Philip K Dick discussion

I wonder if P.K. Dick's language, the phrases, names, products and technology he references in his books are the real stumbling block for NEW READERS. I mean, Dick's pre-occupation with the German language/phrases for example, his quaint use of terms like 'andies' and 'homeopapes' and some of the convoluted surnames he's cunjored up don't bother me as I've already read through my pre-mid-life crisis with his work. For me, I see Dick's books as a parallel America, an adjacent American fallen to Nazis and the Chinese (how prophetic this may turn out to be) and rife with drugs that can split the dimensions to our own, or the corporate, whim.

Do you have any opinions of The Language of P.K. Dick?

I don't think of PKD's langauage as an issue at all when addressing his work.

If you attack his work as science fiction, I find his work less techno-jumbled than say the hard science guys, like Clarke. And i find his names and phrases less stumbling than say, Niven or Spinrad - to give a few examples. Dick's naming conventions are actually pretty funny and usually have an added dimension to the story. Unlike a lot of other odd for odd's sake names out there...

I dig his style. In the context of the story the language makes sense as slang of the characters, an idea that didn't really hit me until I was older, but even when I was a kid his words always kept me interested. They were like little radar blips that kept me focused when the internal dialogue or "story" overwhelmed me.

I felt the exact opposite. I was surprised that Dick's novels were so easy to read. I feel for the year when his novels were written, they are disturbingly modern and speak to this culture just as much - if not more - then they did 30-40 years ago.

I feel his science was imaginatively ahead of its time, his paranoia was in fact a predictive forecast ;-), and his use of technical jargon was more allegorical than practical - not that that's a problem for a fiction writer. But his street slang is really dated. I think that's probably the biggest stumbling block for a young, new PKD reader. Makes it feel "60s".

PKD's language most likely never fit an era. I would imagine that most readers were always left a little off-kilter while reading him.

What's more amazing is that he was able to keep that voice for 30 years. Very consistent, very him.

That's the performance art. Even later works like Valis still held his writing style. Going back to early ones, you see in the 50s he starts out writing like "Can I get away with this?" And around 1960 he finds out, "Holy cow! I can!" And he blasts off.

I will also note that Nabokov, Pynchon, Zora Neal Hurston, and on and on had a peculiar style that translates to any generation - perhaps more so that "mainstream" fiction.

The great thing about Dick's prose is that he was not a stylist, and therefor the language he used was not dictated by a certain era, fad, or movement. A lot of the new wave SF stuff feels very much like a part of the 60's, early '70s counter-culture, but Dick's does not.

Dick's prose is workman-like - he was not interested in impressing with style and language. He used his writing only to convey the necessary and essential matter of his stories.

And he never, ever, relied on techno-jargon like so many of the cyberpunks did that he influenced. Dick was never concerned with technology - he was concerned with humanity, and sometimes our relationship with technology, but humanity always came first.

While one may read Delany, or Ellison, or Brunner for elegant and inventive style, one reads Dick for a damn good story full of amazing ideas and characters.

Joe Chip. Need I say more? Just the name of the character sums it up. I surely hope there is no one left with that name right now.

I was surprised to find PKD-novels were such easy reads, too. My first was "The man in the high castle", and made me quite addicted. - Well, until I braved "Valis" a couple of months ago - that one was a bit of a turn-off for me, but not at all because of the language or phrases.

I agree that Philip's language can be a stumbling block at first. It's very straight forward and sometimes awkward. But that's not what it's all about.

You read Philip K Dick for his ideas, for the mind. He was no poet of the language, but if you don't keep putting the book down to think for a moment, you should probably read something else.

I'm relatively new to PKD but have now read quite a few (Man in the High Castle, Do Androids Dream, The Penultimate Truth & >>> ). i'm also relatively young at 27. I love his style - his words and names are some of the most interesting aspects for me as I adore etymology and the evolution of English. I have stumbled over a couple of his expressions but it's nothing a quick google search won't sort out.
If anything makes me cringe with PKD it's how he tries to verbalise the thoughts of his very rare female characters, for example "she thought her womb was going to fall out" when describing shock! As a woman, I think I can confirm that I can't ever imagine feeling like my womb's going to fall out - it doesn't have any nerve endings for a start!
Douglas Adams' language is far less satisfying and to be honest, far less intelligent too. I'd far rather have homeopapes and simulacrums (which is actually a 16th century word) than a PKD who had tried to verbalise another 'world' using the language of his own society.
Neologisms, compounds and blends are our friends and PKD was a fab practitioner!

Dick's prose has always been the sticking point for me. One word will serve as an example....

Friendlily.

Ugh...

I've read roughly half of his SF novels, some more than once, and I'm going to complete the set as I do enjoy his work.

Saying that, I would have gotten through them sooner but for the clunkiness of his writing. The first few chapters of his novels usually make painful reading. Until the plot takes off I find myself struggling to maintain interest and it's often the case that I pick up a new PKD with a sense of masochistic dread.

I can't foresee going anywhere near his 'mainstream' novels. The idea of grinding through a typical PKD novel (bad prose, neurotic characters, self analysis, dark haired girls) minus the engaging/crazy ideas sounds like torture to me.

Yes.

I always find PKD's language and style (and characters as well) improves over time. And I have always felt Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep was an inferior novel to that of A Scanner Darkly say. Simply put I felt his story character development, use of language, and style just got better and more creative.

"I pick up a new PKD with a sense of masochistic dread," what a gorgeous way to put it.

We love PKD with all his faults, because of them maybe.

from his books ive read i wouldnt say the language is outdated at all, and i find his books so easy to read.(apart from the extra 100 pages added to Lies Inc)

Pickle wrote: "from his books ive read i wouldnt say the language is outdated at all, and i find his books so easy to read.(apart from the extra 100 pages added to Lies Inc)"

I am not familiar with this, go on.

I think the fact PKD prose,language is dated is one of his strengths. We all know he isnt prose stylist and has workman like prose but the best about him is his stories feel so personal, his mind is so present in them. You cant take him out of his times, its the stories,the social content, the vision that is timeless and not his language.

Language that isnt dated is overrated to special authors like PKD.

Reading The Man in the High Castle right now and the fact the language is dated to 1962 and even sounds older doesnt matter all. It is a great,important story.

This is going to sound strange, but I don't have a problem with Dick's use of occasionally outdated language. For me, it doesn't detract from the story. Conversely, one of his colleagues, Roger Zelazny, drives me NUTS with outdated language that's written as though it was painful to conceive and utter. In one of his books I just stopped reading, after the protagonist kicks an attacker in the groin, instead of writing that he ran away or fled or took off, he instead wrote that he took to his own element. I mean, WTF? Who writes that? In the 1970s too? Philip K Dick may seem a bit outdated at times, but his words are rarely stumbling blocks for me, and I respect that.

he took to his own element? It wasnt SF title by Zelazny ?

There are several authors like Zelazny rated for their weird language. Dont read an author like Jack Vance if you didnt like Zelazny weird use of words....

Mohammed wrote: "he took to his own element? It wasnt SF title by Zelazny ?

There are several authors like Zelazny rated for their weird language. Dont read an author Jack Vance if you didnt like Zelazny weird u..."

OK, thanks for the heads up on Vance. Cheers!

Scott wrote: "Mohammed wrote: "he took to his own element? It wasnt SF title by Zelazny ?

There are several authors like Zelazny rated for their weird language. Dont read an author Jack Vance if you didnt lik..."

Heh glad to help :)