Talk:Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?/Archive 1

The way of the leotard

"attacks him with gymnastics" - I just had to smile at this in the article.

And how is that part of the discussion of this article? Happy 15th b-day (when it comes).

Slaphead99 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to rewrite the intro

I want to rewrite the introduction. I haven't done much editing on Wikipedia before so I want to say my thoughts about what's wrong with the intro and why it needs changing before I delve into it so people have a chance to weigh in.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968), by Philip K. Dick, is a science fiction novel about Rick Deckard, a bounty hunter of androids in San Francisco, California. It is a definitive, science fiction exploration of the ethical dimensions inherent to the android concept[1] literary device, in order to understand the persecution of a person based upon artificial distinctions such as "ethnic group".

In 1982, Hampton Fancher and David Peoples' loose, cinematic adaptation became the film Blade Runner (1982). For that reason, later (post-1982) editions of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? were titled Blade Runner.

Here's some things I think make this intro a pile of steaming faeces:

1) "about Rick Deckard". This makes the novel sound like most of what it is about is Deckard, when it's not. Deckard is the primary protagonist but the novel has two interwoven plot lines following both Deckard and Isidore. The novel is about a whole host of things; not just Deckard.

2) "it is a definitive" - definitive implies that the novel is the first, last and most important work on a subject. It implies completion. Not only that, but completion about an ethical topic. It's pretty hard to be definitive about ethical things. This kind of statement is just waay too strong. Important, perhaps. Definitive, no way.

3) "ethical dimensions inherent to the android concept literary device." This is poor grammar and doesn't make sense. Perhaps a mishmash of edits at some point? If the object of the sentence is a literary device, then this claim is wrong, since the novel is not about exploring the ethics of a literary device. If the sentence is about the android concept, then it makes more sense. However, it's a bit sesquipedalian for my liking and could be said simpler and clearer: 'exploration of the ethical issues that surround the concept of androids.' This avoids the 'dimensions' metaphor.

4) "in order to understand the persecution of a person based upon..." - this is about Dick's intentions. These are difficult to speak about and this unreferenced statement is very debatable. This might have been one of his reasons. It might even be an important reason. But it's not clear enough for the introduction.

5) "based upon artificial distinctions such as 'ethnic group'" - again, ungrammatical. Also, is ethnic group an artificial distinction? Well, no, it is a distinction based on certain things which makes it no more artificial than any other grouping. The issues of whether we should group people ethnically is a very different one and there's a great deal of tension around issues of stereotyping and the mistreatment of people based on ethnicity; but saying the distinction is artificial is plain wrong. Arbitrary, perhaps. In any case, it's not a neutral point of view.

Thoughts? Comments? --MotleyPhule (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

1) I would replace "about Rick Deckard" with "featuring Rick Deckard" and then say how and have a similary pithy phrase about the other element you mention. 2) too strong for a lead paragraph certainly, 3) "inherent to" I see what you mean, and "android concept literary device" wow how was that missed! 4) totally agree. 5) again agree :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 18:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I took that as a green light and rewrote it. In addition to the suggested changes I also changed the bit about the movie to reflect on the movie's importance in making the novel more widely known, and to remove the error of implying that the book has only been published under the title Blade Runner since 1982. --203.184.15.179 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Empathy boxen

It can be assumed that asking a suspected android to use an 'empathy box', as they are called in the novel, would be a simple way to determine if they are indeed an artificial human.

While androids lack empathy and are presumably incapable of fusing with Mercer, we never learn that any one particular empathy box user is precisely aware of another user's experience. All users share the same sensations, but we never see one "eavesdropping" upon the subjective details of another. Fusion with Mercer is not monitored for authenticity. Androids may be incapable of empathic fusion, but Roy Baty for one is probably smart enough to fake it. The whole point of the Voight-Kampff test is that it uses unfakeable indicators of emotional states which neither humans nor andys can control (or not well enough to fool the test).

Imagine if Asimov had put empathy boxes into "Evidence": Stephen Byerley refuses to fuse with Mercer, because it would prove (or disprove) his humanity. Then Susan Calvin persuades him to do so, which he does successfully—but then she reveals that he might just be putting a smile on his face and dabbing on fake blood.

—Anville 22:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

.38 Magnum?

I don't think that a Cop, future or otherwise, would be carrying a .38 Magnum as is stated Deckard fires during his first tangle with Max. The gun would most likely be a .38, or a .357 Magnum.

Well that's what it says... It's a sci-fi novel, so it doesn't really matter what you think, as it's fiction, and up to the writer to decide. You could also have said "I don't think that Deckard would have used a hovercar... as they don't exist". Troubleshooter 16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon reference?

Does anyone know for sure if the Pokemon Mareep, Flaaffy and Ampharos are based off this title? If so, that should probably go in the references

Unreferenced paragraph from lede.

I removed the following paragraph from the opening, and I bring it here for discussion:

The novel includes two main characters clearly based on Dick novels that were unsold at the time of its writing. Jack Isidore, the mentally limited narrator of Confessions of a Crap Artist, appears here as J.R. Isidore, while Pris Frauenzimmer, the schizoid lead female character in We Can Build You, appears as the android Pris Stratton.

First off, I see no reason this needs to be in the introduction, because the information presented is not in any way essential to an understanding of the novel. Second, and more importantly, it is completely unreferenced, and presents as self-evident what may indeed be only the author's opinion. It is, therefore, POV and OR. Until it is referenced, it should not be reinserted. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

References in popular culture

This entire section is problematic in at least two ways: First, a great many of these references are to the movie, and not the book; if they belong anywhere, it is in the film article. Second, a great many of them are, well, so trivial that they are really of no importace. Now, a section on the influence of the book, which could include a number of these references, in order to indicate how wide its impact was, that would be a different story. A section like that would actually be valuable. More valuable, certainly, than an inaccurate list of pop culture references. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Robots vs. Electric Humans

The "Differences" section mentions that the replicants in the film are portrayed as having superhuman strength and advanced combat ability. Meanwhile, in the film, the androids seem more or less identical to humans. This seems like a broader point to me. In the book, the androids are basically portrayed like the rest of the electrical creatures...meant to be as close to exact imitations as possible, in order to fool people. The replicants in the film seem to be more portrayed as classical 'robots' that have the normal characteristics one would expect, although they're trying to hide them. Since the film glosses over the details on electric animals, it may just be that they chose a more standard portrayal to make the situation easier for the audience to understand. However, I think the fact that the novel portrays the androids less as artificial constructs and more as imitation humans is an important thematic difference that makes the fact that they're being used as essentially slave labor all the more poignant. I realize that both versions address the same issue in the end but feel like this is an important difference between the two presentations. I also feel like it gives more weight to the question of whether or not Deckard was human, which I personally feel like was more in doubt in the book, not the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.155.227 (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You miss out on a salient point here. Namely that androids are humans which lack basic empathy for other beings - they are creatures devoid of a conscience in other words. The point being to express how we humans are becoming more and more like these soulless androids every day – it’s meant as a warning against such self-seeking behaviour.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pris and Racheal are the same android

I'm afraid this is going to be quite a useless comment at the moment, because I don't have the book in front of me to quote from.

However I came to this Wikipedia article originally to see if it could help me decide whether Pris and Rosen are in fact the same android (not just the same model). The article makes no mention whatsoever of something that has really been puzzling me.

Why do I think that Racheal and Pris might be one and the same:

- Pris originally introduces herself as Racheal Rosen when meeting JR Isidore and then changes her mind and calls herself Pris (if Pris is simply using her name for cover how do she know her?)
in the book she says something to the effect of, "you can call me by my married name, Pris Stratton." I don't know the implications, just elaborating.--72.164.19.252 (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Deckard says that Racheal and Pris have the same eyes (in fact the only difference he notes are clothes)
- We hear no more from Racheal after Pris has been killed (I'm assuming there she killed the goat before she went over to the conapt building)
- When Pris runs towards Deckard before she dies her last words are along the lines of "For all we meant to each other." Surely they don't know each other at all; Pris and Deckard have never met if she is someone else.
- Pris also runs towards him from outside the conapt as opposed to inside it - i.e. she has been following Deckard as Racheal and not holed up with the rest of the Andys
- Racheal is really distraught in the hotel room when she finds out about Pris being the last android, it would make much more sense for her fear to be because it is her rather than the same android model. It is only when she offers to kill it herself that she calms down. But then she would - she had just claimed to kill herself (i.e. bluff Pris' death or possibly commit suicide).

Admittedly there's a couple of snags. If she is Racheal then she is working for the Rosen corporation, so why is she hiding with the runaways? Unless she "ran away" from the corporation after Deckard originally tested her.

Anyway I'd like to add something to the article - obviously nothing conclusive, but just acknowledge the possibility. But if anyone would like to blow a huge smoking hole in my theory that I haven't thought of, then I won't (and it would stop me putting more time into trying to figure this one out too, which would be handy). --DistractionActivity 17:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought. It probably counts as original research, though, and thus not really suitable as part of an encyclopaedia article. It's weird that she calls herself Rachael originally. BUT, I think there's a whole host of reasons she can't be the same person. 1) Rachael is owned by the Rosen corporation and has never been to Mars. She is a legal android. Pris escaped from Mars with the others, which the other androids can attest to. 2) They're in different places at the same time (which is pretty good proof that they're not the same people.) 3) Here's what Dick says when discussing a possible film adaptation of his novel "What must be clear to the audience, [is] that these two Rachaels, are functioning at the same time; these are not a flashback but a simultaneous double life." ("Notes on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep from The Shifting Realities of Philip K. Dick)--MotleyPhule (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a really neat idea! Although I have to agree with the poster above: It seems they are both the same MODEL of android, and they probably look 'the same'. Pris could be seen as being ironic when giving her name as Rachael, if both androids are modelled on the same person. Their physical descriptions in their respective early scenes are very similar. It would be interesting to know whether or not she has the same implanted memories as Rachael, and whether or not they share any preferences - such as an attraction to men like Deckard. --86.152.88.234 (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Blade Runner

The section about the differences between the novel and the film is useful, but I think it should be on the Blade Runner article, as that is the adaptation. Also, some of the References in popular culture clearly refer to the film not the novel and should also be moved to the Blade Runner article. Count de Ville 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Error, not sure how to fix

The article currently states, in relation to Sidney's, that "extinct animals are listed at the price of the last example sold." Extinct animals are listed with an 'E' next to their name. Animals who are not available at market are listed with their previous price in italics at the last price they were sold. I thought about removing the section entirely, and then realized that doing so might make Sidney's even more difficult to understand to an unacquainted reader. Tommy.rousse 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Differences between the novel and film - Whether Deckard is an Android or not

The film leaves lingering the question of whether or not Deckard is an android. In the novel, Deckard is definitively not an android; he passes the Voight-Kampff test. (Although this is a questionable idea, as we never read about the actual test administration, nor is the test assuredly accurate, there is still some question regarding his humanity)

I believe that part to be somewhat misleading. Deckard never actually passes the Voight-Kampff test, and he is most certainly not "definitively not an android". There are only two mentions of Deckard coming into contact with the test. First when he's recollecting that he took the test as part of the SOP for being a bounty hunter (which for all intents and purposes could be a false memory implant), and the second one with Resch when he administers it on himself.

What should be noted here is that he only tests his empathic response, and not the time lag between the question (which wasn't posed) and the response which is used to determine whether someone is or isn't an android. The part of the test which takes into account the lag difference between a real human and an android seems to be (as evidenced by the test administered on Rosen) crucial in determining whether or not someone is in fact an android. The purpose of the test he conducted on himself wasn't to test if he was or wasn't an android, it was to test if he did or did not have any empathy towards androids. He effectively is never vindicated not to have been an android in the novel, not by the test or any other reference.

I would have gone ahead and edited it myself from the page, but I thought it prudent to ask here first if that part should be changed to fit the facts. If I'm right, the part about him "definitively not an android; he passes the Voight-Kampff test." has to go. Quite a large of an omission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlackDove (talk • contribs) 24 October 2006.

I agree with you. The novel left a question in my mind as to whether or not Deckard was human. It could be that the test was not accurate or that Deckard had existed for so long as an android that he had developed human-like empathy enough to pass the test--or that the test was a sham to begin with. --Darth Borehd 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think the novel did question his being human, but it did question, in a far more profound manner than the film, what it is TO BE HUMAN.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Amedeo Felix, Deckard's human status is not an issue. For one thing, he can use an empathy box; Iran says he doesn't do it very often, not that he doesn't do it. To my memory he doesn't doubt himself. He has plenty of issues about his own levels of empathy and who or what he feels empathy for, but he doesn't make the leap from that to thinking he is an android.--MotleyPhule (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Right Way to Do It

This article is so typical of the lame brain way Wikipedia works today. This article shouldn't be a fanboy dissertation on the story or the author but explain BRIEFLY what it's all about and OFFER REFERENCES to where more can be found.

Whoever wrote this has visions of being a PKD expert. Fine: and when he turns 21 maybe he can do it. Until then maybe - open a blog?

This article may be well documented but its being at Wikipedia is a DISGRACE.

Organic?

First of all, I loathe footnotes, so I'd much prefer the following material back in the article proper.

It should be noted here that the term android is sometimes used when referring to artificial beings of a biological composition, though in most modern SF the term has come to refer to inorganic machines instead (cf. the Star Wars movies). Excessive debate on such finer details is likely to encounter deep complications; the very issues which Dick—and Isaac Asimov before him—explored along the human-mechanical boundary.

If the general consensus is that this material is too peripheral to flow nicely into the article text, oh well, I won't mind. (I'll just gripe to myself, very quietly. . . .)

My other comment is really a usage quibble. The term "organic" does not necessarily imply any connection with a living entity. In fact, one of chemistry's great moments was when Friedrich Woehler synthesized urea from nonliving constituents, demonstrating that "biological" matter needn't have an extra "vital force" to animate it. The common definition of "organic" now includes all compounds which contain carbon (except for some very simple molecules like carbon dioxide, meaning that organic molecules can be synthesized from inorganic ones). Organic matter can have entirely abiological origins, and it need not be arranged in such a fashion as to imitate the life process. A complex polymer—say, the raw ingredient of packing foam—is justifiably organic, on the merits of its elemental composition.

Most of SF's famous robots are metal in composition. Their brains are made of something like platinum-iridium alloy, and if there are any nonmetallic components, they're things like O-rings. However, take a character like R. Daneel Olivaw: he looks human, because his outer layers are made from polymers intended to fake human appearance. Daneel's body does not contain living cells, like Stephen Byerley or the Terminator, but a significant part of his anatomy is organic.

Consequently, "inorganic" is a poor word to describe artificial beings, when what we really mean is "non-biological".

—Anville 22:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually what struck me in this had been the expression human-mechanical. Doesn't mechanical particularly imply steel and gears and such? The boundary they explored was not that. I've changed the word to artificial. Conf 12:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the term bioroid used in this book? I think biorobotic and bioroid might be the term many of you are trying to define --BerserkerBen 17:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not but it seems like a good "see also" link. - Diceman 12:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed from Differences between the novel and film

Guys, I'm afraid it's of no use to debate what is more surreal, within the Wikipedia article. If there are some known persons having some opinion on that, they can be cited. Readers may get some idea from the factual list that is given. For my own part, I didn't experience the novel as being realistic.

I've also removed added information about movie title not coming from the book, because it's mentioned on the list, and a more in-depth explanation is in the movie article, where it belongs.

I've also removed the part of sentence which basically said that the novel re-editions had date changed to 2021 despite the differences between the novel and film, which are two facts not really connected.

I am wondering about occurences of the term "Tannhauser's Gate" in the novel, as this was a mention in the film and had begun to appear in other SF films -- it may become pertinent to articulate in this article if Tannhauser's Gate was a battle mentioned in the story.

Four-year Limit

The film Blade Runner depicts the four-year lifespan as a safety feature, deliberately included so that the android beings could not grow into fuller humanity.

Actually, in the movie, cell degradation is the reason the replicants can't live past four years; there's a debate between a replicant and the creator near the end of the movie on whether this limitation could be overcome. Safety feature? If that issue is mentioned, it's only one of the reasons for the four-year limit.

Well, isn't it rather that preventing androids from growing into fuller humanity is the reason for implementing a safety feature in the form of a time limit? Cell degradation is a technicality in this context. Conf 22:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

A dialogue excerpt from the film-

Bryant: They were designed to copy human beings in every way except their emotions. The designers reckoned that after a few years they might develop their own emotional responses. You know, hate, love, fear, envy. So they built in a fail-safe device.

Deckard: Which is what?

Bryant: Four year life span.

As you can see, cell degredation is not the reason for the four year lifespan in the film. It's merely the means which was implemented by the creators. Saftey was the actual reason behind the limited lifespan. Druff 20:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this dialogue from the film (all versions) refutes that supposition:

Tyrell: The facts of life. To make an alteration in the evolvment of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.

Roy: Why not?

Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then the ship sinks.

Roy: What about EMS recombination.

Tyrell: We've already tried it. Ethyl methane sulfonate as an alkylating agent a potent mutagen. It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.

Roy: Then a repressive protein that blocks the operating cells.

Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries the mutation and you've got a virus again. But, uh, this-- all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.

Roy: But not to last.

The last bits are more important than the technobabble, but here Roy and Tyrell are engaging in an intellectual exchange on why replicants live only four years. They were made as well as they could make them, and as you know Roy is way too intelligent to to be fooled by Tyrell, who has been fooled by him already by letting him in, in the first place. Rachel, as stated in the film, is a prototype (all versions), though in the first theatrical release that was made into meaning she doesn't suffer death after four years, later versions erased that. The only conclusion from this you can draw is that the four-year life-span, while touted as a safety-device (as a corporation would), is actually a flaw. A bug is a feature. --91.152.232.221 (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

section --AfroDwarf 01:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Style

Since accuracy is a goal, editors can cite your sources.

"External Links" -> "Further Reading", per MoS Further reading/external links. "Retrieved [date]", since on-line reference links can break (per Embedded links).

Just FYI, format used for books, citing from a periodical, and citing from Web sites and articles not from periodicals. --GoDot 05:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)