So I just finished reading this. Interesting little book. The writing style wasn't really my thing but it went by well enough.I do have one very important question though.What crazy ass clothing trends were going on in the 60s for all those future characters to dress like absolute clowns? Propeller beanies? In 1992? The cheek of it.You can discuss the rest of the book too if you want, but that is my main concern.
This is PKD's magnum opus.
>>25246062That is probably A Scanner Darkly, his own self-claimed "masterpiece". Don't be gay.
>>25246067I like the vague, ill-defined preternatural nature of the plot. It's spooky.
>>25246067It is also his only book that could be called well written. I love PKD but he was a terrible writer.
>>25246079>I love PKD but he was a terrible writer.Can we stop with this ridiculous canard?
>>25246079I disagree. Many of his ideas have not been largely replicated. How many of his works have you read?
>>25246024>Propeller beaniesThat was a bit of an in joke. They were part of the 'uniform' worn tongue-in-cheek by many attendees at science fiction conventions in the '70s.
>>25246110Huh. I did not know that. UBIK was published in 1969 tho.
>>25246113I think they were already a thing by then.
>>25246113https://fancyclopedia.org/wiki/Propeller_BeanieYeah it's actually a MUCH older thing than I thought, apparently.
>>25246088It is not a canard. Feel free to adress what I said, should be simple to demonstrate, pick a novel and explain what makes it well written.>>25246094All but one or two of his novels. Not sure what his ideas not being largely replicated has to do with anything, ideas are not writing.
>>25246156So he was a terrible writer because he wrote ideas not normally replicated in modern times. Gotcha, bad faith faggot.
>>25246160What? If you honestly think that is what I wrote you are a whole new level of retard.
>>25246180>you're retarded!About the level of critical thinking skill I expected from your newfag ass pretending that modern authors present a shred of creative plot insight that Dick did.
>>25246088>>25246160>>25246182Is PKD your husband or something?
>>25246182I did not call you retarded, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Who said anything about modern or any other writers?
>>25246193He just can't control himself when it comes to dick.
>>25246193>>25246196>>25246200You said he was terrible, refused to elaborate, and immediately engaged in samefag newfag rhetoric lol you are a fucking joke. Go read more books.
>>25246088>ridiculous canardthe lad was a bad writer, anyone with a smidge of taste detects this immediately
>>25246221More vagueposting from this disgusting newfag. How surprising.
>>25246079It was one of his only novels that was edited properly, which is why.
>>25246024I wish I had a tweed toga 2bh.
>>25246062I liked Time Out of Joint better, despite its extremely weak ending.
Characters "say" a lot. Joe said to Glenn, Tito said to Pat. "To Al he said". Just a little clunky. Ideas are good though.
>>25246758nice midwit gimmick you have going for ya
>>25246792Thanks.
>>25246024I've only read "The Man in the High Castle" by Mr. Dick. I finished it the other day and I queued "Do Androids dream of electric sheep?" to read next. Should I read "Ubik" first, or maybe leave it for later?
>>25247066The pocket version is just over 200 pages, I got through it in a week, so if it's shorter than Androids I'd read it as a palate cleanser.
what the fuck did he mean by this?
>>25247066Read Androids first. It's really the first book by PKD everyone should read.
>>25248013>everybody should read PKD's most popular mainstream book firstlol @ your normalfag ass LOL
>>25248036Yes?? If it's his most popular you might reckon it would be a good primer for the rest of his work.
>>25248013it's one of his weakest actually and Ridley Scott's adaptation is a much higher calibre work, just like Oshii's anime film adaptation of Ghost in the Shell is vastly superior than the manga and anything that came after it in the franchise.
>>25248620Not his weakest. Flow My Tears is probably that. The Blade Runner argument also doesn't quite work because they are solving different problems. The book asks if sympathy can be genuine. The film asks if memory can be genuine. Scott's film is better at its question but that is not the same as saying Androids is weak.>>25246648Time Out of Joint has the better premise. He doesn't have enough book for it.>>25246079Valis also.
>>25248623>Flow My Tears is probably thatYou're fucked if you really think this. PKD has like 50 novels, while only around 10 or 12 or so are worth reading. Flow My Tears has some great passages, a great premise, and some genuinely impactful moments. So idk what you're talking about.
>>25248623>Not his weakest. Flow My Tears is probably that. The Blade Runner argument also doesn't quite work because they are solving different problems. The book asks if sympathy can be genuine. The film asks if memory can be genuine. Scott's film is better at its question but that is not the same as saying Androids is weak.Extremely weird logic. An adaptation can be superior in a number of qualities in a different medium regardless of themes or content. Androids is not weak because of its narrative or themes, it's weak as a PKD book.
Scanner darkly is a great introduction to PKD
