I went into reading this letter thinking that it would be another 'they destroyed my vision!' example. I'm pleasantly surprised as I have a fondness for the movie. I'm not an expert though, I just do eyes! Just eyes!
I was expecting a rant as well. And I am actually a little skeptical about this letter, and not just because it lacks a signature. He never saw the final cut, yet is willing to make a grand, sweeping pronouncement about how important the movie will be.
The letter also says "My life and creative work are justified and completed by BLADE RUNNER". I doubt many respected authors would make such a pronouncement about a Hollywood adaptation and their own artistic legacy without seeing the final product, but this is even more unusual considering the adaptation barely followed the narrative in the original book.
To be fair, nobody can claim to have seen the final cut and the continuing proliferation of versions supports the notion of it being a very important (if perennially unfinished) film.
You're right that the book is very different from the film, but even here it's much different than most adaptations, as key dialog is lifted almost verbatim from the book. I think if this letter is legitimate, Dick was probably more excited about the portrayal of the universe his stories took place in, rather than the faithfulness of the script to a single one of his works.
If you look at Phil Dick's published work, he isn't faithful to his own scripts at all - the short stories and novellas weave and re-weave each others' ideas, characters and settings, and the ending and message of a story can be very different from version to version.
I could comfortably imagine him reworking the DADOES plot into something just as far away from the original as Blade Runner - in fact, if anything, I find Blade Runner less radically different from the source material than some of his own reworkings.
Memory is saying the two versions of Second Variety are a good example, as are the various forms of Ubik, but my books aren't currently on the same continent as me so alas I have no citations.
Ridley Scott shouldn't be underestimated as a director. Blade runner works not only as a narrative, but also as a sequence of images designed to evoke raw emotions and reflection about the future and technological progress. It's the visual analogue of a tone poem. You can turn the volume down to O and appreciate the film on this level. The 1st Alien has the exact same thing going on.
I went in the same way. Near the end my jaw just dropped, and all I could think was "Wow." (which is also a very short summary of what Philip K. Dick wrote).
Being a young teenager and reading electric sheep and then seeing blade runner, Then to live and see things slowly unfolding toward this future he describes -- such as the rapid decline of critical life such as honeybees and frogs, BCI, AI, etc -- it really does blow my mind to see it all being a possibility - albiet a very dark one.
Also Google just released the Nexus one. Coincidence? I think not!
Funny follow-up ... Ridley Scott, the director of BR, is also a producer of the TV show "Numbers".
There is a scene where two of the FBI agents are walking through the mall area where parts of BR were filmed (where Deckard looks for, chases, and ultimately kills the dancer replicant as she crashes through the glass) and they make references to how "Ridley Scott saw this all coming" and "this area looks like something out of Blade Runner" ...
Over the last few months I've really gotten into Philip K. Dick. He wrote some of the best sci-fi I've ever read. Whereas a lot of sci fi is about cool stuff just to write about cool stuff, PKD used imaginative/futuristic settings, characters, and objects to explore the human condition.
"Do Android Dream of Electric Sheep" is a great book. One of its central questions is what makes humans, human. The book gives you plenty of ideas to mull over, and at the same time it's an exciting, plot-driven read.
I watched blade runner a month ago, a couple weeks after finishing Do Android Dream of Electric Sheep. The movie was nearly incomprehensible and the acting was terrible. It was too terrible and bizarre to even really be a disappointment.
All this is to say, I wonder how PKD would have felt after seeing the entire movie.
> The movie was nearly incomprehensible and the acting was terrible.
Try watching it a third or fourth time, paying close attention. It’s a dense film, visually, narratively, and symbolically. It dumps you straight into a fully realized world, doesn’t stop much to explain how it works, and is full of rich and believable but extremely socially awkward characters (they’re a mix of utterly isolated engineers – who build robots to hang out with because they're so incapable of dealing with people – and killer robots). I think it’s one of Harrison Ford’s most impressive performances (not to mention Rutger Hauer). Especially if you watch the version without the voiceovers, the film does very little to help the reader out.
But I’ve found it one of the most rewarding films, raising all kinds of deep questions about modern society, the nature of cognition and consciousness, teleology... but it only gives back as much as you put into it.
And scanner darkly (7.7) - still eXistenZ is the one that really stands out for me. But I admit that there are other "good" movies out there that use PKD as a basis.
Another Phillip K. Dick book turned movie that I enjoyed is 'Impostor' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0160399/. When I first saw it I did not know it was written by Dick but could tell after an hour or so of watching that it was. Theme wise it is similar to Bladerunner but with a different plot.
What i found most insightful is the "monotous death" he says SF is at risk of settling into. All the brilliant SF's reputation is overshadowed by the pulp works with tasteless covers, and people tend to think of SF as children's books, not serious (if you compare it to "classic" litterature). We need more works like Bradbury's, that are in themselves brilliant litterature (look at the prose in Fahrenheit 451!) as well as SF.
I've found the success of a work Science Fiction as a work of literature is closely correlated to how far removed it is from present day society. Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World are both fairly close to society today, as far as Science Fiction goes. Richard Powers has had great success writing about things like virtual reality (Plowing the Dark) and artificial intelligence (Galatea 2.2), but his works are even closer to present day than Bradbury or Huxley. The Foundation Series, while not quite on Powers's level, are still incredible books that might just belong in the class of real literature. I don't think it will ever get there though because its world isn't coupled closely enough with the one we know.
Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five is a sci-fi story that's also considered real literature. It's mostly set in the 20th century.
I don't like terms like "real literature". I would say the Foundation series despite its weaknesses is worth reading for anyone who wants to be well rounded in his/her book choices.
> Will be found on the desk of a character in several movies to indicate the character is of above average intelligence
I guess that's why I'm hesitant to use term like "real literature". I'm very picky about what I read, that is I tend to stick to books like those you described. On the other hand I don't like to appear that I read those books just so I can name drop or look smart when someone sees my bookshelf.
The term I usually hear is "literary fiction." Everything else, including sci-fi, is "genre fiction." I suspect that's not much of an improvement to your ears.
I just finished David Forrest Wallace's Infinite Jest and was surprised that is was sci-fi. DFW was such a literary golden boy, i think people don't mention that IJ was a sci-fi book to avoid belittling him. total crap, if you ask me.
I think when you say “how far removed it is from present day society”, what I hear is rather “how rich, subtle, and believable its characters and societies are”. Because real societies are rich and textured, full of contradictions and moral ambiguities, characters with complex motivations.
Snow Crash has a bitmap pattern that can hack into programmers’ brains and knock them unconscious and the complete collapse of nation-states and The Diamond Age has pervasive nanotechnology. Dune has gigantic sand worms and psycho telepaths. China Miéville’s books have giant mutant bird-people. Speaker for the Dead includes aliens, artificial superintelligence, faster-than-light communication. &c. &c. &c.
“Real literature” (any way you define it) has many of the same building-blocks: gods (The Illiad), fairies (Twelfth Night), voyages through the underworld (Dante’s Inferno), characters who hop from one body to another (Death in Venice), interesting new interpretations of language and cognition and radically different cultural/social customs, etc. etc.
But works (including those set in space) that oversimplify and preach at us, or just serve as fantasies for us to insert ourselves into as passive escapism are little better than Horatio Alger novels, or, say, the trashiest kinds of romances. They can be fun, but ultimately they don't have quite so much staying power.
One of my favourite sci-fi narratives is that found in Bungie's 'Marathon' series. Not a book, obviously, but a game - however the story is still text-based. I suppose you could look at the game elements as illustrations to go with the text. But the text (the story unfolds when the player reaches and accesses various computer 'terminals' strewn about the levels, sometimes hidden) is much more than just prose, it's really a hybrid between prose, code, and 'concrete poetry' (poetry where the position/spacing of letters creates a visual impression). The characters who narrate the story are powerful AI constructs for the most part, in possession of their own psychology/pathology and free from their human masters/creators, and from human concerns.
I think in creating a new voice (that of the AIs), Bungie used an entirely new mode of expression, with brilliant results (I bet the Marathon's Story website is still active). The story, by the way, is relatively far removed from the present day.
I loved the Foundation trilogy for its ideas, but you can't get much more stark and dull as far as prose goes. The art of literature isn't what you write about, it's how well you write it, and there's very little of that in the Foundation trilogy. There's no artistry in the prose or characterization: it's just a straight translation of ideas to text. Of course, the ideas are very interesting and good, which is what justifies it.
I think the previous poster is suggesting that Dick is serious. The “pulp” he's talking about would be stuff like endless Star Trek-like novels full of humanoid aliens, grand good-versus-evil plans to destroy the galaxy thwarted by plucky young protagonists, and uninspired plots, characters, and themes. The classically derided “sci-fi” (“skiffy”), as compared to “real” SF like Dick’s work.
Oh, ok. But that's more a failure of labelling. Most romantic novels for women are (at least) equally bad (and also printed on pulp). That doesn't devalue the best.
Interestingly, I find that Dick tends to borrow from the pulp stuff a lot. He's a pulp writer--but he distills the best out of it.
Perhaps I'm splitting semantic hairs, but what is "regular" fiction? Science fiction is a subset of fiction, but it is fiction nonetheless. If a novel is set in 18th Century Europe is it then not "regular" fiction? Is it "only" historical fiction? Only "European" fiction?
"Science fiction books" are a subset of "fiction books".
"Fiction" is a radically constrained subset of "science fiction".
One of the reasons I enjoy science fiction so much is that in the hands of a master, it has much more possibility to be truly powerful and good literature than the genres that limit themselves. Like any other ingredient, it can either make the dish or ruin it, but the ingredient should not be judged by the ruined dishes people make with it.
(Example: I recommend A Deepness in the Sky for an interesting literary treatment on slavery that goes well beyond "Slavery is bad, mm'kay?" and with relevance well beyond the usual historical issues. Try it in non-sci-fi and it would either fail or be silly.)
The Martian Chronicles is SF, maybe not Hard SF, but SF.
That's where the limit between SF and fantastic is blury, but in that regard Dick is sometimes more fantasy, or not so science (consider Time Out of Joint for instance, probable inspiration for the Truman Show).
This isn't correct. Science fiction routinely has elements that violate the laws of physics and nature as we know them today. Having actual science is in most cases a disqualifier (there is some SF that sticks to science, but that's hardly the norm). If your imagination is required for the work to make sense, it's probably not science.
If I had a dime for every science fiction story with super-realistic spaceflight yet also with completely unexplained "ansible" technology that allows instantaneous communication with anyone in the universe....
I recall observing in the early 90's, with some amazement, that the actual Times Square had started to look like its depiction in Blade Runner, with over-the-top lighted billboards in every direction and sterile, glass-fronted places of non-sex commerce. It's easy to forget that Times Square verged on being a crappy porn district when Blade Runner came out.
It's an easy mistake, since in the movies, New York City is usually depicted at night and Los Angeles is usually depicted at daytime. Blade Runner (and I guess The Fifth Element) reverse that.
Blade Runner changed the direction of science fiction movies. Heck, it changed the direction of WRITTEN science fiction (and, yes, I'm saying that the movie, not the original book, changed the direction of written SF).
I could go on and on, but I don't want to sound like a fanboy...but Blade Runner was - by its effects - one of the most important cultural artifacts of the second half of the 20th century.
The gushing letter he wrote predicted it's going to be a commercial success. I like the movie too (well, not the terrible theatrical release) but that doesn't mean that letter isn't somewhat nuts.
Heck, it changed the direction of WRITTEN science fiction
Except it didn't. Science fiction was already going there anyway. William Gibson on Blade Runner -
"
BLADERUNNER came out while I was still writing Neuromancer. I was about a third of the way into the manuscript. When I saw (the first twenty minutes of) BLADERUNNER, I figured my unfinished first novel was sunk, done for. Everyone would assume I'd copped my visual texture from this astonishingly fine-looking film.
"
I don't want to sound like a fanboy
Well, you're not doing a very good job of avoiding it. While you're sputtering at me and using all caps you somehow didn't notice I wasn't even talking about the movie. Simply pointing out it's a crazy letter written by a mentally ill person who hadn't even seen it. This fact is quite independent of the quality or cultural impact of the movie.
>> The gushing letter he wrote predicted it's going to be a commercial success. I like the movie too (well, not the terrible theatrical release) but that doesn't mean that letter isn't somewhat nuts.
It may not have been a commercial success immediately in theaters, but given the disc sales, the theater screenings of the director's cut, etc., I think "commercial success" eventually came to be quite true.
Simply pointing out it's a crazy letter written by a mentally ill person who hadn't even seen it.
I'm curious why you feel a person's mental health has anything to do with the correctness of his/her writing. It's an obviously incorrect idea, but I'm wondering why you hold it.
I'm curious why you consider the nutty idea that mental health is completely orthogonal to one's ability to write 'correctly' obvious. If your ability to perceive reality is impaired (say, you're delusional or clinically paranoid or otherwise irrational) you're likely to have a very difficult time accurately representing and interpreting reality in writing.
I'm curious why you consider the nutty idea that mental health is completely orthogonal to one's ability to write 'correctly' obvious. If your ability to perceive reality is impaired (say, you're delusional or clinically paranoid or otherwise irrational) you're likely to have a very difficult time accurately representing and interpreting reality in writing.
If a mentally ill person writes down 1+1=2, the fact that they are mentally ill does not make them any less correct. Being mentally ill may or may not affect the probability that a person will write something correct, but that has nothing to do with the actual correctness of what is ultimately produced. Attempting to disprove what was in the letter by pointing to the author's mental illness is just you being intellectually lazy. You might as well have used his physical height or eye color. These attributes are equally valuable in disproving the correctness of ideas.
You might as well have used his physical height or eye color. These attributes are equally valuable in disproving the correctness of ideas.
No they are not. I'm sorry but your argument is simply stupid and wrong. This is written language, not maths, ideas and thoughts have more dimensions than 'correctness'. If someone mentally ill, there is a higher chance what they write is not reflective of reality. And I wasn't attempting to 'disprove' anything in the letter using his mental illness. The letter is obviously overblown and inaccurate on its face. The guy hadn't even seen the movie! Why was he writing such weird letters? Well, I don't know it for a fact but it seems reasonable to conclude it's because he was mentally ill, not because his eyes were brown. The mental health of the author is a useful piece of information when evaluating a piece of writing. Saying that it isn't is bonkers.
I'm sorry but your argument is simply stupid and wrong.
Well spoken. You're eloquence is overwhelming.
If someone mentally ill, there is a higher chance what they write is not reflective of reality.
I acknowledged that possibility in my previous reply. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I wont discuss that here.
I wasn't attempting to 'disprove' anything in the letter using his mental illness.
Whether you intended to or not, you used his mental illness as a piece of evidence. Your intent doesn't really factor in to the meaning your words convey.
The letter is obviously overblown and inaccurate on its face. The guy hadn't even seen the movie!
This is a valid piece of evidence and the correct way to argue that a piece of writing is incorrect.
The mental health of the author is a useful piece of information when evaluating [the correctness] a piece of writing. Saying that it isn't is bonkers.
Saying that is very, very wrong. Once upon a time we claimed the author's gender and skin color were "useful" pieces of information when evaluating the correctness of the writing of women and black people. This was used as an excuse to not publish the work of these disadvantaged groups. Why do you think we have double blind submissions to scientific journals? The correct and only way to evaluate the correctness of a piece of writing in on the words alone.
My stance is not a controversial one, it is an accepted fact. When correctness is the primary concern, only the writing is examined. Information about the author can be used as a filter (example: submitting an OpEd to the NYTimes), but never as a factor in determining correctness. I've done my best to convince you, but if I have failed at this point we're both just wasting time.
Bladerunner is a favorite movie of mine, I must have watched it 10 times or more over the years. From the soundtrack (Vangelis) to the pre-CG visuals it's really impressive, it also realistically captures the mood of a possible near-future.
After all these years I still haven't gotten around to reading the book, but that's just got bumped up quite a bit on the todo list.
It's funny how the photography enhancement scene from Bladerunner is replicated in many movies later in time but never quite with the same feeling of it being possible.
Funny. "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is one of the cases for me when book is way better than movie. I literally feel asleep on Blade Runner. Twice. Then again maybe I was too young then to even watch this.
I think I should try and watch Blade Runner again.
Please do try! I have original VHS versions of both the theatrical release (hard to find!) and subsequent director's cut which became the mainstream. Now you can find them all on DVD. I recommend watching the director's cut, then the original theatrical release. Changes aside from the voice over are really subtle, but important! If you want to go for completeness, watch the final cut as well.
Maybe I'm just a hardcore fan, but I did that with my girlfriend while explaining all the differences and she really liked it.
"... I have original VHS versions of both the theatrical release (hard to find!) and subsequent director's cut which became the mainstream. Now you can find them all on DVD. I recommend watching the director's cut, then the original theatrical release. ..."
The directors cut is underwhelming. I only just noticed the latest release with not 2 but 5 versions on DVD. I had the chance to see the original version when it came out. It really did change the way SF was portrayed on film. Gone was the shiny white, clean environments of say BG or ST. Guess I'll have to ask Syd Mead which is his favourite release when he's in town ~ https://www.alumni.rmit.edu.au/NetCommunity/SSLPage.aspx?pid...
To me the two of them just feel totally different. I love both but have a hard time seeing them as two forms of the same thing. That's quite different from most book/films where I see the one (usually the film) as a pale imitation of the other.
I think this is the reason why Blade Runner is a good moving. Rather than revering the source material and trying to follow it closely, the makers told the story in a way that was designed as a movie from the ground up. The result is that it can stand on its own legs, rather than being a knock-off. It follows the attitude of Jorge Luis Borges on translation, that the translator should work as an author and not just a transcriber.
Almost all books are better than movies, even novelizations based on movies are often better - "Revenge of the Sith", "Ironman", and "Terminator Salvation" for examples are all much better than the movies. The only times I have seen movies that were as good, or better than, the novel were where they were very different.
Wow. I know that Hollywood folk have this stereotype of overrating their own importance in the world, but wow. This is really over the top.
I have no idea who this person is, but I assume he had something to do with the film. If that's the case, I just can't imagine how he could say those things with a straight face. Does he really take himself that seriously?
Maybe I am missing the irony, in which case I will look like a fool, but P.K. Dick is one of the most significant SF writer, and one of his book is the inspiration for Blade Runner. Several of his books are master pieces, and quite a few have been adapted into movies (blade runner, total recall, scanner darkly, minority report). He died more or less at the same time Blade Runner was made.
He's not Hollywood folk. PKD wrote a book back in 1968 called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". Ridley Scott made the movie based on a screenplay (written by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples) that was loosely based on the book. This is a glimpse of how the original author felt about the result. He is not praising his own work. He is praising theirs.
I'm 38 and am indeed quite into sci-fi. I saw Blade Runner in the theater in 1982. None of that has any bearing on whether that guy is up himself.
I prefer to read things I see here without any context or preconceptions. I'll often get to the bottom of an article or all the way back to the comments here before I discover it was written by somebody I'm familiar with. I thinks that's helpful because it keeps your mind free of bias while you're soaking up what's written on the page.
I'd suggest reading the letter again without any preconceptions and see if it seems a bit self-important.
As pohl said in this thread, he's praising the movie adaptation, not his own work. Tokyo and Times Square already look like certain parts of the movie. Syd Mead really is a visionary.
Ah, but Powells' sci-fi section is 4 ailes, 30 feet long by ten feet high, both sides. One author can only take up so much space.
Speaking of which, Powells itself is a full city block, 3 stories high, with a Technical Books annex filling another half block. I'm reading as fast as I can, but you'll have to cut me a bit of slack for not getting around to this particular author yet.
Er... Dick was one of hte most influential scifi authors of our time. He wrote Bladerunner. Maybe he was over the top, but if anyone could say something like that with a straight face, maybe it's Dick.
It was intended as a compliment. PkD was rather a counter culture figure and was 'less than impressed' with Hollywood's attempts at his (or any other) book.
When he saw Ridley Scotts's work on the visuals of Blade runner he was amazed. Remember before this, and Scott's Alien most SF films consisted of putting the star in spandex and drapping the set with some tin foil.
This is especially gracious since Blade Runner takes one tiny part of a complex themed book and turns it into little more than a cop chase.
He might have been less impressed with some of the later recreations of his books.
