Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is a 1968 dystopian science fiction novel by American writer Philip K. Dick set in a post-apocalyptic San Francisco, where Earth’s life has been greatly damaged by a nuclear global war, leaving most animal species endangered or extinct. The novel explores the value of animals and their connection to the concept of humanity after World War Terminus.
LitCharts assigns color and icon to each theme in the novel, which can be used to track the themes throughout the work. The novel interrogates the implications of artificial beings exhibiting traits similar to consciousness, especially relevant in today’s context of rapid technological advancements.
The novel features a variety of tattoos, including one of Riley’s first tattoos, a Japanese style leg, and a tiger designed with the possibility to expand to a full leg. The artist, Sorin Gabor, created the entire piece from scratch with a reference photo as inspiration.
The subreddit dedicated to Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 has 97K subscribers and 7. 6M subscribers in the tattoos community. The novel invites readers to evaluate the implications of artificial beings exhibiting traits similar to consciousness, especially relevant in today’s context of rapid technological advancements.
| Article | Description | Site |
|---|---|---|
| My Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep tattoo. Done by … | Wow that’s a pretty great tattoo! Both the quality and the design! | reddit.com |
| Do androids dream of electric sheep tattoo | Do androids dream of electric sheep tattoo. | pinterest.com |
| Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep Art | Discover Pinterest’s best ideas and inspiration for Do androids dream of electric sheep art. Get inspired and try out new things. 306 people searched this. | pinterest.com |
📹 Blade Runner, Lost in Adaptation ~ The Dom
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep Vs Blade Runner. Did it get Lost in Adaptation? Spaceship animation by f r a g o m a t i k: …
What Is The Irony In Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?
In Philip K. Dick's novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", the central irony lies in the characters' fears of robots transcending into human-like entities, while they should be more concerned about humanity itself succumbing to mechanization. The narrative follows bounty hunter Rick Deckard during a day set in a post-apocalyptic 1992, where both humans and androids grapple with existential dilemmas in a world devastated by nuclear fallout that has led to the extinction of many animal species.
Deckard's relationship with his wife, Iran, reveals contrasting perspectives on the nature of humans and androids. While Deckard carries out his duties to "retire" androids, often with detachment, Iran expresses a degree of empathy towards them, labeling Deckard a murderer. This complexity highlights themes of emotional desensitization among humans, raising questions about authenticity and what it truly means to be human. As Deckard interacts with Nexus-6 androids, he experiences an internal conflict regarding his role as a killer, illustrating the broader critique of societal values and human hypocrisy.
The novel presents a harsh commentary on identity and authenticity, particularly through the falsification of identity within the story's social framework. For instance, one android, Polokov, is unveiled as part of a larger commentary on what defines a living being in this technological age—whether economic roles or emotional capabilities delineate true existence.
Mercerism, a key philosophical underpinning in the novel, further reflects on human relationships and empathy. The irony here is that while the tenets of Mercerism advocate for compassion towards living beings, Deckard's inability to afford a real animal epitomizes the dichotomy between aspiration and reality in a world devoid of genuine emotional connections.
As Deckard embarks on a quest to secure a real animal as a status symbol, his actions reveal a deep-seated conflict: he must destroy androids to afford this desire. Throughout the narrative, Dick leverages various forms of irony to critique mankind's moral failings, presenting both humans and androids as beings engaged in a tragic struggle for authenticity in a world increasingly dominated by artificiality. The conclusion resonates with a bleak irony—humans and androids alike face a dismal fate, suggesting that regardless of their differences, they grapple with the same existential challenges.
What Was The Religion In Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?
In Philip K. Dick's science fiction novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the central religion is Mercerism, which promotes empathy and emotional connection among individuals. This belief system arose in a post-apocalyptic world ravaged by global conflict, leading to a radioactive atmosphere that forced humanity to migrate to off-world colonies for survival. The United Nations incentivized this migration by allowing the colonists access to personal androids—servants designed to closely resemble humans. However, distinguishing these androids from real humans proves challenging, with empathy serving as a key differentiator.
Mercerism is founded on the life and teachings of Wilbur Mercer, a charismatic figure whose experiences and philosophies propagate the idea that all life is sacred and deserving of empathy. This pseudo-religion emphasizes the importance of shared emotions and collective experiences, aiming to unify humanity in the face of dehumanizing circumstances. Despite its noble intentions, the novel unveils the darker side of Mercerism, particularly through the character Buster Friendly, who claims that the religion is a manipulative construct designed for social control.
The narrative follows Rick Deckard, a bounty hunter tasked with "retiring" rogue androids, and through his journey, the philosophical undertones of Mercerism come to the forefront. The contrast between human empathy and the androids' emotional detachment raises questions about what it means to be truly human. The story ultimately critiques Mercerism, suggesting it may not provide genuine comfort or unity but rather serves as a façade.
Mercerism reflects the struggle for meaning and connection in a fractured society, making it a thought-provoking element of the narrative. As Dick explores the boundaries of humanity, empathy emerges as its defining trait, challenging readers to consider the implications of artificial life and the essence of what it means to experience and share emotions.
Why Does Rick Become Mercer?
Rick’s experience with being struck by a stone symbolizes his acceptance of the stigmata associated with Mercer; he embraces empathy to the extent that it becomes a tangible part of him. This mirrors the way saints in Christianity are thought to receive Christ’s wounds, illustrating how deeply connected Rick feels to Mercer, a figure who is part of a grand illusion despite having once been a troubled actor.
In the narrative set in a post-apocalyptic San Francisco, androids are not mere machines; they evoke a degree of empathy, further blurring the distinction between reality and fiction, a hallmark of Philip K. Dick's work.
Rick Deckard is a bounty hunter tasked with locating and retiring rogue androids. As the story progresses, he finds himself in emotional turmoil and seeks meaning amidst devastation. Climbing the hills north of San Francisco, he engages with the empathy box, where he receives a disheartening message from Mercer: there is no salvation. Yet, through the experience, Rick begins to understand the essence of Mercerism — instead of salvation, it provides a sense of connection and shared suffering.
The repetitive imagery of Mercer climbing a hill signifies the struggles of humanity that unite people in their pain. When a rock strikes Rick, it deepens his connection with Mercer. His inquiry into Mercerism leads him to discover that its purpose is to reinforce the notion that no one is truly alone in their suffering. This experience transforms Rick, making him realize Mercer is a vehicle for collective human endurance, rather than a mere distraction.
Wilbur Mercer’s figure looms large in the narrative, representing a messianic entity whose essence resonates even with synthetic beings. As Rick immerses himself into this understanding, he grapples with profound questions about empathy and humanity. The resolution of Rick’s journey sees him striving to balance his role as an agent of the law with his newfound understanding of life, both synthetic and organic. In his reflective state, Rick comes to appreciate the importance of shared existence, realizing that even artificial lives deserve consideration and empathy.
Throughout this emotional odyssey, Rick must reconcile his actions, particularly the retirement of androids, with the essence of Mercerism. As he climbs the metaphorical hill of personal and collective struggle, Rick realizes the complexity of empathy, discovering that the act of feeling for others, whether human or android, can lead to profound transformations in understanding what it means to be alive. Ultimately, the connection with Mercer shapes Rick’s perspective on the value of both life and empathy, marking a pivotal growth in his character and worldview.
What Is Mercerism?
Mercerism revolves around the figure of Wilbur Mercer, a martyr whose experiences embody human suffering and resilience. Followers, known as Mercerites, connect with Mercer through an "empathy box," allowing them to partake in a shared experience of his perpetual struggle, symbolized by his climb up a hill while enduring relentless stone-throwing. This connection fosters a deep sense of interconnectedness among adherents, who believe that empathy is essential to humanity.
In Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Mercerism serves as the predominant religion on a post-apocalyptic Earth, having spread to space colonies as well. The religion's teachings promote the idea that the experience of suffering can lead to a profound understanding of life’s sanctity. Although Buster Friendly, a media personality, attempts to expose Mercer as a mere actor named Al, the nature of Mercer—whether a demigod or an ordinary human—remains ambiguous.
Mercerism leverages technology in the form of empathy boxes, which create a shared virtual reality experience of suffering, bridging individual experiences into a collective emotional journey. This aspect emphasizes the importance of communal sharing and the belief that experiencing pain together can restore one’s humanity. In a world devastated by war, Mercerism provides a philosophical and spiritual framework that underscores the relevance of empathy, suggesting that true human connections can emerge from shared hardship.
Furthermore, Mercerism is not merely a tool for social control; it represents a transcendent community that rises above a decaying world, encouraging followers to engage in collective suffering as a path toward regaining their humanity. By embracing Mercer’s struggle, adherents find strength and unity amid despair. Ultimately, Mercerism teaches that empathy is mankind's essential quality, uniting its followers through a nuanced understanding of shared suffering and reinforcing the sanctity of all life.
What Does Special Mean In Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, a dystopian science fiction novel by Philip K. Dick published in 1968, delves into themes of humanity, empathy, and identity in a post-apocalyptic world. The narrative is set in a devastated San Francisco following a nuclear war that has led to the extinction of many animal species. The term "Special" refers to individuals who fail IQ tests, thus barred from emigrating to Off-world colonies. These "specials" face a marginalized existence, often living on the fringes of society and tasked with cleaning up debris in urban areas.
The protagonist, Rick Deckard, is a bounty hunter tasked with "retiring" rogue androids. Despite being depicted as a cold killer, Deckard reveals a capacity for empathy, particularly towards certain androids, highlighting the moral complexity in determining what it means to be human. Empathy, a critical trait distinguishing humans from androids, is often symbolized by the ownership of live animals, deemed crucial in a world where real creatures are scarce. The novel questions whether androids share human concerns—do they ponder their social standing and feelings?
John Isidore, another central character, embodies innocence but is classified as a "special" due to his failed intelligence tests. His naive perspective invites readers to explore the emotional depth of those considered lesser beings in this societal hierarchy. As androids lack empathy, interactions between them and humans pose fundamental questions about identity and moral standings.
The narrative's conclusion remains open to interpretation, suggesting that both androids and their human counterparts exist within a fabricated reality. With advancements in technology like the Penfield mood organ—an apparatus enabling users to manipulate their emotional states—Dick underscores the artificial nature of feelings and connections in this bleak society. Ultimately, the novel challenges its readers to reflect on the essence of humanity amid a landscape riddled with forgeries, be they in the form of androids or artificial pets.
Why Does Deckard Think He Is Mercer?
In the resolution of the story, Rick Deckard, feeling weary and searching for meaning, ventures into the barren hills north of San Francisco. While ascending a dusty hill, he experiences an empathic connection with Wilbur Mercer, a significant figure representing empathy amidst a world of forgeries—where androids are artificial humans, electronic pets are faux animals, and even Mercer himself may be a counterfeit. Deckard encounters visions and potential hallucinations, contemplating whether they stem from his connection to Mercer or possible brain damage due to environmental fallout.
Deckard ponders the authenticity of Mercer, reflecting, "Mercer isn’t a fake. Unless reality is a fake." As he explores the hill, he becomes increasingly entwined with Mercer’s essence, stating, "I can’t stop being Mercer," suggesting a loss of his individual identity. His journey raises questions about Deckard's own existence, as he grapples with his humanity against the backdrop of the androids’ emotional vacuity. Notably, while Deckard exhibits empathy, he wonders if he has become Mercer or if he's merely envisioning it—a crucial distinction that underpins the narrative.
Mercerism, a religion that connects individuals mentally to Mercer, emphasizes shared pain and suffering, as exemplified by the ritual of others hurling rocks at him. The teachings of Mercer spread throughout Earth and its colonies, highlighting the importance of empathy. Deckard, while facing his responsibilities as a "retirer" of androids, learns from Mercer about valuing all life, yet is compelled to eliminate those deemed "killers" – the rogue androids. At one juncture, Deckard expresses, "I am Mercer," leaving his audience questioning whether he's asserting a metaphorical bond or a literal identification with Mercer.
The narrative suggests a supernatural dimension to Mercer’s appearances, deepening Deckard's internal conflict. Ultimately, despite confronting the existential weight of his actions, Deckard's connection with Mercer leads him to grapple with the moral complexities of empathy in a fractured world, signaling a poignant exploration of humanity amidst the throes of artificial existence.
What Does Mercer Represent?
Mercerism symbolizes humanity's collective struggle and unites people through empathetic experiences facilitated by the empathy box. Wilbur Mercer, a Christ-like figure, embodies human suffering, resilience, and the interconnectedness of all beings. Engaging with the Mercer box allows individuals to share in Mercer’s torment and alienation, even as they inflict pain upon themselves to connect with his Sisyphean journey. As a technology-based religion, Mercerism promotes community values and empathy among its followers, transcending boundaries on Earth and in space colonies.
The ongoing conflict between Buster Friendly and Wilbur Mercer highlights the often-overlooked impact of technology on human lives. While Mercer may be viewed as an "actor," his significance and the emotional reality he represents are deeply felt by individuals like Deckard. Thus, Mercerism reflects a complex relationship between belief, suffering, and the role of technology in human existence.
📹 Cricture 3: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Cricture 3: Gilad Ben-Yossef speaks of using Hebrew fonts on Android, writing virtual key-boards (one of the writers of such a …
You know what’s one thing that stuck out to me about this comparison? The movie is much more black and white than the book. Don’t get me wrong, the film is far from simplistic, but it’s more focused on the question of what makes someone “human” and tries to put the viewer in an almost dream-like state of questioning reality. Kind of like the Voight-Kampff test itself. It’s kind of the grandfather to Inception that way. Nevertheless, the replicants are depicted as being tragic monsters at worse and retiring them is meant to be viewed as unambiguously wrong unless they are directly attacking you. (Even then, that’s more out of self-defense.) Whereas in the book, humans and Andies both seem to have a kind of saving grace and damning vice. The humans are now societally much more peaceful and gentle to their neighboring life forms, but the religion emphasizes that LIFE is precious and anything imitating life is a perversion or simply worthless by comparison. So the andies are ostracized by a society that, otherwise, is quite harmonious. On the flip side, the andies are indeed a persecuted sub-species that simply want their freedom and not to be owned or hunted. Which is understandable and sympathetic. However, they are, by their nature, complete sociopaths that are incapable of empathy as illustrated by the mutilation of a spider. (Something that, as established before, a human being in this world would consider a heinous and unforgivable act. Hell I think that’s pretty fucked up just as a present day animal lover.
PKD had some extraordinary experiences. I read where: He was home listening to the Beatles (Strawberry Fields) and a voice said to him, “Your son’s life is in danger. The hydroseal has popped in his scrotum, and if you don’t take him to the hospital now, he’ll die.” He listened to the voice. His son lived. Fascinating.
I like what Dom said at the end: “Most directors want to inherit the fan base of a book to boost box office sales but don’t want to be held accountable for creating a faithful adaptation.” So true. I think the same extends to remakes, re-imaginings and reboots. If we just remember that these studios are just trying to financially strip mine preexisting fans maybe we’d stop being fooled by them or feel like our childhood was raped.
Isodore didn’t have healing powers taken away by the government. That was Mercer, the messiah of the new religion. Isodore was a chickenhead, a human so mutated that he wasn’t allowed to “start a new life in the off-world colonies” for fear of infecting the healthy population with his degenerate genes. Therefore he was forced to be left behind on a empty Earth slowly dying from the after-effects of world war whatever and people leaving the scarred planet behind for less irradiated planets, hence living in an abandoned appartment building
Using a different name for the movie was definitely the right choice. Someone who had read the book wouldn’t expect the movie to be an adaptation and judge it by that standard. In contrast, I was excited to see the “Starship Troopers” movie because I had read the book. I was very disappointed with the major changes, including complete lack of powered armor. I probably could have enjoyed the movie if it had been called anything else. BTW, I recently listened to the audio book of “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.” I enjoyed it, but was very annoyed that the publisher gave it the name “Blade Runner,” despite the phrase never appearing in the story.
Back in high school I convinced my English teacher to add sci-fi to the list of acceptable genres for an essay assignment just so I could do mine on this book. Dick’s works were definitely different than what I’d ever seen before, but I liked Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep for its look at humans and empathy. I actually think I give more of a shit about the book characters than the movie to be honest (especially Isidore and the real cat at the end :O ), but then again I’m not really one for 80’s films.
Fun fact: a lot of the extra elements from the book like everyone’s desire to own an animal (and the market for artificial animals that creates) and the radioactive fallout from the war and even the kipple are included in Westwood’s 90s adventure game based on the movie… though mostly in passing reference only.
One I’ve been wanting you to do for some time. =) Phillip K. Dick is my favourite classic sci-fi author, and admittedly the first time I saw this movie… I hated it. I felt bad becuase my wife had talked about it for EONS (It’s her favourite movie) and my reaction was more or less “Dafuq did they do to the book? It looked nice and I want the soundtrack… but seriously WTF..” but I found myself compelled to see it again and it rather grew on me. I feel that, in the end, it is a great movie. There’s no denying it’s well made and well acted, not to mention ambitious as hell. But I still feel that Dick has rarely been done justice on screen. Minority Report got it… fairly right, some frustrating changes not withstanding and A Scanner Darkly was actually relatively accurate.
Hold on… if androids have no emotions or empathy… why would they care about being owned, and why would Rachel care about taking revenge? This is a problem I always had with the whole “emotionless nemesis” that so many robot stories end up using: if you have no emotions nor instincts, why do you care about anything?
Another great article, The Dom! I really liked your point about how Scott didn’t try to inherit the fan base with his unfaithful adaptation, and I think that’s exactly why movies like Golden Compass, Percy Jackson, and ESPECIALLY The Last Airbender were so despised. Speaking of which, is there any chance of you doing a LiA for that last one? I know it was a TV show and not a book but it could still work.
I admit, I was a bit skeptical seeing this come up in my feed, and possibly still am. I believe this film even opes with “Inspired By” instead of “based on” which is an important distinction to make. It was also something that impressed me, as films are often touting based on when they are literally in name only. I hadn’t thought of director’s doing this for a hijacked boosted fanbase, but that isn’t a bad theory.
Another great episode Dom. I especially liked what you had to say at the end regarding Ridley admitting he was only basing the story he wished to tell off the book. Hmm, you know who else does that? Fanfiction writers. So, does that make Blade Runner a fanfiction? Oh dear, I do believe it does. In any case, keep up the good work and remember: Stephan King, IT.
I just power read Alex Garland’s “THE BEACH” on a plane home from jersey. walked in my front door, set my bag down and Netflix-ed the film with Tilda and Leo. This is a must do! book film combo. the book and film both have their own interesting merits and faults, as well as being a quick read and relatively short/watchable film. Love to see you do this one.
When it comes to this film, I really enjoyed the performance of Rutdger Hauer (Whose name I still misspell more often than not and likely did so here) especially, even over others, although I think this movie had a great cast who gave it their all from what I remember. I’ve only seen the film once, but it was Hauer’s portrayal of his character and his believability during his monologue towards the end. I get the feeling that his character isn’t truly a villain, only labeled as one. Whether it’s accurate or not for me to say so, I like to think that it was the society he found himself in that drove him into an antagonistic role as to how he would go about achieving his own ends. Sure, he wasn’t spotless, but I think it’s fair to say that his goal, that being a desire to live more than just a few years after all of his suffering and turmoil that he experienced at the hands of his creators. The ends don’t always justify the means, but I like to look at it this way: If you were living on borrowed time in a world where you have been kicked around and abused, spit upon, and just all around treated as less than even a beast of burden with no real value, wouldn’t you want to be the master of your own fate? Is there anything wrong with wanting to have the right to live? I don’t excuse how his character would use others for his purposes, but I can understand why he did it. If there is one thing I can appreciate about Hauer’s character even though I only saw the movie once and I have yet to read the book, it’s that he really seemed to have an appreciation for life, maybe even more so than some of the regular humans in the film did.
Fantastic work Dom! Another quality article from you. It’s well edited, superbly written, thoroughly researched, and very entertaining. I’m positive we will see you climb to the top of popularity at website Awesome due to all this quality and effort and love put into all your articles. Keep up the great articles. Also, the website could use some new series, just to spice things up every now and again, maybe some more stuff on articlegames? Not just reviews on them, the great thing about this series is that it is more than just a review, and brings new ideas to the table, which always makes it more interesting to watch. No pressure though, loving the series, keep it up.
I liked this movie but what always made me chuckle was the elaborate test to deduct if someone was an android. This is all nice and dandy except for the fact that the android eyes seem to be glowing in a creepy way that human eyes don’t. So, Deckerd would just need to check if the eyes are glowing. If so, congratulations, you found an android!
The reason that Mercer tells him it’s alright to kill the androids is more or less the Buddhists idea of all life being sorrowful but we still must play our parts in it. Joseph Campbell summed it up best in The Power of Myth: “I will participate in the game. It’s a wonderful, wonderful opera, except that it hurts. And that wonderful Irish saying, you know, “Is this a private fight, or can anybody get into it?” This is the way life is, and the hero is the one who can participate in it decently, in the way of nature, not in the way of personal rancor, revenge or anything of the kind.”
Only recently read the book, but I absolutely loved it. And you weren’t kidding about the spider scene. I thought I was starting to see the side of the Andies and voice my concern for their lack of rights and then…yeah, empathy is kinda necessary after all. Kinda scary though, to think that people with mental illnesses could just as easily be ousted and killed for having similar thought patterns to Andies. When you get around to “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale” it should be a pretty short episode considering the length of the story. And also perhaps the first instance where the movie has more added in than taken out.
Also, in the book it’s Toads that are holiest and not Owls. There’s a bit of weird symbolism where he thinks he’s found one and it gives him a real boost in faith and confidence but by the time it’s pointed out he’s just got a really good replicant he’s already questioning reality. Like I say, weird symbolism.
I have the answer for the mood organ. The idea is that we have on one hand robots coming back to Earth, because they want to live like humans, and on the other hand humans living on Earth like robots, since they can program their emotions. This is to ask the ultimate question of what makes us humans? What is real? Etc.?
One thing left out… Blade Runner snagged the legal rights to use a title from a completely unrelated book. The original blade runners were smugglers of medical supplies to illegal street medics. I will be forever salty that Blade Runner (a movie) by William Burroughs didn’t get a movie, and the title got stuck on something else.
Yes! DADOES is my all time favourite book. A lot of the technology is vaguely described at best but I don’t recall any implication that the mood organ dispensed pills. They just said they would dial it to such n such to feel whatever emotion until a certain time like Iran feeling newfound hope after setting it to depression for several hours. I always assumed it was some kind of brain implant so one could set a schedule then go about their day. It’s all part of the general irony that empathy is a religion and they see the androids as lesser beings for not being able to feel it but the humans don’t really display it to each other either, except for J.R. Isadore who is also treated like a second class citizen for being mildly brain damaged from radiation poisoning so treats people, animals and androids with equal care.
The movie and book started my love for the 80’s in their music, alternative fashion, the dark and punk movement. The movie is absolutely crazy violent, but it has some kind of magic… Also, the worst scene is when Rachel yeets his new goat off a building, imagine that… And second that with him bonking Rachel in the book
I absolutely love the original book. I’m not sure it’s truly adaptable since the part about Mercerism and it’s VR ‘bible’ being pretty central to the plot. It felt a lot more complex than the movie and talked a lot about the nature of empathy and cruelty. It was interesting how a culture technically centered around empathy could be cruel and how a being without empathy could still deserve to live. As an autistic person and person who works with children with disabilities, I feel we need to see more that a sentient being can be upsettingly alien to some in its values and manner can still deserve to live and be treated with respect and dignity. In the book, you could actually tell why the government would be afraid of rogue andies. But I also read the book first.
I’ll tell you what really got lost in adaptation. “The Bladerunner”. Ridley-Scott optioned the novel just to snag the title, and that’s a crying shame because because that novel’s plot: Poor people have almost entirely been cut off from legal health care unless they agree to be sterilized, so our hero works as a “bladerunner”, a smuggler of medical supplies into poor neighborhoods and must save the entire city by distributing a vaccine, evading death squads along the way… Well with a few tweaks that would make a first rate sf action movie. And the term “bladerunner” actually makes sense. He smuggles, among other things, scalpels. By looting the title and doing nothing else with the property Ridley-Scott pretty much precluded the possibility. Breaks my heart.
You should also at least mention William S. Burroughs’ 1979 book “Blade Runner (a movie)”, for the title (which makes no sense for the film). In Burroughs’ book, because of institutionalized healthcare, doctors are restricted in performing their profession, and if they are caught with tools of their trade they are prosecuted. So they have “blade runners” who carry their scalpels and other medical instruments for them.
wow 7 cuts. imagine if they did a delux box set which included all the different versions, plus the makings they still have (maybe some extra commentarys for the versions that dnt have exsisting ones, even if they are just spot the difference), plus maybe a digital copy of the original book. would be amazing, bet would sell to.
This movie is one of my absolute favorites. It got me to read sci-fi that wasn’t Azimov or Niven. But, I don’t remember about half the stuff you mention being not in the movie. Actually wondering if my copy was abridged. So, I’m getting a new copy and rereading it. Still going to put Vangelis on my headphones when reading though.
As for the issue of Deckard being a replicant, I just rewatched the movie (to prepare myself for the sequel) and realized: Deckard had only recently started feeling guilt for killing androids. If Deckard was a replicant with no termination date, he could have recently developed emotions, leading him to feel guilt about his job, quit that job, and begun trying to drown his guilt in alcohol. When he was forced to fight the androids, the feelings of guilt, and the alcohol he has been drinking, affect his hand-to-hand combat skills.
I’m with you 99.9% on this one great job. By the way the name of the movie and it’s esthetics come from a novel “Blade Runner” a story about a man with a club foot that smuggles medical supplies to be people who don’t have insurance. The giant cog buildings are original art on the cover. Deckard is human!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The rape scene was film only! Fuck you Ridley Scott for adding the only thing I didn’t like about this film. Edit: Okay a few things I should clarify: If you don’t consider what Deckard did to Rachel in the original Blade Runner rape, that’s up to you, I saw it differently, just accept that. I saw 2049 and it was great, doesn’t change how I feel about that scene in the original though. The reason I feel that way about the scene has nothing to do with what anyone else has said, in fact I don’t even know of anyone that’s really talked about the scene before, in a positive or negative light. My feelings about the scene are based entirely on how I felt the first time I watched the scene. And most importantly, I don’t hate the scene it just rubbed me the wrong way. I feel the movie would have been better without it and I wish they had just cut it, but it doesn’t derail the entire movie, it’s still a good movie even with it in there.
She saw, around her, a desolate expanse. The air smelled of harsh blossoms; this was the desert, and there was no rain. A man stood before her, a sorrowful light in his gray, pain-drenched eyes. “I am your friend,” he said, “but you must go on as if I did not exist. Can you understand that?” He spread empty hands. “No,” she said, “I can’t understand that.” “How can I save you,” the man said, “if I can’t save myself?” He smiled: “Don’t you see? There is no salvation.” “Then what’s it all for?” she asked. “To show you,” Wilbur Mercer said, “that you aren’t alone. I am here with you and always will be. Go back and face them. And tell them that.” She released the handles.
So when I read this book the mood organ, I read that as an actual organ type of devise that uses frequencies to adjust your mood. Maybe I imagined that… but I don’t think it was a pill dispenser. When he dials for the both of them, I think he used a remote to adjust the devise. ALSO Mercer comes up in the other books as like a weird hive mind parasitic coding that takes of ones consciousness.
The movie truly is a special piece of cinema especially with the effects they were able to use at the time & the acting of Rutger Hauer as the villain is stellar; yes Harrison Ford is good, but Rutger easily steals the show. The story itself is quite a unique beast of its own, but should be read in order to see how different the film is. Happily, Philip K. Dick did approve of the final script just before he died; whether he would’ve been upset with the studio tinkering of the movie itself when released
I struggle so much to understand whats going on in Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep and why. Half-way through I thought you explanations were going to make it finally clear to me at last – and then we got to the end and the story was just as random, disjointed and confusing as it always is when I try and read it. Don’t take that as a diss, I only mean that I temporarily believed you may have superhuman powers of explanation then to discover that you’re also merely mortal. Maybe one day I’ll dream I understand the book
Blade Runner actually is very much In Name Only, just not for Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. It got its name from an entirely unrelated 1974 sci fi dystopian novel called “The Bladerunner” by Alan Nourse, and in that book, the term “blade runner” actually makes sense, because the main character is a smuggler (or “runner”) who transports illicit medical supplies like scalpels (or “blades”) to people the government has deemed genetically inferior and thus not worthy of medical attention. William S. Burroughs wrote a film treatment for the novel called “Blade Runner (a movie)” that never got made, but one of the screenwriters for Ridley Scott’s film owned that treatment and suggested it as a title. To add insult to injury, some aspects of Nourse’s book were reused in other Philip K. Dick adaptations like Minority Report and Impostor, but the only adaptation the original Blade Runner ever got was an obscure low budget art film called Taking Tiger Mountain in 1983 with mostly negative reception
I honestly felt like I was too dumb to understand the book at the end. Also, it can easily be seen that Deckard is a complete crazy person, and not just from seeing Mercer at the end. Every time Deckard is faced with a situation where his actions are called into question, it always turns out the the accuser is an Andy, justifying his subsequent murder of them. Also the location of the story changed between book and film, the book taking place in San Francisco and the movie taking place in Los Angeles. It’s not too important since the Mission and Lombard street police stations have importance in a section not adapted into the film.
It’s ambiguous to a degree, but Deckard is definitely a Replicant. In the sequel, he is living in the most radioactive place on earth. And it wouldn’t be special if it still takes a human male to impregnate a female replicant, the miraculous thing is that Tyrell created 2 Replicants that could reproduce.
the “Deckard was an replicant” in the movie is fine if you consider that they wanted someone specific for whatever reason who could do the job, that someone was no longer able to do it, but they used his memories to make a throwaway replicant that would not stick out so which explains why he sucks physically and with those memories who wouldn’t be an alcoholic. this also explains why the donor know where Decker would be or what he was thinking or even dreaming. the donor being Gaff. So this is still not perfect, but explains more than Deckard being human and Gaff being the mystical spaniard. A better explanation is that Gaff is just a figment of Deckard’s fucked up mind.
If you want to know how different the book is from the movie, the only way is to read the book. It’s TOTALLY different from the book, just as Total recall is from the short story “We can remember it for you wholesale”, in fact since those films, it seems to be a competition to be as different from Dicks originals as possible, although man in the high castle and scanner darkly were ok. The new series on tv appears to be conforming to the Blade runner formula so far. I’d personally love to see something stay fairly close to PKD’s stories, and quirky humour, just once!
I’m glad I bought that tin-box collector’s DVD set back in the day. While I’d love to watch Blade Runner in higher res than DVD, it does contain the original theatrical cut – the one with the voice-over and without “improved” effects shots and the silly unicorn-/”Deckard is a secret replicant”-subplot. As much as I admire Scott’s work and as much as I adore Blade Runner, I cannot stand the “later years 180” he pulled on the film and the character. It’s like one of those cheap twists out of a lesser Shahamilanana-movie: It’s a twist for the sake of having a twist. And it makes me think that much like with Prometheus or the SW prequels, it’s not always a good thing if famous directors revisit great films of theirs and/or keep tinkering with them for decades. Plus I always thought the narration works great with Blade Runner. It is a future-/cyber-noir type of detective movie and does pay homage to private eye film noirs – so why not have the protagonist narrate? I don’t quite get why people have started to hate on the voice-over and I do miss it on the versions that don’t have it. But then again: I’ve watched Blade Runner for the first time back in the early/mid 80s and grew up with the one version I could get my hands on back then, so maybe I’m a bit biased towards the original cuts (there were multiple ones even back then, but IIRC, mostly differing in their level of violence).
This might be insane, but I didn’t enjoy Blade Runner. Now it has been quite a while since I saw it, but my impression back then was that while the film had nice ideas, it felt more interested in bringing these ideas up rather than doing a much with them. I tried to get something out of it, but in the end, it felt rather blase.
They way I took it, the Androids were like the spider. The Spider doesn’t feel empathy, yet we feel sorry for it when it’s being killed. I think Dick was making the point that even though these androids can’t feel empathy, they shouldn’t be hunted. Otherwise, humans like Deckard could loose their humanity. I think there’s a quote of Dick saying this book was inspired by Nazi behavior.
Hi EDM love the show. Just to add my two cents worth. The inspiration for Blade Runner was not Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, but a short graphic story called The Long Tomorrow, written by Dan O’Bannion (Dark Star, Alien, Total Recall) & illustrated by the great Moebius. Check it out if you can. EMW
It’s been many years since I read the book, but I remember Roy Batty having a wife, and I don’t think it was Pris. I was really sympathetic with Deckard, and then Ms Batty really resembled a lady I was sweet on. You can imagine that’s not going to end well. I ended up really crushed. I was crushed again when Deckard’s wife got ahold of his toad 🙁
As I understand it, the Mood Organ isn’t a drug dispenser so much as a direct line to the brain’s emotional centers. Still allows for nasty shenanigans like Deckard’s trick on his wife (though that was unsuccessful as she checked the dial before inputting it), but not quite as dangerously date-rapey.
There is this company wants to put out a sequel/reboot to Blade Runner, another one that wants to remake screamers, and Fox is turning Minority Report into a series which continues where the movie left off. I find it incredibly sad that Philip K Dick was never able to make the living off of his work that he should have. The man died just before the release of Blade Runner. Most of the money his products have earned have been given to his Estate Holders. One of them is his Daughter Isa Dick Hacket who is just absolutely stunning.
The book infuriated me to no end. While there’s a token mention of humans with “low emotional affect” and disorders like schizophrenia, it’s made clear early on that all real humans have enough empathy to pass all android tests. It also conflates empathy with sympathy, cooperativity, and status consciousness, among other things in the grab-bag of “normal human emotion.” The whole point of John Isidore’s character was clearly to imply that even humans with disabilities or mental conditions still should always have the same suite of unconscious emotions and reactions. I’m on the spectrum, and I’ve learned through experience that trying to explain the difference btween sympathy and empathy to people who think “abnormal response = evil” is a losing battle. Philip K Dick may’ve taken his inspiration for “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” from Nazis’ journals (look it up), but his inability to understand the THING HE WAS USING TO DEFINE HUMANITY was so complete and potentially harmful that it took me three years to read another of his books. (Side note: “The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch” is amazing.)
Mr. The Dom, if I could request something, can you please do a review on Age of Mythology, I watched your Homeworld 2 review and I enjoyed it a lot as I just got my hands on the Remastered version and I found your points were true. I was just wondering if Age of Mythology held any opinion on your front from the game play to the story. And I am not a pateron supporter or anything, I am just a viewer who likes to watch your reviews as I can’t afford to be a pateron supporter at the moment.
great review! funny thing about the changing of the name to blade runner, Disney did the same with “Frozen”, they could’ve name it “snow queen”, but by changing it that much, they had a little respect and named it “frozen” ^^ AND THEN disney france translated the title to “la reine des neiges” in french! (yes i’m french ^^) (snow queen = reine des neiges) so frozen in english is a good movie but in french it’s one of the shitiest adaptation ever XD well, blade runner in french is still blade runner, that’s good ^^
In the book, Rachel is presented as being a real human, but raised alone in a space ship with very little human interaction and therefore fails the empathy test. It’s ambiguous whether she is an android trying to save other androids or a human who allies with the androids because she’s also an outsider. Also, if you think the sexualization in the movie is unnecessary it’s a central theme in the book (and you’re gay!)
Have we not all done that as children? Pulling limbs or wings off of caught insects and releasing them to see how their mobility is inpacted? Only later in life do we realize how horrible such an act is and yet it was only an insects was it not? Doomed to a weeks lifespan at best? Does that fact make the act less horrid?
Loved the article, but I’ve got a small question. Does films based on article games fall under that 800$ Patreon goal? Or is it ‘just’ novel based article games? Not the largest sub-group in either case, I know, but I’m kinda curious about what you’d have to say about the, say, the Mortal Combat, or Super Mario Brothers’ movies. If so I realize that’s quite a ways off yet, but I thought I’d ask. SMB especially sounds as if it could be a fun episode in nearly the same vein as the Dune one.
I went on a philip k dick reading spree for a bit in high school, and “do androids dream of electric sheep?” was my least favorite. I thought it had too much going on and found mercerism especially confusing. Years later I finally thought to look it up on sparknotes, and it finally clicked for me that it’s a major part of the book’s exploration of empathy and the consequences of placing it above all other drives as a definitional part of being human. This society fetishizes empathy to the point where they partake in unnecessary suffering for the sake of it, as opposed to the androids who are clearly human despite lacking it (and the book not shying away from the disturbing results of that lack). Shoutout to sparknotes for explaining that, though my favorite story of his is still a scanner darkly (which was MUCH luckier in its adaptation). And hi to anyone reading new comments on an eight-year-old article!
I did like that. I would have two thing that I would say that he is wrong about though. Personally I would say that the visuals are timeless and don’t look anything like an 80’s movie and I have read the book and I think that it’s not that good of a book. I think it’s not very well written or that interesting. But that’s just me as I saw the movie years before I read the book, and I think the movie IS one of the best Sci fi movies ever made. It’s up there with The Empire Strikes Back, Star Trek 2, 2001, Forbidden Planet and Dune for my money.
When you describe how Dick was out of touch since it’s made clear that Priss wasn’t a sexbot and sex with replicants was considered taboo, but that goes against how man is in real life, reminds me of the clip from Robot Chicken where someone asks “Can you fuck it?” about an android with AI, the scientist says “What? No!” and the crowd is despondent as a result.
I heard somewhere that before Phillip K Dick died he actually saw an early cut of the film. It wasn’t in its entirety and wasn’t finished editing (and this was before the last minute terrible narration was added) but apparently he said he actually liked it. Here’s a letter he wrote on the subject: screencrush.com/philip-k-dick-blade-runner/
I honestly hate this film. It’s painfully boring, terribly paced, and confusingly shot. Elevated to “classic” status through social pressure, the only reason people still claim this is a classic is because they get endless hate if they say otherwise. It’s shit and after perusal it twice, I will not be convinced otherwise.
I’ve read a few Philip K Dick books and they are really average reads not because they are badly written for all his faults he had a good turn of phrase they are just a slog a lot of the time a while it is often worth it it is often not. If someone asked for a writer to start reading sci fi I suggest Harry Harrison, Heinlein or Clarke
I don’t care about your personal opinion but if you base yourself on “the final cut” version : Deckard is a Replicant. It’s debatable in some versions but the one you choose is the one where it can’t be questioned. You ignore the factual clues of Deckard being a replicant and discard the impact on the story. It’s a major flaw in an otherwise good article. Many thing left out of the book may have found their way in other futuristic/cyberpunkish movies, anime or article games. Obviously some concept are present in the other books of Dick… I meant other Dick’s novels.