What do you think?
Rate this book
The Exit Door Leads In
First published in the Rolling Stone College Papers #1, 1979.
Bob Bibleman had the impression that robots wouldn't look you in the eye. And when one had been in the vicinity small valuable objects disappeared. A robot's idea of order was to stack everything into one pile. Nonetheless, Bibleman had to order lunch from robots, since vending ranked too low on the wage scale to attract humans.
Bob Bibleman had the impression that robots wouldn't look you in the eye. And when one had been in the vicinity small valuable objects disappeared. A robot's idea of order was to stack everything into one pile. Nonetheless, Bibleman had to order lunch from robots, since vending ranked too low on the wage scale to attract humans.
17 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 1979
About the author
Philip K. Dick
1,933 books23k followersPhilip Kindred Dick was a prolific American science fiction author whose work has had a lasting impact on literature, cinema, and popular culture. Known for his imaginative narratives and profound philosophical themes, Dick explored the nature of reality, the boundaries of human identity, and the impact of technology and authoritarianism on society. His stories often blurred the line between the real and the artificial, challenging readers to question their perceptions and beliefs.
Raised in California, Dick began writing professionally in the early 1950s, publishing short stories in various science fiction magazines. He quickly developed a distinctive voice within the genre, marked by a fusion of science fiction concepts with deep existential and psychological inquiry. Over his career, he authored 44 novels and more than 100 short stories, many of which have become classics in the field.
Recurring themes in Dick's work include alternate realities, simulations, corporate and government control, mental illness, and the nature of consciousness. His protagonists are frequently everyday individuals—often paranoid, uncertain, or troubled—caught in surreal and often dangerous circumstances that force them to question their environment and themselves. Works such as Ubik, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, and A Scanner Darkly reflect his fascination with perception and altered states of consciousness, often drawing from his own experiences with mental health struggles and drug use.
One of Dick's most influential novels is Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, which served as the basis for Ridley Scott's iconic film Blade Runner. The novel deals with the distinction between humans and artificial beings and asks profound questions about empathy, identity, and what it means to be alive. Other adaptations of his work include Total Recall, Minority Report, A Scanner Darkly, and The Man in the High Castle, each reflecting key elements of his storytelling—uncertain realities, oppressive systems, and the search for truth. These adaptations have introduced his complex ideas to audiences well beyond the traditional readership of science fiction.
In the 1970s, Dick underwent a series of visionary and mystical experiences that had a significant influence on his later writings. He described receiving profound knowledge from an external, possibly divine, source and documented these events extensively in what became known as The Exegesis, a massive and often fragmented journal. These experiences inspired his later novels, most notably the VALIS trilogy, which mixes autobiography, theology, and metaphysics in a narrative that defies conventional structure and genre boundaries.
Throughout his life, Dick faced financial instability, health issues, and periods of personal turmoil, yet he remained a dedicated and relentless writer. Despite limited commercial success during his lifetime, his reputation grew steadily, and he came to be regarded as one of the most original voices in speculative fiction. His work has been celebrated for its ability to fuse philosophical depth with gripping storytelling and has influenced not only science fiction writers but also philosophers, filmmakers, and futurists.
Dick's legacy continues to thrive in both literary and cinematic spheres. The themes he explored remain urgently relevant in the modern world, particularly as technology increasingly intersects with human identity and governance. The Philip K. Dick Award, named in his honor, is presented annually to distinguished works of science fiction published in paperback original form in the United States. His writings have also inspired television series, academic studies, and countless homages across media.
Through his vivid imagination and unflinching inquiry into the nature of existence, Philip K. Dick redefined what science fiction could achieve. His wor
Raised in California, Dick began writing professionally in the early 1950s, publishing short stories in various science fiction magazines. He quickly developed a distinctive voice within the genre, marked by a fusion of science fiction concepts with deep existential and psychological inquiry. Over his career, he authored 44 novels and more than 100 short stories, many of which have become classics in the field.
Recurring themes in Dick's work include alternate realities, simulations, corporate and government control, mental illness, and the nature of consciousness. His protagonists are frequently everyday individuals—often paranoid, uncertain, or troubled—caught in surreal and often dangerous circumstances that force them to question their environment and themselves. Works such as Ubik, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, and A Scanner Darkly reflect his fascination with perception and altered states of consciousness, often drawing from his own experiences with mental health struggles and drug use.
One of Dick's most influential novels is Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, which served as the basis for Ridley Scott's iconic film Blade Runner. The novel deals with the distinction between humans and artificial beings and asks profound questions about empathy, identity, and what it means to be alive. Other adaptations of his work include Total Recall, Minority Report, A Scanner Darkly, and The Man in the High Castle, each reflecting key elements of his storytelling—uncertain realities, oppressive systems, and the search for truth. These adaptations have introduced his complex ideas to audiences well beyond the traditional readership of science fiction.
In the 1970s, Dick underwent a series of visionary and mystical experiences that had a significant influence on his later writings. He described receiving profound knowledge from an external, possibly divine, source and documented these events extensively in what became known as The Exegesis, a massive and often fragmented journal. These experiences inspired his later novels, most notably the VALIS trilogy, which mixes autobiography, theology, and metaphysics in a narrative that defies conventional structure and genre boundaries.
Throughout his life, Dick faced financial instability, health issues, and periods of personal turmoil, yet he remained a dedicated and relentless writer. Despite limited commercial success during his lifetime, his reputation grew steadily, and he came to be regarded as one of the most original voices in speculative fiction. His work has been celebrated for its ability to fuse philosophical depth with gripping storytelling and has influenced not only science fiction writers but also philosophers, filmmakers, and futurists.
Dick's legacy continues to thrive in both literary and cinematic spheres. The themes he explored remain urgently relevant in the modern world, particularly as technology increasingly intersects with human identity and governance. The Philip K. Dick Award, named in his honor, is presented annually to distinguished works of science fiction published in paperback original form in the United States. His writings have also inspired television series, academic studies, and countless homages across media.
Through his vivid imagination and unflinching inquiry into the nature of existence, Philip K. Dick redefined what science fiction could achieve. His wor
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
July 27, 2020
“‘[…] A good school trains the whole person; it isn’t a matter of data and information; I was trying to make you morally and psychologically complete. But a person can’t be commanded to disobey. You can’t order someone to rebel. All I could do was give you a model, an example.’”
In his 1979 story The Exit Door Leads In, PKD presents us with Bob Bibleman, who wins a college scholarship, albeit at a military college, so there is no way of turning down the prize, something Bob would have liked to do because he senses that the competition was rigged in the first place in order to conscript him. When he is later told by his leading officer that they would have got him anyway, even if he had not taken part in the competition, Bob actually feels relief because he can now tell himself that this new turn of events could not have been averted by him in any way, and that it neither was a result of a wrong decision of his. Here, one can already see the stuff Bob Bibleman is made of – the possibility of taking a stupid decision rankles him a lot more than the knowledge that do what he will the outcome will be exactly the same because he cannot influence his fate. But hold on a second: We can actually see it earlier when he wants to change his food order and the vending robot tells him that it’s too late to do so and he, instead of simply walking off or insisting on a change, resigns himself to the inalterability of his original order.
You can clearly see that Bob Bibleman is the perfect consumer – he even accommodates his wishes to those from whom he buys (as, strictly speaking, we all do for why else would there be the advertising industry?) – as well as the perfect follower in that it fills him with relief to know that those in power, in his case the military, can make him dance to their own tune no matter what he might try to do about it. Would this latter thought not be appalling and threatening to most human beings?
Would it?
At least, when you see yourself as a victim of circumstances, a helpless individual at the mercy of organizations more powerful than you, a prisoner of social structures, you can lean back and take things as they come, and not all of these things need to be bad. What you don’t have to do if you subscribe to such a view of yourself is to take responsibility for your own person and for other people, to swim against the current towards a place that might look fairer, to persevere against the odds in working for the thing you believe to be right. After all, being aware of one’s own responsibility in life – as the adult form of freedom – can be more of a burden, of a challenge than kowtowing to an officer shouting at you or than grovelling before a group of people who claim for themselves the moral high ground on social or political questions and who even make you say things you don’t believe in. Today would be a good time to live in for Bob Bibleman in that there are quite a number of issues on which exactly one opinion is allowed. This opinion can be easily gleaned from most newspapers.
But Bibleman has his own acid test to go through: On his very first day at the military college he comes across classified plans for a so-called Panther Engine which, if they were leaked, could solve the energy problems in various poorer countries and thus make life easier and safer for millions of people. Of course, Bibleman has been warned not to disclose any classified information he might encounter in the college, because as a student of this institution he is subject to military jurisdiction. So, it’s either giving away the secret and helping other people or obeying orders and helping himself. Can you guess what it’s going to be for Bibleman?
PKD is clearly dismissive of all those Biblemans out there, but in his story he also makes it clear how their mentality is perpetuated in state institutions like schools. Even at the most liberal of schools, people are brought up in a belief in something, and this something is going to become their authority. Something that they are going to find very difficult to put into question, to emancipate themselves from on a theoretical, let alone a practical basis. The crux of enabling members of a society to think and act independently (and responsibly at that) is mirrored in The Exit Door Leads In, and it is the classical problem of psychological double bind: You can’t tell people to rebel, as one character in the story says. By the same token, it’s hard to tell them to think for themselves when teachers, as they often do, see certain conclusions or opinions their students might voice as a sign that they have successfully thought for themselves, whereas other conclusions or opinions might be put down to prejudice or, in the best of cases, unsuccessful thinking.
What also seems to emerge from the story is Dick’s opinion that a society stands in need of independent thinkers and responsible actors if it wants to subsist; the problem, however, is that its institutions all too often tend to counter-act the development of such people.
The Biblemans, however, will always abide.
In his 1979 story The Exit Door Leads In, PKD presents us with Bob Bibleman, who wins a college scholarship, albeit at a military college, so there is no way of turning down the prize, something Bob would have liked to do because he senses that the competition was rigged in the first place in order to conscript him. When he is later told by his leading officer that they would have got him anyway, even if he had not taken part in the competition, Bob actually feels relief because he can now tell himself that this new turn of events could not have been averted by him in any way, and that it neither was a result of a wrong decision of his. Here, one can already see the stuff Bob Bibleman is made of – the possibility of taking a stupid decision rankles him a lot more than the knowledge that do what he will the outcome will be exactly the same because he cannot influence his fate. But hold on a second: We can actually see it earlier when he wants to change his food order and the vending robot tells him that it’s too late to do so and he, instead of simply walking off or insisting on a change, resigns himself to the inalterability of his original order.
You can clearly see that Bob Bibleman is the perfect consumer – he even accommodates his wishes to those from whom he buys (as, strictly speaking, we all do for why else would there be the advertising industry?) – as well as the perfect follower in that it fills him with relief to know that those in power, in his case the military, can make him dance to their own tune no matter what he might try to do about it. Would this latter thought not be appalling and threatening to most human beings?
Would it?
At least, when you see yourself as a victim of circumstances, a helpless individual at the mercy of organizations more powerful than you, a prisoner of social structures, you can lean back and take things as they come, and not all of these things need to be bad. What you don’t have to do if you subscribe to such a view of yourself is to take responsibility for your own person and for other people, to swim against the current towards a place that might look fairer, to persevere against the odds in working for the thing you believe to be right. After all, being aware of one’s own responsibility in life – as the adult form of freedom – can be more of a burden, of a challenge than kowtowing to an officer shouting at you or than grovelling before a group of people who claim for themselves the moral high ground on social or political questions and who even make you say things you don’t believe in. Today would be a good time to live in for Bob Bibleman in that there are quite a number of issues on which exactly one opinion is allowed. This opinion can be easily gleaned from most newspapers.
But Bibleman has his own acid test to go through: On his very first day at the military college he comes across classified plans for a so-called Panther Engine which, if they were leaked, could solve the energy problems in various poorer countries and thus make life easier and safer for millions of people. Of course, Bibleman has been warned not to disclose any classified information he might encounter in the college, because as a student of this institution he is subject to military jurisdiction. So, it’s either giving away the secret and helping other people or obeying orders and helping himself. Can you guess what it’s going to be for Bibleman?
PKD is clearly dismissive of all those Biblemans out there, but in his story he also makes it clear how their mentality is perpetuated in state institutions like schools. Even at the most liberal of schools, people are brought up in a belief in something, and this something is going to become their authority. Something that they are going to find very difficult to put into question, to emancipate themselves from on a theoretical, let alone a practical basis. The crux of enabling members of a society to think and act independently (and responsibly at that) is mirrored in The Exit Door Leads In, and it is the classical problem of psychological double bind: You can’t tell people to rebel, as one character in the story says. By the same token, it’s hard to tell them to think for themselves when teachers, as they often do, see certain conclusions or opinions their students might voice as a sign that they have successfully thought for themselves, whereas other conclusions or opinions might be put down to prejudice or, in the best of cases, unsuccessful thinking.
What also seems to emerge from the story is Dick’s opinion that a society stands in need of independent thinkers and responsible actors if it wants to subsist; the problem, however, is that its institutions all too often tend to counter-act the development of such people.
The Biblemans, however, will always abide.
April 23, 2012
[spoilers removed]
This has to be one of my "top shelf" favorite's of PKD short's. The entire concept of this story is bona fide Dick and the ending is superb! This story has great insight into Phil Dick's mind and what he thought of institutionalized government (public) schooling. There are so many ways to interpret this story, and I know I haven't read a ton of PKD short's; in which I so do intend to change to get around to 'em sooner than later.
This has to be one of my "top shelf" favorite's of PKD short's. The entire concept of this story is bona fide Dick and the ending is superb! This story has great insight into Phil Dick's mind and what he thought of institutionalized government (public) schooling. There are so many ways to interpret this story, and I know I haven't read a ton of PKD short's; in which I so do intend to change to get around to 'em sooner than later.
This is one that will stick with me for good long while. Perhaps, maybe it is because good ol' Bob Bibleman and I think a lot alike? Which at this point I don't know if it is a good thing or bad thing?? Hmmm..
December 27, 2018
"The 1979 story “The Exit Door Leads In,” written not that long after the Watergate scandal, is Dick’s declaration on the proper attitude of people toward state secrets. In this story, Bob Bibleman enters a military university. During his early days there he is told that classified secrets will come into his possession during his time there but that since the school was military, students who leaked the information could be tried under military courts. Everything about his early days at the school taught Bibleman that he was expected to respond to authority with deference and submission. Even his choice of specialization. He received the esoteric field of Pre-Socratic Cosmology. During his studies he comes across the plans for “The Panther Engine.” Bibleman faces a moral dilemma. He could oppose the authorities of the school and release the information, becoming rich, but that seemed to work against his training. He eventually returns the plans to the school authorities and is expelled. The conclusion of the story is more banal because the discovery of the secret plans is only a test to see if Bibleman is a subservient figure.
He learns his lesson and later breaks the law by refusing to pay for a fast food meal, but his natural subservience takes over again and he pays the robot for his meal. For Dick, Bibleman is one of the most dangerous people in the country (at least until he learned his lesson). It is a powerful point that Dick makes when he shows that the total subservience that makes Bibleman useless for the military college, which requires at least a baseline of critical thinking, is perfect for consumer society.
The story is also a powerful commentary on education. Mary, when lecturing the expelled Bibleman on his failure in the test talks about the real role of educational institutions. “The covert message of institutions is: ‘Submit to that which you psychologically construe as an authority.’ A good school trains the whole person; it isn’t a matter of data and information; I was trying to make you morally and psychologically complete. But a person can’t be commanded to disobey. You can’t order someone to rebel.” (329) When he learns about the true purpose of the school, Bibleman lets go of his resentment toward being forced into it and wants to stay. It is, however, too late for him. His rebellion will need to take place outside of the school doors, starting with stealing a meal."
https://philipkdickreview.wordpress.c...
He learns his lesson and later breaks the law by refusing to pay for a fast food meal, but his natural subservience takes over again and he pays the robot for his meal. For Dick, Bibleman is one of the most dangerous people in the country (at least until he learned his lesson). It is a powerful point that Dick makes when he shows that the total subservience that makes Bibleman useless for the military college, which requires at least a baseline of critical thinking, is perfect for consumer society.
The story is also a powerful commentary on education. Mary, when lecturing the expelled Bibleman on his failure in the test talks about the real role of educational institutions. “The covert message of institutions is: ‘Submit to that which you psychologically construe as an authority.’ A good school trains the whole person; it isn’t a matter of data and information; I was trying to make you morally and psychologically complete. But a person can’t be commanded to disobey. You can’t order someone to rebel.” (329) When he learns about the true purpose of the school, Bibleman lets go of his resentment toward being forced into it and wants to stay. It is, however, too late for him. His rebellion will need to take place outside of the school doors, starting with stealing a meal."
https://philipkdickreview.wordpress.c...
January 12, 2023
Read this last night and it’s one of the better PKD shorts IMO. More focused than his others and seems to actually tackle the issue he wants to deal with, unlike so many of his others.
But I’m only really reviewing this because my Three Stigmata review is already too long and I want somewhere else to put my thoughts about PKD in general.
I was thinking about PKD in comparison with HP Lovecraft last night, after I read this. The first stylistic difference is that while PKD if full throttle all the time, and that makes his writing a lot of fun for a while but it feels like it limits his him when compared to HPL, who is far more patient and deliberate. PKD probably could have benefited from being more patient. I feel like he either runs out of steam by the end of his novels or just has nowhere to go. He also doesn’t really take the time to work through all of the philosophical issues he tries to address.
But the more important thing that struck me was a difference in their philosophies of perception, perception of reality, and the laws of reality. In my Three Stigmata review I go on record as saying that I don't think much of PKDs attempts to deal with philosophical issues. He tries so hard to deal with issues that are so clearly beyond his grasp. One of the more consistent themes he tries to deal with is the idea that perception can be misleading or broken (e.g. did this character ever stop hallucinating? can you tell the difference between real and mimicked people?) But I don't really feel like he has much to say about it beyond "perception can be tricked", which doesn't seem like an amazing or new observation to me. He also has no grander philosophy of how that happens or why it matters. He just seems to be really stunned that people can believe things that aren't true. Cool! I guess you could say that the question of importance it does raise is the old "can we really know ourselves or trust our perceptions?" But by the time that PKD is writing is that really new? I guess you can give him credit for asking it a new way in a world with drugs and computers, but I feel that's of moderate importance at best, and done better elsewhere.
Overall, the questions about perception are all about individual failures thereof. I guess it underscores for me how fundamentally liberal PKDs worldview is. To give him credit, John Dolan talks about PKD as writing about a California and America in decline, which is not something many others were doing at that time. The mood he creates is always incredible, and I still like PKD overall, but I just can't take him seriously philosophically. The more I read PKD the more I feel like he's like David Foster Wallace: doing a party-trick reciting old continental philosophy for parochial Americans, who are just impressed that you know the names. I guess if I'm being incredibly uncharitable to PKD, I feel like there's such an "Americanness" to his work that makes it weak. Based on everything I've read about him, and particularly the Exegesis, it just seems like he wants to deal with philosophy but doesn't have the commitment to it to actually learn about it in a serious way. Yet he still thinks he can go beyond it and develop it. It's kind of grating the way he brings up titles of books and philosophers in his work. It's like "look, I don't care about these people and don't read them in a serious way, but if it makes you happy I'll say the names so you can feel like your engaging with something of importance".
I mainly wanted to get those thoughts above sorted out, but to talk quickly about HPL, I think that what makes his discussion of perception so much more compelling to me is that when he's dealing with warping of perception or reality, he's dealing with it not as some kind of thing that can "happen" to someone, like in PKD, but something that *exists*, and always exists. I understand this is not a new observation about HPL, but anyway. Reality exists in HPL, but it's so unlike anything that we humans understand that its impossible to actually encounter it. Laws of physics and geometry bend and break. Everything perceived is therefore a rationalization of a universe too complex or too terrifying to actually perceive, and so misperception is built in. Rationality and reality undermine themselves. He's the best kind of modernist. I don't want to say that this necessarily makes him better than PKD. What I'm writing here isn't a complete appraisal of PKD; I just want to get some thoughts written down on his philosophy. PKD is more consistently exciting than HPL, and less formulaic. But there is for the most part a consistent and dialectical philosophy that undergirds everything in HPL's work, unlike in PKD.
But I’m only really reviewing this because my Three Stigmata review is already too long and I want somewhere else to put my thoughts about PKD in general.
I was thinking about PKD in comparison with HP Lovecraft last night, after I read this. The first stylistic difference is that while PKD if full throttle all the time, and that makes his writing a lot of fun for a while but it feels like it limits his him when compared to HPL, who is far more patient and deliberate. PKD probably could have benefited from being more patient. I feel like he either runs out of steam by the end of his novels or just has nowhere to go. He also doesn’t really take the time to work through all of the philosophical issues he tries to address.
But the more important thing that struck me was a difference in their philosophies of perception, perception of reality, and the laws of reality. In my Three Stigmata review I go on record as saying that I don't think much of PKDs attempts to deal with philosophical issues. He tries so hard to deal with issues that are so clearly beyond his grasp. One of the more consistent themes he tries to deal with is the idea that perception can be misleading or broken (e.g. did this character ever stop hallucinating? can you tell the difference between real and mimicked people?) But I don't really feel like he has much to say about it beyond "perception can be tricked", which doesn't seem like an amazing or new observation to me. He also has no grander philosophy of how that happens or why it matters. He just seems to be really stunned that people can believe things that aren't true. Cool! I guess you could say that the question of importance it does raise is the old "can we really know ourselves or trust our perceptions?" But by the time that PKD is writing is that really new? I guess you can give him credit for asking it a new way in a world with drugs and computers, but I feel that's of moderate importance at best, and done better elsewhere.
Overall, the questions about perception are all about individual failures thereof. I guess it underscores for me how fundamentally liberal PKDs worldview is. To give him credit, John Dolan talks about PKD as writing about a California and America in decline, which is not something many others were doing at that time. The mood he creates is always incredible, and I still like PKD overall, but I just can't take him seriously philosophically. The more I read PKD the more I feel like he's like David Foster Wallace: doing a party-trick reciting old continental philosophy for parochial Americans, who are just impressed that you know the names. I guess if I'm being incredibly uncharitable to PKD, I feel like there's such an "Americanness" to his work that makes it weak. Based on everything I've read about him, and particularly the Exegesis, it just seems like he wants to deal with philosophy but doesn't have the commitment to it to actually learn about it in a serious way. Yet he still thinks he can go beyond it and develop it. It's kind of grating the way he brings up titles of books and philosophers in his work. It's like "look, I don't care about these people and don't read them in a serious way, but if it makes you happy I'll say the names so you can feel like your engaging with something of importance".
I mainly wanted to get those thoughts above sorted out, but to talk quickly about HPL, I think that what makes his discussion of perception so much more compelling to me is that when he's dealing with warping of perception or reality, he's dealing with it not as some kind of thing that can "happen" to someone, like in PKD, but something that *exists*, and always exists. I understand this is not a new observation about HPL, but anyway. Reality exists in HPL, but it's so unlike anything that we humans understand that its impossible to actually encounter it. Laws of physics and geometry bend and break. Everything perceived is therefore a rationalization of a universe too complex or too terrifying to actually perceive, and so misperception is built in. Rationality and reality undermine themselves. He's the best kind of modernist. I don't want to say that this necessarily makes him better than PKD. What I'm writing here isn't a complete appraisal of PKD; I just want to get some thoughts written down on his philosophy. PKD is more consistently exciting than HPL, and less formulaic. But there is for the most part a consistent and dialectical philosophy that undergirds everything in HPL's work, unlike in PKD.
December 11, 2017
“The Exit Door Leads In” (1979)
Comedic satire. Loved it. ****
A subtle “F... y..” to authoritarianism and institutionalism. This is reinforced by the protagonist being a non-hero.
The story centers on a certain Bob Bibleman going out for a hamburger and, when asked by the robotic counterman if he wants to enter a contest, says yes. The contest instantly enrolls him in a quasi-military college where he [seemingly accidentally] comes across classified information the release of which would save millions of lives; however, it is strictly forbidden by the college authorities. After an evening of soul-searching, in which he dreams of his father being proud of him for returning the information to the college, Bibleman does just that, only to discover they were testing him to see if he was the type of person to break ranks and subvert authority for the sake of what is right. Since he too readily conforms to what authority tells him, he is expelled from the college and, dejected, returns to his former life.
- - -
Opening line:
Bob Bibleman had the impression that robots wouldn't look you in the eye. And when one had been in the vicinity small valuable objects disappeared. A robot's idea of order was to stack everything into one pile. Nonetheless, Bibleman had to order lunch from robots, since vending ranked too low on the wage scale to attract humans.
- -
“'The college is a military college located in Buttfuck, Egypt, so to speak. But that's no problem; you'll be taken there. Go home and start packing.'”
- -
He submitted to what he did not like, and he regarded this attitude as a virtue. Most people in authority over him considered him a good person. As to those over whom he had authority, that was a class with zero members. … The government told everyone what to do, or so he assumed. He had very few dealings with the government. That was neither a virtue nor a vice; it was simply good luck.”
- -
“Now he had been set up by a robot, a cheap machine, to shovel shit in the boonies, dragooned by a mechanical scam that was probably pulling citizens off the streets in record numbers. This was not a college he was going to; he had won nothing. He had won a stint at some kind of forced-labor camp, most likely. The exit door leads in, he thought to himself. Which is to say, when they want you they already have you; all they need is the paperwork. And a computer can process the forms at the touch of a key. The H key for hell and the S key for slave, he thought. And the Y key for you.”
- - -
“They gave him a physical, a haircut, a uniform, and a place to bunk down, and many psychological tests. Bibleman suspected that the true purpose of the tests was to determine if he were a latent homosexual, and then he suspected that his suspicions indicated that he was a latent homosexual, so he abandoned the suspicions and supposed instead that they were sly intelligence and aptitude tests, and he informed himself that he was showing both: intelligence and aptitude. He also informed himself that he looked great in his uniform, even though it was the same uniform that everyone else wore. That is why they call it a uniform, he reminded himself as he sat on the edge of his bunk reading his orientation pamphlets.
The first pamphlet pointed out that it was a great honor to be admitted to the College. That was its name -- the one word. How strange, he thought, puzzled. It's like naming your cat Cat and your dog Dog. This is my mother, Mrs. Mother, and my father, Mr. Father. Are these people working right? he wondered. It had been a phobia of his for years that someday he would fall into the hands of madmen -- in particular, madmen who seemed sane up until the last moment. To Bibleman this was the essence of horror.”
- - -
“'It automatically notified security when you asked for a written transcript. All written transcripts are monitored.'
'Fuck you,' Bibleman said.”
- - -
Comedic satire. Loved it. ****
A subtle “F... y..” to authoritarianism and institutionalism. This is reinforced by the protagonist being a non-hero.
The story centers on a certain Bob Bibleman going out for a hamburger and, when asked by the robotic counterman if he wants to enter a contest, says yes. The contest instantly enrolls him in a quasi-military college where he [seemingly accidentally] comes across classified information the release of which would save millions of lives; however, it is strictly forbidden by the college authorities. After an evening of soul-searching, in which he dreams of his father being proud of him for returning the information to the college, Bibleman does just that, only to discover they were testing him to see if he was the type of person to break ranks and subvert authority for the sake of what is right. Since he too readily conforms to what authority tells him, he is expelled from the college and, dejected, returns to his former life.
- - -
Opening line:
Bob Bibleman had the impression that robots wouldn't look you in the eye. And when one had been in the vicinity small valuable objects disappeared. A robot's idea of order was to stack everything into one pile. Nonetheless, Bibleman had to order lunch from robots, since vending ranked too low on the wage scale to attract humans.
- -
“'The college is a military college located in Buttfuck, Egypt, so to speak. But that's no problem; you'll be taken there. Go home and start packing.'”
- -
He submitted to what he did not like, and he regarded this attitude as a virtue. Most people in authority over him considered him a good person. As to those over whom he had authority, that was a class with zero members. … The government told everyone what to do, or so he assumed. He had very few dealings with the government. That was neither a virtue nor a vice; it was simply good luck.”
- -
“Now he had been set up by a robot, a cheap machine, to shovel shit in the boonies, dragooned by a mechanical scam that was probably pulling citizens off the streets in record numbers. This was not a college he was going to; he had won nothing. He had won a stint at some kind of forced-labor camp, most likely. The exit door leads in, he thought to himself. Which is to say, when they want you they already have you; all they need is the paperwork. And a computer can process the forms at the touch of a key. The H key for hell and the S key for slave, he thought. And the Y key for you.”
- - -
“They gave him a physical, a haircut, a uniform, and a place to bunk down, and many psychological tests. Bibleman suspected that the true purpose of the tests was to determine if he were a latent homosexual, and then he suspected that his suspicions indicated that he was a latent homosexual, so he abandoned the suspicions and supposed instead that they were sly intelligence and aptitude tests, and he informed himself that he was showing both: intelligence and aptitude. He also informed himself that he looked great in his uniform, even though it was the same uniform that everyone else wore. That is why they call it a uniform, he reminded himself as he sat on the edge of his bunk reading his orientation pamphlets.
The first pamphlet pointed out that it was a great honor to be admitted to the College. That was its name -- the one word. How strange, he thought, puzzled. It's like naming your cat Cat and your dog Dog. This is my mother, Mrs. Mother, and my father, Mr. Father. Are these people working right? he wondered. It had been a phobia of his for years that someday he would fall into the hands of madmen -- in particular, madmen who seemed sane up until the last moment. To Bibleman this was the essence of horror.”
- - -
“'It automatically notified security when you asked for a written transcript. All written transcripts are monitored.'
'Fuck you,' Bibleman said.”
- - -
November 4, 2019
I agree with the so called established interpretation about authority, free thinking, and free will that is in this short story. And it makes sense. But my first thought was that Bob Bibleman PASSED the test and was allowed back into society. It was robots and society who were testing him for obedience, loyalty, and non independent (robot like?) behaviour. After all, it was a robot that "set him up" in the first place, and a robot that was proud of him at the end. Perhaps I am just too accustomed to P.K.Dick plot twists and hidden meanings, but my first interpretation would not be out of character or inconsistent with the story. Yet the conclusion that Bibleman FAILED the test to gain admission to the college also fits very tightly. Dont you just love P.K.Dick? I wonder if ambiguity was intentional, or just a product of my off center thinking.
August 22, 2022
The moral of the story, you see, is that when a power-tripping authority dangles amateurishly obvious bait with 'LOYALTY TEST' written all over it in bright red letters, you should blithely charge right into the trap and allow the noose to tighten around your neck. Or something like that. Yeah, what Dick was going for was approval of leaking state secrets and resisting authority generally, and disapproval of educational institutions insofar as they position themselves as authorities and enforce conformity, but the clumsy plotting prevents the intended morals from actually working.
November 28, 2021
Brilliant, Philip K Dick is a genius and this short story just reminded me of this fact. When I read this guys stories I instantly get transported into his antithetical worlds and they are funny, fresh and mind altering. Thanks kindred.
November 24, 2025
3 stars because.,The idea is cool, but the story felt a bit too quick. I liked the concept of the exit looping back in, but it didn’t hit as hard as I expected.
You can read it here : https://sickmyduck.narod.ru/pkd078-0....
You can read it here : https://sickmyduck.narod.ru/pkd078-0....
February 15, 2020
Hmm, l like the phylosofical stuff. Not very much an entertaining story for me.
April 19, 2020
Listened to the audio book. Excellent story.
July 10, 2022
A little too on the nose for me and the logic is a little too black and white as well.
The cheeky fucking robots were a gas though.
The cheeky fucking robots were a gas though.
October 4, 2022
[••] Concept story about institutional tests and integrity.
October 10, 2023
This is 100% a personal problem but I found the story to be a bit obnoxious. The themes I agree with, yet the characters I found to be the most unlikeable people on the planet. I understand that they weren't supposed to be liked; Bob is not a cool or good guy. At the same time, everyone else sucked too. So...what now?
It was all just a very on the nose explicit telling of themes that at the end of the day I'm sure we all agree with. I still view this story positively because it was effective in delivering the themes, but at the same time I would never read this again for pleasure.
Grade: B
Recommended for: You can skip this and read a summary
It was all just a very on the nose explicit telling of themes that at the end of the day I'm sure we all agree with. I still view this story positively because it was effective in delivering the themes, but at the same time I would never read this again for pleasure.
Grade: B
Recommended for: You can skip this and read a summary
August 7, 2016
I really enjoyed this short story. The main character is forced into college and given a very interesting test. This short reminds us that we have to question authority and do the right thing even when a powerful authority figure says no. I couldn't help thinking of the Edward Snowden incident while reading this and rooting for the main character to help humanity over complying with his superior's orders. But the main character did what a lot of people would do in his situation. This story gets you thinking. What would you have done in his situation?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 28, 2023
( Format : Audiobook)
"Loyalty is an ethical principle."
A short but very thoughtful story from the master, Philip K. Dick. Set sometime in a bleak future, a young student at a select college is faced with a choice which could affect his life.
This audio version is perfectly narrated by Paul Michael Garcia, who's reading is a pleasure to hear.
Definitely recommended.
Great story.
"Loyalty is an ethical principle."
A short but very thoughtful story from the master, Philip K. Dick. Set sometime in a bleak future, a young student at a select college is faced with a choice which could affect his life.
This audio version is perfectly narrated by Paul Michael Garcia, who's reading is a pleasure to hear.
Definitely recommended.
Great story.
April 16, 2014
Viewing the time traveling paradox from a different angle.
May 2, 2015
This was part of the book Robots, Androids, and Mechanical Oddities.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews