I was listening to an interview that Philip K Dick (PKD) made back in May 1979. Now I’ve never read any of his stories. Of course, I’ve seen Blade Runner and I have heard him described as one of the best science fiction writers of all time so I’ve always meant to get ahold of a few of his books and read them but between work and wife and kids and life I’ve just never had a chance.
So, when I saw this YouTube audio-file I listened to it. It’s two hours long and some of it is kind of hard to believe. But it is extremely interesting. I would say PKD was a very intelligent man but I’m pretty sure his grasp on reality was extremely tenuous on certain subjects. He believed that at one point he was possessed by some kind of spirit or intelligence that controlled him and fixed a lot of his financial and even health problems. And listening to him describe this chapter in his life it’s hard not to assume that either he was dealing with some kind of split personality or he was suffering from schizophrenia.
Now based on what I’ve read about PKD’s fiction he was intrigued with the idea that reality wasn’t what we think it is. That different people experienced radically different perceptions of reality and maybe none of these perceptions were particularly accurate. And so, with this type of belief I could see how he might accept versions of reality that most people would find absurd.
Now, in the audio-recording he is asked by the interviewer about his use of drugs and their impact on his mind and writing. PKD goes to great lengths to deny that he used LSD more than once. He claimed that the drug he abused was an amphetamine that he used to be able to produce prodigious amounts of fiction writing. The implication was that his drug use did not affect his writing by altering his mind. And maybe this was true. But listening to this man I got the distinct impression that even if LSD wasn’t the source of his delusions, that he was indeed substantially untethered from reality in a lot of his beliefs about the world around him. In short, I think he was in some sense insane.
So, how does this jibe with his undeniable creative talent? I think that both these things can be true at the same time. Look at Vincent van Gogh. He was undeniably a creative genius in his field of art but he was also a tortured madman who finally killed himself to escape his mental anguish. So, whether PKD was driven insane by his drug use (of whatever substances) or whether his mind was damaged for whatever other reasons there might have been, his grasp on reality (or lack thereof) did not stop him from producing very entertaining science fiction. And perhaps it was his delusions that actually made his stories so interesting. Strange man. Well, I’ll start with “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” and see how I like it. Maybe I’ll read some more.
PKD’s novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” was supposedly the basis of the superb movie, “Blade Runner”. I read the novel years before the movie and found the relationship to the movie to be tenuous.
I’ve been a voracious reader my entire life with a fair percentage (but less than 50) being SF. I’ve read a few of PKD’s offerings but, for whatever reason, his work never came close to my personal top tier of writers.
I’m going to find out if one of his “better” novels works for me. Interestingly, maybe his mental issues may have been the basis for his slant on the sf themes he was attracted to.
Let us know what you think.
Yes, I intend to put together at least one post on it.
The only PKD novel I’ve ever read in toto is The Man In The High Castle his alternate history (sort of) where the Axis powers were victorious and essentially split the US. It’s dependence/obsession with the I Ching made it a hard read and it didn’t hold my late teen self’s focus. I also have read a couple of his shorts collected in various anthologies. He is very much sui generis, a thing unto himself. The prose and ideas are really intriguing and yet it moves sooo slowly compared to classic Silver Age (I.e. Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, and contemporaries)… Read more »
He seems to be a more psychological author than most of the authors I was reading back then. And honestly that can be a very good thing. But I think he’s an inherently pessimistic voice which can be off-putting.