity although it's, stylistically, not my cup of tea.

The thing to remember is that while Bladerunner is based on this story, it was used for setting and a few of the characters, but a number of the details and plot are loosely used or discarded. However, it is a very good story and it leaves you considering what is real, what isn't, and whether or not that is okay. Deckard and Rachel are about the same as their characters, same with Pris, though the final battle against Roy is not as climactic. We at least get a little more detail of why the world is the way it is, though you don't get the sense of a crowded place. It feels largely abandoned and there are good reasons for it. You do get more of a settled ending here but it also left open the possibility of further writing in this universe.

I don't know how I feel about this book. I don't know if I would rate it 3.5 or 4.

In my opinion, the main premise of the book is between reality and virtual/unreality.

The main point being the thin line between android and humans. What makes human “real” and androids not. If Mercenism is in the end, reality or a lie.

The question goes even further than that, throughout the book, as a reader, you find yourself reading through events where you keep wondering if what is happening is real or not (e.g: Dickard's meeting with Phil Resch)

However, I find the execution lacking in many ways. The book is trying to tell too much and doesn't take the time to do so. As a result, events are rushed and major elements are left underdeveloped.

Some characters make no sense to me, for instance, I don't understand Isiodore's character. He is clearly the personification of empathy but he has no adding value to the story.

And the ending is, in my opinion, a mess.