January '10 Reading: Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?

I liked the way the animal dealer used the language and the tactics of a used-car salesman when Rick went in intending to buy an animal outright:

Quote:

---

Sir, if you have the down payment of three thou, I can make you the owner of something a lot better than a pair of rabbits. What about a goat?

---

Never-ever tell a used-car dealer, in your opening line, how much you can spend. “Yes sir-eee-bob, you look like a Coup de Ville man to me. Umm hmm.”

I also liked the way the author used the same arguments to rationalize android ownership that the NRA uses to rationalize gun ownership.

By the way, in case anyone was wondering, everything turned out okay for El Cid the other night; that’s El Cid, the ornery cantankerous old-man Spaniel dog. (I may have stacked a few too many adjectives there, but what the hey.)

I just want to point out that Google's nexus-one Android phone is being advertised all over the place these days (e.g. my youtube start page).

http://www.android.com/

http://androidandme.com/wp-content/u...one_540big.png

Yeay! I've finally finished reading Independent People (which is amazing by the way) and am starting Androids today. Hope everyone's up for a good debate :D

Daaa-umm Billl, that android phone woman is good-looking.

:mad::rage::cold:SPOILER ALERT:cold::rage::mad:

As the man from the 14th century said:

:eek:Abandon hope all ye who enter here:eek:

Okay, that should’ve done it.

What did you guys think about that whole business of Rachel shoving the goat off the roof?
My initial thought was that purpose of the scene was to demonstrate the inhumanity of an android after we (and Rick) had been suckered into feeling empathy towards her. But then what purpose does the murder of the goat serve other that vengeance? And isn’t revenge a purely human emotion just like empathy?

I don’t know. What am I missing?

:mad::mad::mad::mad:Spoiler!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad:

I too was quite shocked by the goat incident. It seems to me that in the same way Rick took an android 'life' that she found important, she took a 'life' that meant something to him. An eye for an eye. I agree that this seems a human response, however, the androids experience a range of human like emotions - even compassion in the case of Irmgard and Isidore. Their human responses only seem to fail when they are threatened and it becomes survival of the fittest.

The androids are sometimes shown to be more cultured and perhaps 'better' versions of the humans around them. Pris corrects Isidore when he quotes Donne, Luba Luft chooses a life in the arts and Rick perceives himself as sub specie aeternitatis. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitkat203

:mad::mad::mad::mad:Spoiler!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad:

I too was quite shocked by the goat incident. It seems to me that in the same way Rick took an android 'life' that she found important, she took a 'life' that meant something to him. An eye for an eye. I agree that this seems a human response, however, the androids experience a range of human like emotions - even compassion in the case of Irmgard and Isidore. Their human responses only seem to fail when they are threatened and it becomes survival of the fittest.

The androids are sometimes shown to be more cultured and perhaps 'better' versions of the humans around them. Pris corrects Isidore when he quotes Donne, Luba Luft chooses a life in the arts and Rick perceives himself as sub specie aeternitatis. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

---

Yes, but what about the spider incident? Isidore was horrified at what was being done to the spider while the androids never gave it a second thought.

The goat thing surprised me, but can't something like revenge be programmed into an android? If the point is to make it as human as possible? Rachel knew the goat was important to Rick from their initial conversation.

is that the goat represented to the android a life which would have a much longer life expectation than that of Rachel, which would only be about two more years. I am reminded of a scene in Paths of Glory directed (I think) by Kubrick. French soldiers were picked by lot to be executed for a mass exodus by French soldiers from a field of battle. One of the soldiers says, "Look at that bug crawling there. He has more of a chance for life than I do." A second soldier squashes the bug and says, "The odds are now even." Rachel wanted ti even out the odds for her short life expectancy.

Ah-hah!

I suppose some of the more basic human emotions have evolved that way for survival purposes; fear, anger, lust, stuff like that. Even desire for revenge could go into the calculus of survival in a tit-for-tat or an if-then-else environment. But with empathy, we stand to gain absolutely nothing. Sympathy – maybe. Empathy-nope.

Thanks KitKat, et al.

I'm up to chapter 4 and so far very impressed. One of the themes which stands out for me so far is that of alteration or perhaps variance from what we would call the norm, or natural; and also artificiality or synthetic vs natural. Human beings are almost unrecognisable, and even the Earth is changed:

Quote:

---

Perhaps, deformed though it was, Earth remained familiar, to be clung to.

---

I get the feeling, even this early on, that Dick is setting us up to consider the question of where the dividing line is between 'human' and 'android'. So far the following points have stood out to me:

- the 'Penfield artificial brain stimulator': Deckard and his wife set their mood by machine. So their emotions are artificial. Is this any different to an android?

- the 'Empathy machine': as used by J.R Isidore. Given that the response to empathy appears to be the indicator of human or android, I find it interesting that in humans, empathy is stimulated by means of an artificial device. It made me wonder, would a human pass the test if their empathy button hadn't been pushed by the empathy machine?

- the 'specials': classed as 'biologically unacceptable' and 'a menace to the pristine heridity of the race'. In a sense, are the 'specials' any different to the androids, in terms of the way they are treated? Although Dick mentions that a 'special' may opt for voluntary sterilisation, no mention is made of the alternative. Are 'specials' also 'retired' if they don't agree to cut themselves out of the human race voluntarily?

I was also curious why Deckard told his neighbour that the sheep was electric, when this would seem to be a social stigma. But then I found myself questioning if any of Deckard's actions were 'real' or did they all arise as a result of the Penfield machine? What is 'real' and what isn't? How do you define it?

I was also interested in this comment in the passing TV interview with Mrs Klugman when she explains what it is that going off-world has done for her:

Quote:

---

It's a hard thing to explain. Having a servant you can depend on in these troubled times...I find it reassuring.

---

It made me wonder, is Dick implying that what differentiates the humans is the need to have something they perceive as subordinate to them? Do humans need to be the 'masters'. Whereas this role used to be fulfilled by animals, once the animals began to die out they, in a sense, became superior. They certainly seem to be valued more.

And I haven't encountered an android yet! It's all very interesting, and bears the hallmark of really good sci-fi. Looking forward to reading more!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

Ah-hah!

I suppose some of the more basic human emotions have evolved that way for survival purposes; fear, anger, lust, stuff like that. Even desire for revenge could go into the calculus of survival in a tit-for-tat or an if-then-else environment. But with empathy, we stand to gain absolutely nothing. Sympathy – maybe. Empathy-nope.

Thanks KitKat, et al.

---

I think this is why so much is centered on the empathy testing. Like you've mentioned, one gains from all other emotions. Even jealousy and rage have their gains to us personally and can therefore be quantified in a machine. Empathy gains us nothing and costs very much. There would be no possible way to logically force something to feel empathy.

As for the goat incident, I suppose there are a couple of reasons. The first being plain jealousy. First there is this living thing that is loved and cared for in a way that Rachel had no hope of having. Jealousy would be a powerful motivation, and it would further the purpose of destroying Rick. The other is simply from a writer's standpoint. The incident brings us entirely full circle from hating the androids to being empathetic of their cause, and right back around to the realization that they really are different. This book was a bit like a roller coaster for me in that sense. By midway I was so sympathetic for the androids' plight, but after all that Rachel did... well any pity was long gone.

Anyone have any thoughts on Mercerism and it's resemblance to:

- the myth of sisyphus
- Christianity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

Anyone have any thoughts on Mercerism and it's resemblance to:

- the myth of sisyphus
- Christianity?

---

Mercer actually brought to mind Prometheus for me. He gave humanity a gift, if you can look at it as such, in the ability for them to "meld" consciousness with one another. The price is this never-ending loop of torment. He climbs the hill, gets ricks and such thrown at him along the way, and then (if I got it right) he dies. Then he does it all over again. Prometheus paid a similar price for giving gifts to humanity. He had his liver removed, and when he was healed and his liver regenerated it happened again.

One of the more intriguing characters that I found in this book was that of Rachael Rosen. When she is first presented she seems to be nothing more than a strong, intelligent woman in a high profile job for one of the largest companies that manufactures androids. She is cunning and a bit cold seeming, and she certainly seems willing to do whatever it takes to keep her company at the top.

Upon discovering that she herself was an android, we're introduced, however briefly, to a Rachael Rosen that has moved into the same complex as Isidore. She quickly changes her name to Pris, but I couldn't help but feel the pang of sadness that she had been reduced to that. I'll admit for the rest of the book I wondered which was the original Rachael that we were introduced to. Is Pris another Rachael that has been discarded? Is she the original that has been crushed by her discovery? It also poses the question of which Rachael it was that Rick met at the end of the book. Who really tried to ruin him with a night of sex and killing his new animal?

Anyway, as the story moved we're slowly introduced into the lesson of Pris (I don't have a better thing to call it:)). Pris is at times oddly helpless seeming and very alone. At other times she is quite cruel to the people and things around her.

Quote:

---

"You know what I think, J. R.? I think it doesn't need all those legs."...

It probably won' be able to run as fast, but there's nothing for it to catch around here anyhow. It'll die anyway."...

"Don't mutilate it," he said wheezingly. Imploringly.
With the scissors, Pris smipped off one of the spider's legs...

Pris clipped off another leg, restraining the spider with the edge of her hand. She was smiling."

---

This entire scene, it went on for some time, really made me begin to view the androids as really inhuman. I went from feeling such overwhelming sympathy for their plight and treatment at the hands of humans to almost having a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. They really were not like people. Not if they could do something so cruel and smile about it.

The I really got to thinking about it. Is it really so different than a child pulling the wings off a fly or pouring salt on a slug. Sure, in the novel, animals are at a premium being nearly extinct, but who didn't do at least one thing so senselessly cruel at one point in their life?

We're finally introduced to Rachael again at the end of the novel. This is not the same pathetic seeming one that was left in the beginning having just discovered that she was an android. This Rachael is bent on systematically destroying Rick's moral/motivations. By having sex with him and then treating him cruelly, she hoped to ruin him.

Quote:

---

"You're not going to be able to hunt androids any longer," she said calmly. "So don't look sad. Please."...

"I understand now why Phil Resch said what he said. He wasn't being cynical; he had just learned too much. Going through this--I can't blame him. It warped him."

"But the wrong way."

---

She had quite intentionally tried to mold him into a being incapable of killing androids any longer. She proved that there was nothing of humanity within her. There wasn't even a desire to live that is so common in man kind. So my final question is, did she succeed? With her treatment of Rick, killing his animal and trying to crush his spirit, did she really manage to warp him in the manner that was intended? Or, will Rick become like Phil? Will he become a human capable of absolutely no remorse when it comes to his treatment of androids or will he retain some of that same emotion that allowed him to feel for androids like Luba?

I am just poking my head in to say I sort of left Dick for a time in chapter 3; no particular reason except I have to mind my writing and my reading schedule which is more relevant to what I am engaged in. I will join you or resurrect the thread when I am ready, as I would like to form my own impressions first.

I will return then.

I read it last year, the most memorable part of it was the fact that the cashier commented on the fact that 'its not every day one sells a Phillip K. Dick novel along with Narn-i-a. a suggestion: Hothouse by Brian Aldiss: freaking blows PKD outta the water) next time of course I'm not helping much. :p