Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep/Blade Runner

[Razorback]

I recently finished Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. This is only my second by him. It’s a bit dated, but that’s not typically a problem for me (and wasn’t here). I thought it was lacking in the story-telling department. I found many parts of the story were a bit goofy, but his treatment of the androids and their place in future development was very interesting. His treatment of the characters and their emotions, and the contrast between human and androids, was compelling. I rate it a 7 on a 1 to 10 scale.

I watched the director’s cut of Blade Runner the day after finishing the book. At least half the book wasn’t included in the movie and there were substantial liberties taken with the elements that were included. In my opinion, however, the movie included the most compelling aspect of the book, and the changes didn’t detract from the core ideas used in the movie. The movie captured the emotional aspects of the key characters and the differences between human and android emotions more effectively than I expected. I appreciated the movie more for having read the book first, but I actually liked the movie better than the book. This is first for me.

 

[Connavar]

I would rate the book 8/10 not cause its one of hist best written books, or his best ideas or characters.

But his treatment of the androids and their place in the future development as you put it was very interesting. Plus i felt alot for the characters, humans or androids.
When the androids couldnt show empathy for the spider they were torturing and the fool could. It was a powerful scene for me. Alittle scary cause of how unhuman they were,their lack of caring.

When in the end the female android killed Dekkard's cow, it was depressing. So i felt for the characters. Also important for me was how holy animals was for the humans. It was well done. Maybe it was cause how more true that is today then when the book was written. Its almost common knowledge many animals like Tigers will be gone only in a decade or so.

 

[steve12553]

I recently finished Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. ..... I appreciated the movie more for having read the book first, but I actually liked the movie better than the book. This is first for me.

I found this was one of the wonderful exceptions where the film was great in its own right while making a lot of changes to a very inventive story. I really enjoyed both.

 

[tangaloomababe]

I have only ever seen the movie but have thought about reading the book for sometime.
Thanks for the recommendations and I will try to get hold of a copy.
As to the movie, it remains a firm favorite for me. I have always enjoyed it and could watch it over and over.

 

[Michael01]

This is actually the only book I've read by Dick, but I absolutely loved it. And I agree with all of you about the movie as well.

 

[Bick]

I just re-read this book after a 30 odd year gap. This short review is from from my website:

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep - Philip K. Dick

This famous novel, published in 1968, served as inspiration for the equally famous film Bladerunner which was released in 1982 shortly after Dick's death. The novel focusses on a police bounty hunter Rick Deckard, who's job is to 'retire' androids who have escaped from their colony world and returned illegally to Earth. Deckard is given a list of 6 new Nexus 6 androids who are at large in San Francisco. All which will sound very familiar to those who have seen the film. But there are several key differences between the original book and Ridley Scott's film, with the book offering a deeper and more complex plot. This was a re-read after a space of about 30 years and I was interested to remind myself how the book and film differ.

While bounty-hunting is a key aspect of the plot, it is used here as a vehicle for Dick to explore the nature of humanity and the soul. In the book, Deckard spends as much time dreaming of owning a real animal, rather than only his electric sheep facsimile, as he does searching for and retiring androids. Moreover, Dick spends a fair amount of time on 'Mercerism' - a rather nutty religious movement - as a way of approaching the question of religion in maintaining both a sense of community and also control.

Many of the main characters in the film also feature in the book, including Rachael, Roy Batty, and Pris. However, in the book Roy is married to another android, exemplifying ways in which the book's androids are more human than they are in the film. Yes, they only live a few years and are made not born, but in many ways they are quite human. They are not physically advantaged here either, unlike in the film, and almost seem to accept their fate when a bounty-hunter runs them to ground. In this way, Dick blurs the distinction between human and android more than in the film, and asks, what is it to be human, and why do we both kill life with condescension, and then paradoxically also mourn its loss?

Not all the subtleties in the book would easily translate to film, perhaps, and so the film settles for themes that are a little easier to digest. Both book and film are great, but in slightly different ways. A criticism Harrison Ford has been heard to voice about the movie is that he played a detective who didn't seem to do much detecting. But in the book he does even less detecting! He follows a list of names and addresses provided to him, and then undertakes his job of retiring them - he isn't a detective, he's a killer. The purpose of Deckard is not to propel a detective thriller storyline, but to enable Dick to ponder on some of his favourite themes - the value we place on life (animal or human) and the question of what it means to be human. This is rather deep book, and is highly recommended to SF fans who've not yet read it.

 

[Toby Frost]

It struck me as notable that Luba Luft, the android opera singer, is killed in a museum holding a book of paintings, while Zora, her equivalent in the film, is shot in the rain outside a strip club. One is more visually noir, but the other has a deeper meaning. Deckard buying the book for Luba always strikes me as very sad.

I never really "got" Mercerism, which seems like a mixture of the Crucifixion and the story of Sisyphus in Hell, but some of the other things that were cut out by the film were good. Phil Resch, a man who is clearly less human than the replicants he kills, might be a bit on the nose, but he works as a character. The obsession with real animals makes sense but, as you say, many of these things would have worked better on paper than on film.