Philip K Dick discussion

I'm currently reading William Gibson's Neuromancer. The fact that it is considered the birth of "cyberpunk" makes it a must read for me. I am always curios of what science fiction authors think of one another so I searched and found a collection of Gibson's writings on dick that can be found here: https://philipdick.com/resources/arti...

Basically, 90% of the time Gibson is asked about Dick he states that he didn't read Dick before writing because he had already read Pynchon and that Pynchon is just a superior version of Dick.

I have not read Pynchon yet, although i do own all of his books, but I am currently reading Infinite jest which is supposed to be similar to "gravities rainbow" in terms of style. No hints of PKD yet in IJ, except that it is hard to follow, but in my opinion (so far) IJ is hard to follow for the wrong reasons; intentionally using obscure words and even making up words.

I want to ask those of you who have read both PDK and Thomas Pynchon, do you agree with William Gibson? Is PDK just a lesser TP?

P.S. So far I'm about 20% into Neuromancer and its a snooze-fest so far, and that is coming from someone who's last read was "Moby Dick." Things are happening, it is action packed, but i just dont care about anyone or anything in the story yet to give any of the goings on any weight. I will finish it, I guess we'll see.

I don't quite agree with Gibson but it's an interesting observation and makes a good sound bite. Dick and Pynchon are my two favorite authors of SF and literary fiction, respectively. Their genres and styles are pretty different, so it's apples & oranges. That said, their themes, bold ideas, and quirky perspectives are similar. Dick's early work as a pulp paperback writer wouldn't stack up against anything Pynchon wrote, but his later stuff might. When Dick was alive, I believe critics often compared him more to Vonnegut. I suspect Pynchon is a PKD fan.

I've only read Inherent Vice by Pynchon but I liked it a lot. I need to get caught up on his other books. I wouldn't say that he is a superior PKD or anything, although I think they both rose from the same primordial ooze. Gibson unfortunately has just become a clown. I haven't even bothered to read his last couple books. The Blue Ant trilogy put me off him for good I think.

Infinite Jest funniest book ever. See footnote.
Gravity’s Rainbow, great message if you can figure it out.

Mike wrote: "Infinite Jest funniest book ever. See footnote.
Gravity’s Rainbow, great message if you can figure it out." Mike, judging from the handful of posts I've read from you, I think you'd see messages in a bowl of cereal if we let you stare at it long enough. JK, honestly you seem like an insightful guy.

Of course infinite jest would be the funniest book ever. Judging from the title the humor should be unlimited.

RJ - Slayer of Trolls wrote: "I've only read Inherent Vice by Pynchon but I liked it a lot. I need to get caught up on his other books. I wouldn't say that he is a superior PKD or anything, although I think they ..."
RJ - i would like to hear more of your thoughts on the blue ant trilogy and why that turned you off. Obviously I haven't read it I only now just read the description of the first book (pattern recognition) on goodreads. But just given the title and the intro synopsis, seems to me the book (and possibly series) could potentially be a really interesting piece of metafiction, where not only the characters are looking for patterns in the societies they function in but the reader could also be looking for patterns in the book for an alternative reading.

AND/OR maybe the book could explore how our tendency to see the world as a series of patters; person type A tends to behave in pattern B which often leads to outcome C, is extremely limited and often leads to disastrous outcomes. - That is also kind of funny because that observation in-and-of-itself is a type of pattern recognition. There is no escape!

Either or both of those could be really interesting. If the series doesn't do either of those, what a waste. Did you not like it because it didn't do that, did it poorly, or it did do those things and you're just not into metafiction?

I took a glance at your reviews and noticed you gave house of leaves 1-star which makes me think you might just not like metafiction. See, I'm picking up on patterns too. Soon I'll be just like mike and finding the secrets of the universe in my cheerios. (I mean all of this in the silliest most good natured way possible.)

I don’t see messages in cereal. But sometimes there’s a rerun of 3’s Company(which isn’t very message heavy) in the spoon (upside-down)
But anyway I thought the message in Gravity’s Rainbow was quite interesting considering the labor involved in extracting it. Gives you a lot to think about while waiting for the bell to toll. The message is a spoiler because it’s on the penultimate page in plain English. Not P.S.(Pynchonian Standard)

Wait I thought House of Leaves was brilliant. I must have read it before I cared about how many little stars I push. I give everything 5 little stars now for 2 reasons.

Mike wrote: "Wait I thought House of Leaves was brilliant. I must have read it before I cared about how many little stars I push. I give everything 5 little stars now for 2 reasons."
No mike. I think you misunderstood. In the post that I talk about house of leaves, I'm responding to RJ. RJ is the one who gave house of leaves 1-star. Although I do reference you at the end of the post, simply because it was too relevant not to use when discussing a book about pattern recognition.

I’m way beyond pattern recognition and confirmation bias and symptoms of depression. I haven’t discussed any patterns. I’ve simply stated that PKD has provided a reading order that he claims unleashes some kind of new awareness. My only claim is that it worked, spectacularly so. I was hoping to communicate with someone who has tried it to see if it repeats. There is a film by Alex Cox called Repo Man. I highly suggest it.

I’M TALKING ABOUT MAGIC!!!

BBB wrote: "...RJ - i would like to hear more of your thoughts on the blue ant trilogy and why that turned you off...."

Well, I wasn't prepared to present my dissertation today, and it's been a while since I read those, but I'll give it a go.

First, and perhaps most importantly, there are no ninjas with detachable thumbs, nor are there any bad ass women with surgically implanted mirrorshades.

Secondly, but still important, those books were just flat out boring. The first one was probably the best of the three, with the footage clips online. Of course, the plot never comes to any terrific resolution, since Gibson is allergic to endings. the second one is supposed to be a postmodern spy novel, but all I can remember about it is something about a hard drive. The third novel, I believe, is mostly about designer jeans and boutique hotels.

I honestly do not remember much about those books at all. Plot was never Gibson's strong suit, and even the Sprawl trilogy which I've read two or three times doesn't stay fixed in my mind either.

I've always thought that comparisons between PKD and Gibson are just unfair. Dick was writing pulpy paranoid fantasies and Gibson seemed to aspire from the start to being a prose stylist. I just don't see much of a connection between their works at all.

As for metafiction, I wouldn't say I am or am not a fan of it, but I did think that House of Leaves was precious pretentious dogcrap. I do like Calvino's If on a Winter's Night a Traveler so maybe there's hope for me yet.

RJ - Slayer of Trolls wrote: "BBB wrote: "...RJ - i would like to hear more of your thoughts on the blue ant trilogy and why that turned you off...."

Well, I wasn't prepared to present my dissertation today, and it's been a wh..."

I really appreciate your perspective RJ. I will make a note to check out "If on a Winter's night a Traveler."

BBB wrote: "Mike wrote: "Wait I thought House of Leaves was brilliant. I must have read it before I cared about how many little stars I push. I give everything 5 little stars now for 2 reasons."
No mike. I thi..."
I hear you Mike, but my point is that essentially all interpretations of reality, or non-reality, comes down to pattern recognition. How do you know an apple is an apple? Well you examine it; loot at it, touch it, move it around, maybe taste it. If all of its elements line up with your previous experience of things you've known as apples then you know to call this thing an apple.

Most people will stop at the visual and make a determination solely based on that. That's actually good because it saves a lot of time and allows us to make decisions faster. This is perfectly exemplified if you've ever picked up a wax apple expecting it to be real. You'll be initially shocked by how light it feels, and then immediately know you've made a mistake. You now know this actually isn't an apple because it doesn't fit the the other qualities of an apple. It's pattern is close (fitting the visual) but not complete (not fitting the weight)

This also applies to any meanings or what you may call "magic" that you are able to recognize. The only reason you can find something, examine it, and call it "magic" is because you already have an idea of what magic is (or could be) and have now recognized the elements of "magic" in the thing you are examining . This could all be called "pattern recognition."

Even if you come across something that doesn't fit your understanding of any of your current concepts, and decide to label it "magic" simply because it doesn't line up with any other known patterns, then that is also a type of pattern recognition.

Why do i think you are interesting when it comes to this topic? Most people don't even notice meanings in art that are explicitly intended. It just washes over them. Other people though, find meanings everywhere. Their pattern recognition functions are always on. This leads to them more easily finding the intended meanings in art, but it also leads to false positives where they can find meanings or hidden messages in areas where none truly exist, such as my earlier joke of finding the meaning of life in a bowl of cereal.

The fact that you seem to always be finding meanings, hidden and otherwise, in the books you read make me think you might be part of the latter category, can't say for sure just seems that way, or in other words; you seem to display the characteristics of such a person based upon my understanding of how a person would act; my brain thinks it recognized a pattern of your behavior (based upon a very limited sampling of your posts) and has decided to label you in accordance with that reading.

Just as you through your examination of books find meanings and messages in them, I also, through my limited examination of you, find similar things in you. Although you haven't expressed them yet, you in all likelihood have also done the same with me. We do this always, all the time, with everything. All biological life forms pattern recognition machines in one form or another. And all of us are imperfect in our abilities, we are wrong about many things - and could be wrong about ALL OF IT. This is terrifying and incredibly funny at the same time.

Because to me you "seem" to be one of those people who find meaning in more places than most (what i would call a type of pattern recognition) you also became a perfect person for me to reference inside of this thread, since not only did meanings in-and-of-themselves come up, but also the title of a book "pattern recognition" also came up. Everything just seemed to fit together i.e., I recognize a series of patterns that I thought fit together to form another larger pattern.

I hope some of that made sense and I'm not just a crazy person.

I’m simply stating (not interpreting) that in a book called The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick there isa a note to himself saying that reading his novels in a particular order will cause similar experiences to the ones he had in 1974. It’s not ambiguous. There is no pattern. It’s just a freaking list. I did it. HAS ANYONE ELSE?

I checked The Exegesis out from my library (don't own ALL his books)... found the list and started (re)reading the first one yesterday. Some of my favorites are on this short list so I'm looking forward to it!

Ok great!. Please let me know if you start to have “unusual “ experiences. It started with me during the second or third book on the list. And hasn’t stopped. It’s been going on for a few years now. I would be more specific about “experience “ but I don’t want to contaminate your cosmic vibe thing. But it started when I came across a passage where a guy (protagonist) is reading a newspaper article about the health benefits of coffee. Right at that moment impossible things started happening. I will elaborate after your ”attempt” if you like. And thanks for listening

Will do, though it may take a while... usually have a few books going at once. Thanks for pointing out page 312, I must admit that I have previously only read bits and pieces of The Exegesis.

Absolutely no rush. You are appreciated.

BBB wrote: "BBB wrote: "Mike wrote: "Wait I thought House of Leaves was brilliant. I must have read it before I cared about how many little stars I push. I give everything 5 little stars now for 2 reasons."
No..."
This reminds me somewhat of the philosophy of David Hume. Or it at least corresponds to a pattern I recognize as similar to Hume's. Hume was a skeptic about knowledge and thought that a lot of what people take to be knowledge is in fact habitual belief generated by the experience of repeated sequences. Repeated sequences of what? Not unified substantial objects but bundles of qualities.

Chase wrote: "BBB wrote: "BBB wrote: "Mike wrote: "Wait I thought House of Leaves was brilliant. I must have read it before I cared about how many little stars I push. I give everything 5 little stars now for 2 ..." I do love philosophy but i never get deep enough into it to remember who said what about what, unless we're talking about Plato or Nietzsche because everyone is always endlessly discussing and quoting those two. I'm sure I've had some exposure to Hume but not enough to remember the specifics, I should read more of his stuff.

To me this all just seems self-evident, everything requires interpretation, from seeing an apple as an apple, to reading a written list that someone gives us. and what makes that obvious is that we so often get these very simple things wrong; we mistake wax apples for real apples, we can be given a grocery list and totally screw it up because the list wasn't specific enough. "cooking oil" can mean a hundred different things.

and what is specific enough? a description of a thing can never be a specific as a thing itself; one could theoretically go on describing a bottle of water until the end of time by just endlessly zooming in until the bottle becomes a near-infinity itself. We mistakenly assume that simple items are limited in detail because or senses are so limited in perceiving that detail without tools.

PS. thanks for playing along with the language game! "pattern I recognize as similar to Hume's"

Ladies and gentlemen, Cantinflas is alive and well, living on Goodreads.