Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

by Philip K. Dick

book data

9,931 ratings, 4.01 average rating, 792 reviews (more data...)

rating	frequency	%
5		30%
4		43%
3		21%
2		3%
1		0%

edit

published

May 28th 1996 (first published 1968) by Del Rey

binding

Paperback, 256 pages

characters

Rick Deckard, John Isidore

literary awards

Nebula Best Novel nominee (1969)

isbn

0345404475 (isbn13: 9780345404473)

description

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? was published in 1968. Grim and foreboding, even today it is a masterpiece ahead of its time.

By 2021,...more

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | compare prices ($6.98)…

new topic
discuss this book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Next Best Boo...: Lists	3145	1431	2 hours, 29 min ago
The Rory Gilmore ...: What else are you currently reading?	693	2761	4 hours, 27 min ago
Goodflicks: Movies That Were Better Than the Book	16	12	4 hours, 55 min ago
Gigi's Company: The Last Letter Game (Book Titles)	607	276	6 hours, 37 min ago
The Next Best Boo...: The Last Letter Game	1133	906	6 hours, 41 min ago

friend reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

lists with this book

Best science fiction books

718 books | 2444 voters

Best Books of the 20th Century

1392 books | 7999 voters

More lists...

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 13,300)

sort: default (?) | date
filters: all | text-only

05/19/08

Don Rea rated it:

Read in May, 2008

Since "Blade Runner" has been one of my favorite movies my entire adult life, it's odd I never read this until now. I expected it to be pretty different from the film, but still, it's not like I don't read SF by the metric ton anyway. I think I just never happened across a copy until recently.

If you've read a lot of SF from the 60s and 70s, you'd know this was written in the late 60s by the end of the first chapter. It has the smell of that period all over it - everyone "...more Since "Blade Runner" has been one of my favorite movies my entire adult life, it's odd I never read this until now. I expected it to be pretty different from the film, but still, it's not like I don't read SF by the metric ton anyway. I think I just never happened across a copy until recently.

If you've read a lot of SF from the 60s and 70s, you'd know this was written in the late 60s by the end of the first chapter. It has the smell of that period all over it - everyone "official" in any way has two or three layers of hidden agenda and an impressive repertoire of manipulation technique, there's a whole religious/mystical dimension to the story that's never really explored, and of course everyone's speech includes invented slang (though the film's "skin jobs" has a great deal more reverberance than Dick's more believable but less colorful "andys").

And the concerns of the story are also very much of that time. Rick Deckard, the protagonist, is a bounty hunter, a de facto freelance killer of rogue androids who is de jure attached to what passes for a police department in a San Francisco depopulated by nuclear war and off-planet emigration. He inherits an assignment to "retire" a group of androids who have illegally returned to Earth from the colonies. This group were made with a new type of brain unit that makes them almost indistinguishable from born humans, except for a lack of empathy. In one view, the whole book is about empathy, what it is, whether anyone actually has it, and how it is experienced and expressed. Deckard experiences a serious crisis of conscience when he begins to question his own ability to empathize, and then his ability to avoid empathizing with the andys he must kill. That leads to his over-empathizing with, and confusing himself with, Wilbur Mercer, the possibly invented central figure of Mercerism, a quasi religion that seems to be about empathy and nothing else. Ah, the age of LSD and MDA!

Despite its obvious datedness, many of the questions considered are still interesting (and relevant). PKD handles them with genuine concern though he delivers little satisfaction, having no answers himself.(less)

Like this review? yes (8 people liked it)

add a comment

06/24/08

Shannon rated it:

(review of isbn 0345301293)

bookshelves: 2008, apocalyptic-post-apocalyptic, psychological-thriller, sci-fi

Read in July, 2008

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

It's hard to know where to start with this book. On the one hand, I want to say it was amazing and highly original and extremely thought-provoking. On the other I want to say it was often confused, contradictory and obscure. Well, I guess I just did :)

After wars and then radioactive dust obliterated much of the planet, the majority of the human population fled to colonies on Mars and elsewhere, taking their own personal android servant. Some stayed behind, either because they had bee...more

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

add a comment

04/10/08

dead letter office rated it:

chris's fish died here at work and he seems down. everyone else was mean to the fish (not to its face mostly, just made fun and tapped on the glass) but i always came to see it and i think chris appreciated that for some reason. i've never seen him look so down before. this is one of those things that makes me sad out of all proportion to the scale of the incident, like when i made katy think she was wrong about kansas bordering colorado or when my brother saved his allowance for months and boug...more chris's fish died here at work and he seems down. everyone else was mean to the fish (not to its face mostly, just made fun and tapped on the glass) but i always came to see it and i think chris appreciated that for some reason. i've never seen him look so down before. this is one of those things that makes me sad out of all proportion to the scale of the incident, like when i made katy think she was wrong about kansas bordering colorado or when my brother saved his allowance for months and bought a toy that he didn't end up liking when he was maybe ten. there is something really devastating about people wanting something small and having it denied them. it's so little to ask, and in a way it's sad on its own that such little things are so important. all he wanted was to take care of a fish.

the fact that chris brought that fish in to live on his desk at work reminds me of a book by phillip k. dick where the animals have almost all died because of nuclear fallout and people will do anything to get one to take care of. if they can't afford real animals, they buy robotic fakes and care for them just the same while feeling secretly ashamed that they don't have a real one. it's all so sad, and in the book it's this need to care for something small, even if the owner knows it's not really alive, that distinguishes humans from androids that have evolved to equal humans in everything except empathy. i usually don't like science fiction, but that book was interesting because underneath the bizarre setting and the crazy plot (it was the basis for the movie bladerunner) i think it was mostly about what he thinks it means to be human, and that seems to be the need to believe in things that aren't real, and the irrational individual desire to protect other living things from harm opposed with the compulsively cold and destructive drive of human society. it's so sad because you end up with these isolated points of warmth lost in an incredibly bleak, empty background. i think it is a very good book, even though there is nothing special about the way it is written.

(less)

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

1 comment

03/20/08

Werner rated it:

bookshelves: science-fiction

Read in January, 2005

recommends it for: Fans of serious science fiction

While Dick was always a professed Episcopalian, his writing began to take a more distinctly Christian turn only after his spiritual experience in the early 1970s. Here, his outlook is still shaped more by postmodernism, strongly suggesting that simply believing something can make it true. (Paradoxically, it also exudes the strong skepticism, which informed his writing all through his career, as to whether our ordinary human perceptions actually come anywhere close to seeing reality as it actua...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

1 comment

12/30/07

D_Davis rated it:

(review of isbn 0345350472)

bookshelves: philip-k--dick, science-speculative-fiction

Book/Film essay...

What is free will? If we were forced to, or programmed to have free will, would it really be “free”? What are memories? Are memories proof of our existence, our reality, or are they merely tokens of places, people, situations and things that may or may not have existed. Is an android (a synthetic human) programmed to have free will and to have memories any less human than the real thing? After all, aren’t we all to some extent created humanoids with “pre-pro...more Book/Film essay...

What is free will? If we were forced to, or programmed to have free will, would it really be “free”? What are memories? Are memories proof of our existence, our reality, or are they merely tokens of places, people, situations and things that may or may not have existed. Is an android (a synthetic human) programmed to have free will and to have memories any less human than the real thing? After all, aren’t we all to some extent created humanoids with “pre-programmed” brains and inner workings all for the purpose of exploring our own free will and memories? These are the questions asked in Philip K. Dick's remarkable book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.

...

The world envisioned in the book is dark and bleak, but not without it’s hopes and dreams. Through the technological undertakings of mankind and large corporations, the planet has become over-populated, leaving no room for expansion or, for that matter, nature itself. Animals, well real ones anyway, are extinct, and now companies like the Tyrell Corp. manufacture fake “replicants” for consumers to purchase. Along with the animals, they also create androids. The Nexus-6 model Android is completely life-like, and even has memories and free will programmed into them. They are so life-like that even they sometimes forget, or never even knew, that they are\were not human.

But what is a “true human”? What do we consider the criteria that makes a human being a human being? A soul? Can we prove a soul exists? What about memories? Can we prove that they really happened? Might we be an android programmed to think and believe that we are the real thing? Rick Deckard, a bounty hunter hired to “retire” (not “kill”), begins to ask himself these very questions. If one has the belief that he is real, well then does that not make him real? If one is programmed with the expected behaviors of society, programmed to obey and follow the norms laid down by society, then really one has just skipped the learning phase of life and already knows what is to be expected. Does this make said person any less human? And what of the values or goals? We think as humans that what separates us from the rest of the world, both natural and technological, is our ability to discern right from wrong, good from bad, desirable and undesirable behavior. But what if a machine was programmed or “taught” to learn this system of agreements - then what would separate us from the rest of the world?

If in a libertarian world, free will is the most important aspect, who would decide what constitutes free will? In D.A.D.O.E.S it is the Corporations who now play god. Through the rise of their power given to them by an unaware, uneducated society, the Corporations have dictated what is to be expected, what the beliefs should be and ultimately what is true or real. They are both conservative and socialistic in their approach. They feel that they must create and lay down the system of agreements for society, so much so that they create perfectly synthetic humans, and believe that through their actions, mankind will ultimately benefit.

Rick Deckard ultimately begins to question his own reality. Is anything real? Is his very life any more valid than that of an android? Is his seemingly “free will” really that “free” when it can be so easily reproduced by technology? These questions may never be answered. And so like much of his work, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep ultimately asks more questions than it answers, but such is the nature of well written science fiction – to use the future and the fantastic to ask questions about present day situations.

full review @ www.genrebusters.com (less)

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

10/06/07

Morgan rated it:

bookshelves: scifi

Read in November, 2003

recommends it for: people looking for science fiction with an edge

I've seen "BladeRunner" so many times I could puke and watch it again (hell, I even wrote a 15 page critical analysis of it as a neo noir film). And it's an amazing, beautiful film.

I read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" when I was a junior in highschool, after having grown up with "BladeRunner." And it was fabulous.

"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" and "BladeRunner" are not the same thing. At all. Which is co...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

07/05/08

Kristjan rated it:

bookshelves: book-club-selection, reviewed, science-fiction

Read in July, 2008

recommended to Kristjan by: GR Sci-Fi & Fantasy Book Club
recommends it for: AI/Borg fans and Posthumans

I saw Bladerunner when it came out and knowing that it was based upon this story, and not really enjoying the movie much, I didn't pick up the book until it became a Book Club selection; hearing that the book was significantly different then the movie helped. While it was not a 'fun' book, I did enjoy many of the concepts PKD started to explore in the story ... especially now given how far science has come in explaining how the human 'machine' works (and fails). Asimov's I, Robot does a bette...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

1 comment

12/05/07

Justin rated it:

bookshelves: currently-teaching

recommends it for: sci fi fans, those interested in bringing down the quality of Bladerunner

I've been saying for years that this book is boring. But it's more than that, it's not excusable in the way that a purely boring book can be. Instead, it's a tremendous idea told badly.

It seems that when Dick wrote this he didn't have a good grasp on translating his big ideas into an engrossing--or even active story. It's not that there's no movement in the story. Things happen, but even when they do, even in the throes of the final confrontation, when Deckard is retiring three...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

1 comment

07/16/07

Colleen AF rated it:

bookshelves: fiction-adult, read-2007

Read in July, 2007

It takes five full pages for a character to buy a goat and ONE FRIGGIN' SENTENCE for a character to "fall in love". This book was so amazing in the beginning...and then suddenly everything plummeted downhill. It was almost as if Dick got 150 pages in and then said "awwww screw it...uh, sentence, sentence, sentence, THE END!" Why did there need to be any sort of "love" storyline anyway?

Along with being the only geek who made it through puberty without re...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

07/27/08

Jessica rated it:

bookshelves: fiction, memoirs, sci-fi

Read in July, 2008

recommends it for: people ready to have their minds blown

I've been on a PKD kick lately, so I picked this up to keep me occupied on a recent work-related trip to Milwaukee. It didn't disappoint!

One of my co-workers kept asking me questions about how the characters and events lined up to those in Blade Runner, and the truth is: I have no idea. (But I am now very eager to find out!)

I was more fixated on a) following the story, which moves quickly, and b) comparing the androids described here to the cylons [subclass: skin job] on...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

2 comments

11/21/08

Arlene Ang rated it:

Read in December, 2008

I don't read sci-fi normally, but this just rocked my boat. Wonderful surreal landscape and situations. The mood organ and the zany portrait of marriage in the first chapter is priceless. The ending is much better, or at least more realistic, than in the Bladerunner movie — which has little to do with the book.

The title took an interesting turn for me, too as the story progressed. The question wasn't about if androids dreamed of electric sheep, but if androids were able to "d...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

1 comment

01/04/09

Madeline rated it:

bookshelves: science-fiction, the-list, the-movie-is-better

Meh. Still not sure about this one. I'm going to talk about the movie, because I can't review a book that's been made into a movie without comparing the two versions, but in this case it's pretty hard. (by the way, when I say the movie, I mean the final director's cut - I've never seen the original) The book, obviously, has a lot more detail about the world that Deckard lives in, including a lot more information concerning everyone's desire to own an animal - Deckard and his wife (oh, and he's m...more Meh. Still not sure about this one. I'm going to talk about the movie, because I can't review a book that's been made into a movie without comparing the two versions, but in this case it's pretty hard. (by the way, when I say the movie, I mean the final director's cut - I've never seen the original) The book, obviously, has a lot more detail about the world that Deckard lives in, including a lot more information concerning everyone's desire to own an animal - Deckard and his wife (oh, and he's married in the book. And yes, he still sleeps with Rachael) own a fake sheep, but he wants a real one so badly he carries a catalogue around with him that lists the market prices for animals. Also the book describes the religion of the time, Mercerism, which I don't have enough space to explain and didn't really understand anyway. Those details, although confusing, made the book worth reading. The last few chapters made very little sense, and if anyone were to ask me to summarize them I would be at a complete loss. The movie ending is a little less confusing, but not much.
I'm still not sure how I felt about the way androids are portrayed in the two versions. In the book, they're unfeeling, cruel, and self-centered, and even though the characters spend a lot of time talking about how hard it is to kill an android, Deckard is able to retire six of them with almost ridiculous ease. In the movie, androids are much more sympathetic characters who just want to exist on Earth and blend in. (to be fair, Dick's original android characters want this too, but they're much bigger jerks about it)
I couldn't stand Rachael in either version - she's the same level of irritating in both the book and the movie and I wanted to slap both versions at some point in the story.
Okay, now that I've waffled pointlessly enough, I'm going to call it: I prefer the movie version. Two reasons for this: first, although Harrison Ford doesn't really fit the character described in Dick's book, I could never truly hate Han Solo. If that admiration can survive The Indiana Jones Movie That We Do Not Speak Of, it can certainly survive Blade Runner. The second reason is the ending line, "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"
There you go.(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

7 comments

02/15/09

Andy rated it:

Read in March, 2009

I'm worried that most people will misunderstand the intelligence behind this book. I have met a few people who have said, "that book? I read that in high school." My response is "did you understand this book in high school?"

Am I wrong in saying that first, one should read Kafka; second, one should understand how Kafka's fiction functions as a blend of anthropology, theology, and philosophy, among other things. Then, read Phillip K. Dick again, and notice the theme...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

5 comments

07/04/07

Brittany rated it:

(review of isbn 0345350472)

the k. in philip K. dick definitely stands for kicked ass. but not philip kick ass dick. i dont know what that means.

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

01/22/09

Jason rated it:

Read in January, 2009

Ooooooh, i think i get it now! The title "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Is intentionally ambiguous. It wants you to think of "dream" as the notion of sleep, when it's "dream" as palpable hope. The incisive plot threat in the book revolves around a set of androids with the ambition to outlast human beings. It seems like they only want to survive, but their leader--Roy Baty--alludes toward a propagandized theme he led the group with, that Mercer is a fake...more Ooooooh, i think i get it now! The title "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Is intentionally ambiguous. It wants you to think of "dream" as the notion of sleep, when it's "dream" as palpable hope. The incisive plot threat in the book revolves around a set of androids with the ambition to outlast human beings. It seems like they only want to survive, but their leader--Roy Baty--alludes toward a propagandized theme he led the group with, that Mercer is a fake and without empathy human beings are not worth saving. Their endeavor is impractical, because they are so few, depend on human beings to be constructed, and are hunted. But the symbolic, allegorical aspect is when the world is so bereft of empathy, we all act like robots anyway. What's the sense in caring about life or death? The soul is beat.

In the end of the book, one of the andys is cutting legs off a spider. It's the last of its kind. It's going to die anyway. This is a justification for torture. That's what the book is about, the anguish of being near the end. Of course, as was written in other reviews, much of the logistics of life are not accounted for...food? water? despite the dust, they get electricity? Will human beings survive? With no vegetation, there'd be no oxygen? No circle of life? Isn't death just around the corner?

This book is about the absurd man. What, in fact, is the Absurd Man? In the words of Camus: He who, without negating it, does nothing for the eternal. This book is about a question, that between preserving a dying life system, or letting it fall to its naturally disabling evolution (it's called kipple here, and the metaphor for it is useless junk, pretty genius). Camus writes about a man who goes on doing in the face of "God's" letting him alone. Not to be disheartened by the unintelligent vacuum of space, but to be delighted in the complicity of any consciousness. The Absurd man says:

"This heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction."

Not that nostalgia is foreign to him. But he prefers his courage and his reasoning. The first teaches him to live without appeal and to get along with what he has; the second informs him of his limits. Assured of his temporally limited freedom, of his revolt devoid of future, and of his mortal consciousness, he lives out his adventure within the span of his lifetime. That is his field, that is his action, which he shields from any judgment but his own.

This book is a testament to an absurd idea: in the event of a world that is dying, do we give up hope or preserve. The world has already made its choice in a remarkably sad, even obscene remorse: trying to preserve every single living thing, and if not that, then the representation thereof. And also, to kill any sentient being who could threaten that kind of hospitality. Those who do not empathize with the absurdity, must be killed. The biting edge here, is that that endeavor to kill those who are not absurd is its own absurdity. The world engulfed in flagellating tears, it seems. The only prevention for sadness is to condemn the wicked.

Rick Deckard's existential crisis is his awakening to a despair, a real despair, above this false hope presentation of preservation. He sees that killing even those that are not real, the androids, is still killing. And in the plight to preserve all life, is fake life still life? The immortal android question! His resolution: I think a frighteningly sad but noble one--go on with the hopeless drive for life and the killing of those who try to stop it. Because, inevitably, the alternative is no life at all. He steps out of the cave and comes back; but rather than revolt, in willing complicity he resigns to his duty. He is the absurd man. A very solid, very depressing theme.(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

11/27/08

Tiffany rated it:

Read in December, 2008

recommended to Tiffany by: Eric Guzman
recommends it for: Dick heads, those who enjoyed Blade Runner

I don't think this book was quite what I wanted or imagined it to be. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, because I did. Hence, the 4 stars. I wish he would've delved further into some of the subjects he introduced. Maybe then he would have gotten 5 stars. Your loss Philip!

Some questions posed/themes from the book include :
-What does it mean to be human in a digital, mechanized world?
-Where, if anywhere, does one draw a line between the value of real and artific...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

07/24/08

Amy rated it:

(review of isbn 0345350472)

bookshelves: read-in-2008, science-fiction

Read in July, 2008

recommended to Amy by: Sci Fi/Fantasy Bookclub

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

This book made me think about what it means to be human.
The protaganist bounty hunter uses an empathy test to determine whether a suspect is human or android. Androids are not allowed on earth (they are essentially slaves of humans who have emigrated to other planets) and are 'retired' when discovered.
The premise is that androids are incapable of empathy - and thus distinguishable from all normally funtioning humans.
The androids are capable of emotional response, but it is ce...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

06/21/08

Lori rated it:

I never had the slightest desire to read this book having seen Bladerunner when it first came out and loving it so much that to this day it's one of my favorite movies. Usually it's the other way around - I don't see movies of books I have read. Whatever - this book and Bladerunner are so different they can't really be compared to each other.

This is also my first Dick book, which is also remarkable since I'm an avid science fiction reader. What was I waiting for? I thought he'd be on...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

05/13/08

Wendi rated it:

Read in May, 2008

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

He thought, too, about his need for a real animal; within him an actual hatred once more manifested itself toward his electric sheep, which he had to tend, had to care about as if it lived.

I'm still reading this book. I've read it before but it's been at least 10 years if not more.

I don't know why this time around the animals and Deckards drive and need for a real animal is hitting close to home for me. I can't imagine living without animals. Earlier this week I walked o...more He thought, too, about his need for a real animal; within him an actual hatred once more manifested itself toward his electric sheep, which he had to tend, had to care about as if it lived.

I'm still reading this book. I've read it before but it's been at least 10 years if not more.

I don't know why this time around the animals and Deckards drive and need for a real animal is hitting close to home for me. I can't imagine living without animals. Earlier this week I walked over to the Hub on campus to grab lunch. This little sparrow was having the time of his life in a rain puddle. He was not afraid of me walking up to him and he wasn't afraid of the students walking about. He just happily fluffed his wings, gave himself a rather thorough bath, and enjoyed himself. To me it was such a wonderful thing to watch. I love animals. I love watching them and attaching personalities to them. As I watched the bird, a guy walked past me and smiled saying, "it's a bird!" as if I didn't know. I just smiled back and continued watching until the bird had finished up and hopped away.

It's understandable that Deckard needs to have something real in his life - everything is so automated - you buy a box so you can feel empathy, you dial a number so you can feel something else. But I also think there is a joy in having real animals to watch, to love, to care for. The book doesn't really go into domestic animals so much - Deckard says that his electric sheep doesn't know that he, Deckard, exists. When I get home from work I'm greeted (most days) by at least one of my cats. If I had an electric cat or dog, would I receive that same kind of greeting?

I used to think Sony's robot dog was really amazing, but it's still electric. It can learn and it can respond, but it's not going to greet me at the door with licks and tail wagging.

That's heartbreaking. To live where there is no real feeling anymore. No real emotion or love. I think the only real feelings the people in this book have is fear.

May 23rd - I don't remember feeling this worn out and depressed the first time I read this book. The book is so bleak. The ideas expressed within are unsettling - that we would create robots to be human-like and then give them the drudgery work. If we're going to create robots to do the dirty work for humans, why make them human-like at all? Why not leave them to be just machines without free will and thought process?

It's never really explained why the Rosen corporation felt they needed to make the andys better and better and more human like. We know the androids were created to go to Mars and build the colonies, but beyond that, that's pretty much it.

Why did the andys get imbedded with ways to kill people? If they're just diggers, why not only give them digging thoughts? Why create humanoid beings at all?

In these novels, and movies like this, where the robots suddenly rebel it's always because the humans have decided to give the robots some free will and the ability to think and grow for themselves, to learn from it's experience. Hello! That's where the trouble comes into play! Duh! We're the humans. They're the machines. It's okay for them to not be human like.

Other things that bothered me in the story was how the society is now segregated into people who were "normal" and people who were "special" (as in having to take the Special Bus to school kind of special). Only the normal people were allowed to live off world. Earth is in ruins and the people who aren't considered smart enough or mentally sane enough are not allowed to leave. What were the parameters? Who decided who was special and who wasn't? I've heard that in England a person's medical history is public access. WOW! That's insanely scary and leading right down this road to the government making a decision about who gets to have what based on their mental capacities.

The future looks bleak, if you follow Mr. Dick's writings. Very, very bleak indeed.(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

04/02/08

Justin rated it:

Read in March, 2008

This is the first Phillip K dick book I read. I chose him because I was really curious why so many of his books got turned into major holy wood pictures. and now I get it.

The storytelling is very compelling, he leaves alot to the readers imagination (which would make it easier for screenwriters to adapt) The characters have well defined arcs, and the message is clear and to the point.

The story is very allegorical, it really tries to explore humanities empathy and mercy by a v...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 664 665 next »

polls

Second Book! Sorry this is a little late... I blame the month of February for being so confusingly short. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

I know there were some suggestions for Canticle for Leibowitz but since it was in the poll last month, we'll go ahead and skip it this month.