Bizarre. Imaginative. ( )

as somebody who is slowly dipping her toes in sci-fi books, this was fine. not great, but i did enjoy it. this started off very confusing for me and therefore i had a hard time focusing because i hate feeling dumb. then i got VERY interested in the story and had trouble putting the book down and was extremely enthused about the idea of what i thought was a plot twist - got disappointed by the realization that it was not... BUT i got very into the plot of the story and it was enjoyable. other thoughts.. i like Philip K. Dick's voice very much - the way he writes is fantastic. i just wish the first few chapters of the book were just a little longer so i didn't feel like i was missing something and feel like i was playing catch up ( )

Lovely dismal atmosphere, charmingly imperfect characters, but just not enough. It didn’t raise enough doubt for me. It didn’t stir my spirit enough. I guess it’s just because I don’t find it important to ask “What makes us human?” Why should we care about who/what is human/not? What makes humans so elite? It’s because we think we rule the world, when really we only have the ILLUSION of control. (/rant) But I guess the book leading me to this observation is just as important. ( )

Remarkably dense content, introducing a host of fiction technologies. However, the prose itself it dry and factual. Overall worth reading. ( )

I am disappointed. I had higher expectations of this book, and it had some good aspects, but from an older SF book, I had hoped for less vagueness. It seemed almost philosophical to me, which would not have been a bad thing, if it was going somewhere, but this whole Mercerism business was dissatisfying to me. I felt that the actual philosophical question of what makes us human was underdeveloped, and that the other philosophical parts were unclear. ( )

A seminal work of sci-fi that deals with the nature of what it means to be human. It's ultimately about the nature of empathy. Dick describes empathy as the defining trait of humanity; it’s what makes us different from every other creature, including the androids. So what happens when we aren't emphatic? What happens when we kill creatures that can feel and think? Does that make us inhuman?

The answer just might be yes. ( )

I'm not a big sci-fi fan, and one of the things I like so much about Philip K. Dick's work is that he seemed deliberately to flout the conventions of the genre. The sci-fi elements in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? are, for the most part, desultory; Dick was using them as a means to an end. Does anyone reading this novel really care about the technical specifications of the characters' laser tubes and hovercars? No, and neither did PKD. It's not that kind of science fiction. Advanced technology is touched upon because the novel happens to take place in "the future" (2021), but ultimately it's incidental to the story. Folks who saw Blade Runner first are bound to be disappointed because the slick, visually sumptuous aesthetic of the film is not at all the aesthetic of Dick's book. This is an evocation not of neon glitz and exotic architecture towering almost impossibly to the sky, but of a world running down: a postwar Earth slowly but surely choking on fallout dust, where isolated, barely-surviving individuals trudge through the gray corridors of deserted apartment buildings as garbage ("kipple") accumulates mysteriously, inexplicably.

It's a bleak vision, but not entirely a prophetic one. So far we've avoided a nuclear war, and while emerging AI technology may be regarded as roughly analogous to the android problem in Dick's novel, it's not a manifestation of the dystopian future which the author evidently feared: in other words, AI is not becoming more human as we become less so. (Humanity threatens to flicker out altogether; technology is not restoring the balance.) Still, PKD accurately predicted the isolation and loneliness of our time, and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? manages to be disturbing, entertaining and thought-provoking all at once. I think it's Dick's best book. ( )

Classic re-read. Great book. ( )

The concept is quite interesting, and a summary of the story is good, but I did not love how it was told. I found the world-building not as strong as other works, as I couldn't really "see" the world and truly feel immersed in it. Additionally, the lack of italics when in a character's mind was bothersome, and interupted the flow of reading for me. I was intrigued by the importance of animals and life to the story, and I think there is something to be said there about our dependence on technology. I found the ending a bit rushed as others did, with the climax being over rather quickly, and the ending itself a bit lackluster. Overall, the story to me is an interesting concept but not extremely well executed. ( )

Almost as good as the film made from it. ( )

The book that inspired the film 'Blade Runner'.

Click here for previous comments on this book.

So my umpteenth time of reading this book, and each time it's always a little different.   My previous reading covered the 'what is real' thing, this time my focus was more on the Mercer thing with the 'Empathy Box'.   How Philip describes the continuous Sisyphean ritual of the followers of Mercer -- which seems to be all of mankind.

The thing with Philip, at least for me, is that he didn't write anything without a reason to it, and the Mercer thing is a large part of this story.   Why?   What's the point he's trying to make, what's he want us to think about?

I feel that the 'Empathy Box' experience would be similar to what Philip experienced with his meth use.   To achieve the creative heights, bringing life, through empathy, to all his characters, that he would have gained using meth, only to crash down to the bottom afterwards with no way back up but to use more meth.

But Philip makes clear that all of mankind are in this ritual.   That of climbing to tops of hills only to find themselves at the bottom again.   And we see it everywhere.   The guy who buys the fast car, but once he's got it he's just as unhappy as he ever was and now wants a faster car, or a yacht, or some other symbol of wealth to show to the rest of mankind.

And yet again, even in the 'Empathy Box', Philip brings us back to the main point of the story that i mentioned in my previous comments: that of what is real.   Everyone is so convinced that the 'Empathy Box' gives them a real genuine experience with Mercer, only at the end to be told that its all a hoax.   But people won't believe that its a hoax because they've invested too much into it and their lives are shaped by it, they've become addicted and to quit now would only leave them at the bottom of the hill with no way -- that they know of -- of getting back up the hill again without Mercer.

And so it was for Philip and his drug use.   He was caught in the addiction and knew only how to create from within it.   To quit his only known means to creativity, even when he realises that it's all a hoax and none of it is really true, or real, is a step he couldn't take.

So that's my take on this reading.   There's definitely a lot of food for thought in the 'Empathy Box' for all of us.   Even if it's just that morning coffee, you're still a drug addict who can't function without your cup of 'Empathy Box'.   But what you're experiencing after drinking it cannot ever be real.   Life becomes a corruption experienced through the over stimulated brain cells of an addict.   But you need that coffee to climb your hill because you know of no other way -- you have to keep up and share with everyone else, you all need to grab onto the handles of your morning coffee cups else you can't be part of society, a society that is as sick, unwell and addicted to climbing that hill as you are.   And even though there is no hill to climb, you all create one from your collective experience, it must be real if everyone's doing it, right? ( )

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. ( )

Solid story, interesting concept & theme. Some "futuristic" elements obviously feel outdated now, which did take away from it (not Philip K. Dick's fault that we don't use carbon copies or home phones anymore, and women no longer stay home by default, etc.) Mostly enjoyable though, can see why it was influential. ( )

A fascinating book that was easy to read, but had a lot of depth to it. It hits a great balance of pulpy plot driving it forward, and philosophical themes to keep you thinking about it after you're done reading.

Some of the philosophical quandries I particularly enjoyed in this book:

Is it human to be empathetic? Without empathy are we not human? Can you only have empathy with something can share empathy back (robot, animal, etc).

Is religion an obvious fiction in order to deal with the absurdities of life? If it works, does it matter whether it is fiction or not?

Is a genuine thing inherently valued more if they provide the same function?

-----------

This book brings up a lot of great things to think about. While it was a little sloppy at times, the characters could be shallow, and trying a little too hard to be "sci-fi James Bond", it's a great book, and an easy read.

Time for another rewatch of Blade Runner. ( )

4.5*

Great book but there were a few places where Scott Brick's narration sent my mind wandering persistently despite several rewinds. ( )

This is the first piece of writing I've read by Philip K. Dick, although it has been on my 'too read' shelf since I was in sixth form! I'm not sure why I never got around to is, I suppose at the time I wasn't really into reading science-fiction yet. It might actually be a blessing that I waited for so long, because I suspect that some of the more subtle ideas explored by PKD might have gone over my head as a 17 year old pre-English degree.

Firstly I need to say that PKD is a brilliant writer. He really is an excellent story teller, which from my (admittedly so far) limited reading in science-fiction seems to be quite rare. He builds his world succinctly and subtly without boring with long passages of unnecessary description. I was extremely grateful for that!

'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' is observant, dark and witty (I mean, that title! It's just perfect, so clever!). There is actually quite a lot going on thematically for what is quite a short novel. We have ideas about religion, the media, socialism, the individual, reality, mind control, decay, survival, the human condition, empathy, technology, capitalism, intelligence.. I'm sure you could come up with more! All the ingredients that you need for a dystopian future. Plenty to get you thinking!

The plot centres on bounty hunter Rick Deckard's mission to track down and "retire" (aka destroy) six escaped Nexus-6 type androids who have killed their human owns, escaped Mars and illegally arrived on Earth. This is what drives the narrative forward but it isn't really what the novel is about, Rick doesn't have much trouble either tracking or retiring the "andys" and you don't ever really worry for his survival. Instead the real focus is on Rick's state of mind and his personal journey over the course of the 48 hours or so, through what he learns and experiences. There are many twists and turns, and I think I was a mixed up and strung out as Rick by the end!

If you have seen the movie Blade Runner (which you should, because it's brilliant) this is the novel on which that is based.. but it is very different, it is interested to compare the two. I will be getting my DVD out for a re-watch!

I highly recommend this book to anybody. I can't wait to read more PKD! If I had read any of his novels before, I think I'd have tried to write my dissertation on him.. if only I could go back in time. ( )

A thoroughly good exploration of human nature, ostensibly about how androids may differ from humans, focusing on the role empathy plays in that. And that is of interest as well, let there be no doubt. ( )

I really wanted to enjoy this book, having heard such wonderful things about it. My recent foray into trying to read more science fiction came at a good time—or so I thought. It was with the desire to be entertained that I began Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Sadly, I think my next experience with science fiction will definitely have to be with a feminist author given my problems with Dick.

Along the way, I was maddened by how misogynistic the novel is: the many ways in which woman, human or android, are objectified by the male characters is appalling. I can almost imagine Philip K. Dick writing with his dick, as if creating luscious, nubile female androids—almost always discussed in adolescent terms, making the Lolita fantasy that much more disturbing—was his way of working out some kind of interspace sexual fantasy and this book is the by-product. Tricky dick.

While reading, there was one place where Rick Deckard, the bounty hunter, talks with his depressive wife, reminds himself that he can still divorce her, and then he immediately begins to fantasize about how female androids attract him. This is when I almost nearly stopped reading.

Or when Deckard tests himself using the fancy android-testing machine in order to see if his disdain for androids has begun to turn into empathy; it would appear that, at least in the case of female androids, it has:

Rich said, "A female android."

"Now they're both up to 4.0 and 6.0 respectively."

And little does Phil Resch, another bounty hunter, realize what he's putting into motion when he tells Deckard:

"Don't kill her—or be present when she's killed—and then feel physically attracted. Do it the other way."

Rick stared at him. "Go to bed with her first"

"... and then kill her," Phil Resch said succinctly.

I found an interesting essay while trying to make it through the tail-end of Do Androids... which discusses misogyny in the film version, Blade Runner: Simon H. Scott's "Is Blade Runner a Misogynist Text?" I have yet to see the film, and I doubt I will any time soon after finishing the novel, but it is indeed possible that the film uses more film noir conventions and figures like Rachael Rosen are more femme fatale figures in the film, as is the author's argument against a full-fledged misogynistic reading of the text. However, the novel is not noir in any way, so I wonder if this argument has been made elsewhere with the book—and perhaps other work by Dick—as evidence. It would be something I would like to read, at any rate.

I will say that Dick knows how to pace a novel, and it was largely that which kept me reading despite many moments of nausea.

Note to picky readers: the word "ersatz" gets used so many times I lost count.
( )

Fantastic Wordbuilding, Excellent Theming, Terrible Action Scenes, and a Disappointing Ending. ( )

"Do Androids Dream is a short, fun sci-fi thriller that poses a series thought-provoking questions. Unfortunately, though Dick's dystopian world clearly mimics aspects of 1960s America, he fails to land any real critiques or conclusions."

Check out my review on https://reviewsunderground.weebly.com ( )

After I'd watched the various Bladerunner versions and 2049 multiple times, my daughter convinced me to read the inspiration behind them. She'd been assigned this book as part of a college class of hers.

I'm glad I did. ( )

Science fiction dystopian novel set in post-apocalyptic San Francisco in 2021. The earth has been ravaged by World War Terminus and many survivors have emigrated to colonies on other planets. The earth is still (barely) functioning, though filled with radioactive dust and “kipple” (detritus which seems to be growing on its own). Rick Deckard is a bounty hunter tasked with destroying androids that have escaped to earth from colonies and pose a danger due to their lack of regard for life. They cannot easily be distinguished from humans, so Rick must test them for empathy, the quality identified as separating humans from androids. If they fail, he destroys them. A subplot follows John Isadore, one of the “chickenheads,” humans whose mental abilities have been diminished by radioactive fallout, and his attempt to survive an isolated life. “Chickenheads” and their more devastated counterparts, “antheads,” are treated as the dregs of society and are not permitted to emigrate.

Rick’s personal life involves interacting with his wife, taking care of his electric sheep (which he pretends is real), setting his emotional state on a mood-altering device, communing electronically with a religious figure, and watching Buster Friendly on the only remaining television channel. Rick longs to own a real animal but there are few animals left. They have died due to the war and its fallout. They are viewed as status symbols and, like cars, are assigned the equivalent of a “blue book” value.

Many questions are embedded in this work. What is it that makes us essentially human? Is it empathy? If so, why are we treating the “chickenheads” as less than human? What should be done with humans that have no empathy? What happens when the companies making the androids succeed in endowing them with more emotions than some humans? Where does that leave the bounty hunters, who must put aside any empathy they feel in order to destroy the androids? What is real and what is false? How does technology or religion play into all this?

I found this a thought-provoking examination of humanity, empathy, and technology. The theme involving animals is one of the most deeply developed. To me, there is something touching about the idea of humans paying dearly for the privilege of caring for an animal in a devastated world. Don’t expect a novelized version of the movie Blade Runner, and don’t expect a neatly tied up ending. Recommended to fans of science fiction classics, dystopian themed novels, or explorations of the human condition. ( )

In this post-apocalyptic novel, many humans have left Earth for Mars and other colonies to escape Earth’s inevitable decay. Androids assist with off-Earth colonization, but they aren’t supposed to be on Earth. Rick Deckard is a San Francisco-based bounty hunter who tracks down and destroys rogue androids. The new Nexus-6 android are challenging the bounty hunters’ techniques for identifying androids.

The one quality that distinguishes humans from androids is empathy, yet it seems to be a quality that humans are in danger of losing. Every home has an empathy box, where individuals can fuse with other humans through the person of Wilbur Mercer. Mercerism seems to be a rough allegory of Christianity, with Mercer as a Christlike figure in an endless loop of suffering, ascending a desert hill, then descending to the netherworld where he brings the dead back to life, then repeating his suffering ascent and descent ad infinitum.

There’s a lot to unpack in this novel. I have not watched the film Blade Runner, but from what I’ve read and heard about it, I think the message of the film is fundamentally different from the book’s essence. It’s too bad the author died just before the film was released. I’d love to know what he would have thought about the film and how far it might have strayed from his vision. ( )

i've read this book a few times since the first go-round in high school, and it never fails to alarm me the different things i see in it every time, and the way in which i grow progressively more and more jaded. the first time i read this i was nearly destroyed by a plot point that seems fitting and inevitable now. of course it would happen that way. of course fucked up things like that happen. duh. but that first time i was babysitting, alone in the near-dark, and i couldn't stop shaking, and thinking that such things happen but they shouldn't and i will do everything in my power to be the kind of person who attempts to make sure they don't.

its important to have this reminder of that ideal, which i still hold dearly to me. no matter how jaded and bitter i think i may be. ( )

This is an excellent book. All throughout it I had sympathy for the androids... and then there was the incident with the spider, and I felt sick. And then I knew they had to be killed.

It's rare that a book so closely aligns you with a character in a book that you feel the same he does throughout... at every moment. ( )