The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch in War Nerd Reading List

Jun 16, 2025 Cool_guy rated it it was amazing

A masterful exploration of good and evil, written in awful prose. In short, PKD at his best. He claims that he was unable to read the galley proofs before they were sent to the publisher. The writing of the book traumatized him. Bear in mind that this is a man who later was told by God, or what he thought to be God, that the Roman Empire still existed. You'll probably keep your sanity if you read it. ...more

4 likes · Like · see review

Apr 01, 2023 Chris Valentine rated it liked it

There's something I love about reading old, old sci-fi and spending up to the first hundred pages going, 'what the fuck? What is he talking about?' Then you realise that Philip K. Dick kind of predicted the so-called 'metaverse,' except he's a madman so he's called them 'Perky Pat layouts.' Then you're struck by the prescience of it for the next little bit, and then there are weird goofy aliens that remind you that you are reading old, old sci-fi. ...more

1 like · Like · see review

Apr 23, 2020 Rashid Yasin rated it really liked it

Shelves: sci-fi, fiction

I haven't done enough psychedelics to really empathize with all of Philip K. Dick's work, but this is as close an experience I'll get in literary form. Through Barney Mayerson's journey from working as a pre-fashion clairvoyant on Earth to a forced settler on a partially-terraformed Mars, Palmer (both the character and the book) asks us if we could experience heaven on earth, would it be worth denying the real world for it - even if we knew it wasn't real? And if we had a glimpse of that paradis ...more

Like · see review

Jan 05, 2023 Peter Gatti rated it it was ok

An argument that Stanislaw Lem makes in Visionary Among Charlatans is that it’s actually a strength of PKD’s that he’s not bound by consistency or philosophical rigidity. I guess I would agree if I felt like PKD understood what he was trying to say. If I felt like if he had a *specific* question so profound and transcendental that exploring it meant going beyond consistency and rationality I would be all in. I guess I just don’t trust pkd enough to take that trip with him most of the time. I try An argument that Stanislaw Lem makes in Visionary Among Charlatans is that it’s actually a strength of PKD’s that he’s not bound by consistency or philosophical rigidity. I guess I would agree if I felt like PKD understood what he was trying to say. If I felt like if he had a *specific* question so profound and transcendental that exploring it meant going beyond consistency and rationality I would be all in. I guess I just don’t trust pkd enough to take that trip with him most of the time. I try to picture it like he’s pouring his thoughts into the cup of consistency. If he’s got so many great thoughts that the cup can’t hold them, I don’t mind him making a huge mess. But are we sure that’s why his books are such a mess?? When you pour from a heavy jug you have to commit, so to speak, to pouring slowly and decisively, in long arcs. And when you stop pouring, you need to also do that slowly and decisively. I feel like a lot of the mess with PKD is just a result of him sloshing around. He jumps around constantly, not just with the plot but with the concepts he’s trying to deal with and address. Most of the profundity of the story seems to be wrung out of the characters’ confusion or misperception, which is often rectified or changed again shortly after. Its therefore not an examination of the topic of transubstantiation (to take one example) so much as an examination of the thoughts of a few characters on transubstantiation. It’s a cheap high. Anyway I’ve mixed a bunch of metaphors here, but maybe like PKD the fact that I’m not bound by consistency is a strength. I should also say these are my views of his work in general, not necessarily this book, though it’s definitely here too.

I said in an update before finishing the book that this book seems better than most of his others, especially Ubik. It seems the most well thought out and the closest to profound, of what I’ve read or understood. The story is great. But I feel like something is missing. It seems like he doesn’t have a specific idea of what the significance is of the being that takes over Eldritch. It seems like an expanded version of Beyond Lies the Wub, which is the worst PKD short story I’ve read. If it’s just an extraterrestrial creature trying to replicate itself doesn’t that take all the fun out of it? What was the rest about? The poor ways in which people try to conceive of something utterly new and world shattering? I could believe that if he explored that in more than just a few pages at the end. But if the philosophical subject here is religion and communion, what did we learn? The thing that takes over Eldritch is ultimately not a god, and they explore transubstantiation without divinity. Who cares? You’d be better off just reading catechism.

Despite the limits of the book there is still a lot in it. The story is good and terrifying. On its own, without giving it much philosophical consideration, a demiurge (if that’s what it is) taking over a body somewhere in outer space, and then colonizing the solar system by drugging everyone is a cool plot. Kind of like Alien in a way. The absolutely hopeless condition of the colonies is great, with rotting supplies and almost suicidal colonists. Loved the aside where Anne says she can tell they’re even bored of Can-D. It’s cool that the misery in the colonies is what gives the Eldritch being the opportunity to take everything over. Barney’s self destructive arc is great. It’s great that a lot of the conflict of the book is a result of him intentionally trying to drive himself insane. Really funny how they describe Leo as controlling a monopoly forever and folding at the first site of competition. I couldn’t put the book down and it’s great as just a bleak scifi story. My complaints are basically philosophical because I always feel let down at the end of the book. It always feels like he’s getting into interesting topics, but I find myself waiting for the questions he raises to gain weight or substance or form or something and they just never do.

Lay people should never have been allowed to study scripture.

Maybe I just don’t get it though. I’ll read some reviews and see what I missed. ...more

Like · see review