Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

[Anonymous No.10483641]

Just read this. Not impressed. What do you see in it, /lit/? Maybe I can be convinced.

[Anonymous No.10483655]

Wondering, /lit/, has anyone here read Jordan B Petersons book? Is it worth it? I find him kinda slow paced when talking so i would hate it if the book is even slower. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.10483658]

>>10483641
I think it's been two years since I read it but I enjoyed it. What is it you didn't like?

[Anonymous No.10483680]

>>10483641
Valis was much better

[Anonymous No.10483743]

>>10483641
The part where they torture the spider really stuck with me for some reason. Really all of the animal stuff was pretty touching, the rest was fun but not that memorable.

[Anonymous No.10483758]

>>10483641
>>10483655
of course this is the kind of person behind the OP...

[Anonymous No.10483825]

>>10483658
I enjoyed the book, but didn't find it great. I'm not well-read by any means so my criticism is bound to be lacking, but here goes:
>characters were largely uninteresting to me (maybe for the better though, to make room for the plot and themes)
>Rick Deckard was too blatant of an audience self-insert for me to take as seriously as Dick wants me to
>the prose isn't bad, but failed to grab me
>dialogue was sometimes hokey
>the frequent mentions of its female character's breasts/beauty were silly and usually unnecessary
>world had some interesting features but wasn't engrossing
>didn't explore its themes as much as I would have liked, and some of them seemed trite anyway but that's probably because we've been post-DADOES for 50 years and they were novel when introduced in the book

To its credit:
>it wasn't a slog by any means; fun read
>had some twists and turns
>the various plots and subplots are interwoven well
>Philip K. Dick, for the most part, only writes what the audience actually needs to know

>>10483743
Agreed. I found the animal parts especially touching as I have a 10 week old puppy now.

[Anonymous No.10483835]

most of Dick's stuff is more about setting than plot or characters. to me, the stuff about the replicants was less interesting than the stuff about Mercerism and empathy. and how, in a grim future where the natural world and the animals in it have been almost completely obliterated, people still manage to turn a love of nature into a materialist dick-waving contest about who can take care of the most animals.

[Anonymous No.10484557]

>>10483641
Go through the archive.
On any given day we get about three threads devoted to this book.
The well is dry.
If you wanna talk Dick, your best bets are threads for Ubik or Valis.
A visit to /hm/ is also an option in your case.

[Anonymous No.10484735]

>>10483641
is it just me, or does every philip dick book contain at least one description of a woman with "small breasts"?

[Anonymous No.10484759]

>>10483641
My uncle and I talked about PKD
his consensus was that PKD is a terrible writer with amazing ideas.
Had to agree.

[Anonymous No.10484794]

a scanner darkly is a way better book.

[Anonymous No.10484815]

>>10484735
he has a few examples of imagery which are very common in his works.

[Anonymous No.10484859]

>>10484759
>his consensus

[Anonymous No.10484984]

You won't feel the effects of Dick's writing until a few hours later (longer if you're especially thick headed). He's in this perfect 'fridge logic' headspace. I had the same reaction when I first read Do Androids Dream a few months ago.

[Anonymous No.10484999]

>>10483641
So is it anything like what Blade Runner turned out to be?