Talk:Philip K. Dick/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

This archive page covers comments added during the year 2008.

Christian writers category

I deleted the Category:Christian writers category from the Dick article. "Christian writers" is not intended for any writer who happens to be Christian, or any Christian who happens to be a writer; it is intended precisely for people who do "Christian writing" and/or who are identified as "Christian writers", such as C.S. Lewis. References: Please see WP:CATGRS on intersection categories, and note WP:CAT's requirement that categories be "defining" attributes. --Lquilter (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

When your read VALIS it is an acronym..but when it is written in lowercase "Valis" he is refering to "God" posted: 18:15, 26 March 2008 by User:68.106.170.124 (refactored by Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

After revisiting and reviewing the evidence, including Sutin's biography on this subject, I disagree with the removal of this category. I've since invited Lquilter and RepublicanJacobite back to this thread for discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My quick response: It appears that the discussion is about whether or not Dick wrote as a Christian. That's a perfectly fine discussion to have, but I have nothing to add to it. My recollection is that I removed this category and a number of others that came up in a CFD as examples of applying intersection categories inappropriately. In other words, my original note said that the category is not intended to capture the intersection of (christians) and (writers); but only (those writers who write as christians, e.g., christian material). Since it appears the discussion now is whether or not Dick fits into that latter category, I think y'all should just have at it. [I will say that if you apply a category it should be well supported in the article itself. If it's not, then it's not an appropriate category. If the material exists but is not yet written, then there should be a section with some sort of missing-information tag describing the content that needs to be added. Otherwise categories are vulnerable to deletion by well-meaning editors who don't see them represented in the article and have no way of verifying their appropriateness.] ... If you need an explanation on why (Christians)x(writers) is bad, I'm your girl; just ping me & I'm happy to talk more about that. Cheers, --Lquilter (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Expanding the article is the best approach. This reminds me of the problem with Jack Kerouac. There's nothing about his sexuality in the article, but several editors keep adding him to Category:Bisexual writers from the United States. Would you say that the solution is the same, and pending the addition of new content, should that category be removed or preserved? I think the addition of a "Religion" or "Religious beliefs" section would possibly work. Do you have any ideas on how to best represent the information in this article? One other thing. An editor keeps adding a discussion of Emmanuel Carrère's unconventional biography I Am Alive and You Are Dead: A Journey Into the Mind of Philip K. Dick to the "Fictional appearances" section and representing the review by highlighting only negative appraisals. I don't really think that section or this article is the place for it. If we are going to discuss biographies of Philip K. Dick, shouldn't that be done in the Bibliography of Philip K. Dick article, or at the very least, the bio of Emmanuel Carrère? I'm also worried that this section is lacking appropriate sources. Stretching this to include a biographical portrayal doesn't seem appropriate or supported. What do you think? Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

indent: yes i think it's similar with any category. Categories need to be supported by text of the article. --Lquilter (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I've started a new subsection, "Dick as a Gnostic Christian writer" as a preliminary step to adding material related to this subject. How do you, Lquilter, (sorry, I have to speak directly like this because EdFitz seems to think this discussion page is about him) normally approach discussing the religion of an author in the articles you work on, especially when it becomes more pronounced in his later works? I've seen a lot of parallels made between C. S. Lewis and Philip K. Dick, although Dick takes a very unconventional approach to religion. Have you had a chance to look at the Lewis article? It has two major sections on religion, one in the biography section and the other in career. I would like to work similar material into this article, and I was wondering if you, Lquilter, had some thoughts on that proposal. Viriditas (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I simply have no comment on Dick since I'm not substantively knowledgeable enough about him personally to say. CS Lewis is well-known as a Christian apologist, and I assume there must be significant material in the Lewis article supporting that. I've never heard of Dick apologetics or his beliefs or how they might have (definitively and by his own admission) influenced his article. So, umm, I just don't have much to add on the substance. Sorry! --Lquilter (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's ok; I was asking you what the think the best way is to go about discussing the religion of an author in relation to his personal life and his work. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources: Dick as a Gnostic Christian writer

• Aichele, George; Walsh, Richard G. (2002). Screening Scripture: Intertextual Connections Between Scripture and Film. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 1563383543.
• Alexandrakis, Aphrodite; Moutafakis, Nicholas J. (2001). Neoplatonism and Western Aesthetics. SUNY Press. ISBN 0791452794.
• Dery, Mark. (1994). Flame wars: the Discourse of Cyberculture. Duke University Press. ISBN 0822315408
• Desjardins, Michel. "Retrofitting Gnosticism: Philip K. Dick and Christian Origins". In Violence, Utopia, and the Kingdom of God: Fantasy and Ideology in the Bible, 122-132. Routledge, 1998. ISBN 0415156688
• DiTommaso, Lorenzo. (March 1999). "Redemption in Philip K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle". Science Fiction Studies. #77, Vol. 26, Part 1
• Hunt, Harry T. (2003. Lives in Spirit: Precursors and Dilemmas of a Secular Western Mysticism. SUNY Press. ISBN 0791458032.
• Martin, Sean. The Cathars: the most successful heresy of the Middle Ages. 163-164. Thunder's Mouth Press. ISBN:1560256745
• Mckee, Gabriel. (2004). Pink Beams of Light from the God in the Gutter: The Science-Fictional Religion of Philip K. Dick. University Press of America. ISBN 0761826734
  • Note: This source argues for and against the idea.
• Sutin, Lawrence. (2005). Divine Invasions: A Life of Philip K. Dick. Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0786716231.
  • Multiple references. p. 128, 239 are of note, as are dozens of pages on the subject of Christian, Episcopal, Gnostic, and religious themes found in his Exegesis and related works, and Chapter 10 in its entirety. Sutin's personal opinion on p. 233 that EdFitz refers to actually supports the syncretic nature of Gnostic Christianity. But as Sutin makes clear, it was the Episcopal Church that led PKD to Gnosticism, which he wrote about extensively in his journals and commentaries and drew upon for fresh material. It's easy to see then, that the science fiction originated with PKD's investigation into Gnosticism in the early sixties, coming to fruition on 2-3-74, the date of his own personal gnosis, resulting in the inspired Gnostic commentaries of the Exegesis, and leading to four new novels and other material. If this isn't a Christian writer, then what is?
• Versluis, Arthur. (2007). Magic and Mysticism: An Introduction to Western Esotericism. 153-154. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0742558363

Response from Ed Fitzgerald

Hi, it's me, the anonymous "an editor" you referred to. Since we've just danced a complex pas de deux of a discussion below, I'd've thought you'd at least remember my name! (LOL) I'll always remember your name, and I'll respect you in the morning, too!

Let me weigh in on your questions, if I may:

Carrere in the "fiction" section is indeed problematic. I restored it there because that's where it was before you deleted it, and I couldn't find another appropriate place to put it. The Bibliography is not the place, it's essentially a list. I would support the idea of creating a "Biography" section to include Sutin, Rickman and Carrere, with a pointer to the Bibliography.

As I said below, I think a "religious beliefs" section is a fine idea. Go to it.

As for the categorizing Dick as a Christian writer, that should be held off until some evidence has been providing to support it, of which, to this point, there's been none. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the "Biographical films" section to be "Biographical treatments" and have included a short (one sentence) mention of the Sutin book (if someone could expand it slightly, that would be great), and the graf on the Carrere book, which I've rewritten and added citations to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall referring directly to you at all, Ed. I referred to an "editor" so as not to awaken the little man who feels he must reply to every comment that is not directed towards him. I was clearly discussing this issue with Lquilter, not you. There is no need to interject yourself into every discussion. If I need your opinion, I will ask you for it. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. You'll excuse me if I have some difficulty accepting that explanation at face value. But that's neither here nor there, I'm not terribly interested in swapping snappy remarks with you, but in discussing the topic at hand, which I'll continue to do whenever it interests me, thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to control this discussion. The input of other editors was requested for a reason. Your bias and POV is very strong here, with your ownership issues. Take a step back and let others discuss the topic. I specifically invited two editors that are not named "Ed Fitzgerald" for a reason, and I was kind enough to give you your own thread which you changed. If I need your opinion, you will see the words "Ed Fitzgerald" used. When I use the words "Lquilter" and "RepublicanJacobite" that means you are not being asked for an opnion. You've made your opinion quite clear. There's no need for you to keep repeating it over and over again. Thanks for your attention. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you site pages or a section from Sutin? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can; I have the book in front of me. That's why I added the category in the first place (at least I think I did). But, I would like to hear from Lquilter and RepublicanJacobite about their criteria for inclusion before I offer my evidence. I don't think the guidelines that Lquilter quotes disqualifies the categorization. And, I would like to hear more from RepublicanJacobite other than a "metoo". But, I won't be adding the category back in without consensus. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just my opinion, but it seems to me that you're somewhat more likely to get a consensus if you don't annoy the other people in the conversation by withholding pertinent information you're in possession of that's been politely requested, in order to pop it out at some later more dramatic moment. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. There are dozens of additional sources (such as Carrere 2005) as well. I guess what I don't understand is why someone thought he doesn't belong in this category. Do you think it is too much to ask for clarification on the matter? If you find this simple request "annoying", then there's nothing I can do about that. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you not aware that Carrere is fictionalized "biography", that he plays fast and loose with facts for artistic purposes?

What I find annoying is not your request, what I find annoying is that you said you have evidence from Sutin to support the claim that Dick is a Christian writer, and when I asked you for the cites, you said, basically, "I have them but I'm not giving them to you." That's what I find annoying. However, let's plunge into it, and you can pull out your citations when it seems appropriate to you.

Let's start with Sutin, page 233:

And here we come to the heart of Phil's 2-3-74 experiences. Certitude he had none. Oh yes, one can find numerous passages -- in interviews, the novels, and the Exegesis -- in which Phiul advances a theory with the sound of certitude. But always (and usually quite soon thereafter) he reconsidered and recanted.

Indeterminancy is the central characteristic of 2-3-74.

And how fitting that is. Mystical experiences are almost always in keeping with the tradition of the mystic. ... Phil adhered to no single faith. The one tradition indubitably his was SF -- which exalts "What IF?" above all.

That's the hallmark of Dick's theological and metaphysical explorations. If you read the Exegesis you can see him trying out one explanation, accepting it, then immediately tearing it down and trying another -- and the same thing happened in his writing. One day he may be declaring himself a Christian (but at the same time espousing views that most Christians consider heretical), and at the next moment he was something else entirely.

Take these two passages from Rickman's Philip K. Dick: In His Own Words:

[Palmer Eldritch] was written in connection to my becoming an adult convert to the Episcopal Church, and my becoming involved in Christianity, and my sense of the reality of the diabolical, which is a carry-over from my prior interest in Zoroaster. For me Evil was as real a force as Good. There was God and there was the Anti-God. It was really a study of Deity as Evil and Good as Human. The good side is human and the evil side was deity. It's like a man being confronted with a murderous God. It's essentially a diabolical novel.

Somebody called it a Satanic bible once. And in a way that's true. Because the Eucarist is not parodied, it's metamorphisized into a diabolical Eucharist/ But I was developing a fairly profound idea of the Eucharist at that point. I had never been in a sarrodotal church before, and was beginning to get a really profound idea of what the Eucharist was all about. But I had a sense of the evil of the world, a kind of Manichean sense, and so I tended to view these things as diabolical. (9-30-81)

You can see here Dick, saying he was writing this stuff as a Christian, but in fact ignoring every convention about what Christianity means, because he wasn't interested in it as absolute truth, as a believer, he was interested in it as another piece in the tremendously complex puzzle about reality he was constructing for himself, and which is reflected in his writing. He never stayed in one metaphysical place long. Just five months before, he had said to the same interviewer:

I've switched from Christianity to Judaism. Christianity is renounced and denounced in [Divine Invasion]. God is specifically Yahweh, as in the Old Testament. However - I soon wearied of the solemnity of Yahweh and began to put in funny stuff. (4-22-81)

So sure, trot out your "evidence". For every example of Dick as a "Christian writer", I'll bring out 5 others that show he's Gnostic, Manichean, Zoarastrean, Jewish, Jungian, whatever he happened to be into at the moment. It will prove nothing, and never can, because Dick is not a Christian writer. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said nothing of the kind. I've made a request of two editor who removed a category. And I recently reviewed the article and removed an unsourced opinion. I'm not sure how you think I can have a discussion with someone who says "It will prove nothing, and never can, because Dick is not a Christian writer." Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that p. 233 has nothing to do with PKD as a Christian writer, but is a personal opinion stated by Sutin about PKD circa 1974. Later Sutin quotes Doris Sauter regarding Phil's Christianity on p. 239 and references to Phil's Christian themes in various chapters. The very existence of Exegesis (book) seems to necessitate categorical inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. Even a cursory examination of the Exegesis destroys any argument for pigeon-holing Dick as belonging to any particular religious belief. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you get a book on world religions. Phil's interest in "Gnostic, Manichean, Zoarastrean, Jewish, Jungian", Buddhist, and Confucian ideas were in no way contradictory to his Chrstian beliefs but complement them. The Gnosticism PKD was interested in was a Christian form, and any cursory study of Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, and Judaism, shows a thread running through all of them and Christianity. That's not even debatable. Jungian beliefs aren't a religion, and Buddhism and Confucianism are entirely compatible with Christianity, not opposed to it. I'm afraid I don't follow your argument at all. Are you aware that one can be a practicing Buddhist and a Christian at the same time? Also, Christianity relies very heavily on Jewish beliefs, and Judaism in turn, draws from Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism. There is nothing in opposition to Christianity in any of these belief systems, and most interestingly, they actually support and bolster it. I'm uncertain why you think these beliefs contradict or oppose one another. Viriditas (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's the tack you're taking, good luck to you trying to sell it. I ain't buyin' Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed, your confrontational manner appears to show some kind of vested interest in the outcome of this discussion. For what it's worth, my only concern is getting the category right. I've shown that your argument doesn't hold water. None of the things you've stated conflict with PKD's Christian beliefs. You came to this discussion with a closed mind, yelling, "It will prove nothing, and never can, because Dick is not a Christian writer". How can I possibly discuss a topic with someone who already has their mind closed on the subject? It doesn't really matter, as our job is to represent significant POV. And a case can be made for Christian themes and commentary running through the oeuvre of PKD. You've said that because of Sutin's opinion commenting on PKD's pre-1974 experience, that PKD cannot be considered a Christian writer. But turning the pages shows otherwise. Sutin calls Valis and Palmer Eldritch Phil's greatest works, a "breviary of the spiritual life in America, where the path to God lies through scattered pop-trash clues." It's clear throughout this period, that Phil's work was concerned primarily with Christian themes, both in his journals and in his fiction. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh bushwah, you've "shown" nothing of the sort. You've made an argument, saying, basically, that Dick is a Christian writer despite the muliplicity of his religious, theological and metaphysical explorations, but you've presented not a scintilla of evidence to support it. Saying it don't make it so. And my only "vested interest" is in seeing that Dick isn't improperly categorized. Truth be told, if you had simply answered my polite question to you earlier, instead of archly refusing, my attitude would have been completely different. But you did, so this is what you got. You set the tone, my friend. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made no argument; I've only responded to your empty huffing and puffing. Your attitude is not my concern, and the tone you perceive is your own. I've made a request of two editors who supported removing the category. You answered my request but did not actually address the evidence in favor of his inclusion in the category. Basically, all you did was distract away from my question with your personal opinion, claiming that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. And your argument about conflicting religious beliefs is at odds with basic facts. A discussion is not possible with someone who believes his position is the only correct one. You didn't even quote the passages in Sutin's book (and other sources) in favor of his categorization. Honesty demands examining a problem from both POV's, but as you see below, you don't understand WP:UNDUE. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(out)"Huffing and puffing". Right. Here, let me huff and puff some more, with my fourth or fifth I(or is it sixth?) piece of specific evidence. This is from Douglas Mackey in Philip K. Dick (Twayne, 1988), p.114

Dick's sources for his philosophical speculation included gnosticism, kabbalah, Orphism, Neoplatonism, Buddhism, the Bible from the standpoint of esoteric Christianity, and the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

I'm not going to argue that Dick wasn't influenced by Christianity, that he was fascinated by certain aspects of it, especially those today considered heretical, or that Christian themes can't be found in his work - but none of that makes him a Christian writer. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't even conclude that without examining the evidence, which is why I previously stated that any discussion with you is fruitless. Your mind is already made up. The category in question comprises articles pertaining to those who write or wrote commentary on Christian themes. This category also includes Christians who were involved in the authorship of books, videos, articles, journals, and audio recordings. Christian fiction writers are listed separately under Christian novelists. Did PKD write commentary on Christian themes? Yes or no? Viriditas (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well of course my mind is already made up, as is yours, quite clearly. Did you think I come like a chick newly hatched from the egg to have my blank slate of a mind inculcated by your wisdom?

No, we are both making arguments, that's the entire point. Unfortunately, my arguments are backed up by evidence, and yours have been, for the most part, merely asserted. The same with the Carerre stuff below. You assert it's a legitimate biography, I assert that it's not a trust worthy source. Your assertion is unsupported in any respect (none of the three "positive" reviews you pointed to supported the contention that it's accurate, and one, which I quoted from says decidedly the opposite), while mine is supported by numerous citations - and if you want more, I'll happily provide them, because they are legion.

So, the concern here is not whether you will change my mind or I will change yours, but what will "consensus" be - will people be moved by your naked assertions or by evidence. We shall see. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If my mind was made up, I would have forced the category into the article, much the same way you are forcing a negative book review into this article in violation of WP:UNDUE. You have not made a single argument backed up by any evidence. This entire discussion consists of you distracting away from the topic. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what you are reading. "Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Orphism, Neoplatonism, Buddhism, the Bible from the standpoint of esoteric Christianity, and the Tibetan Book of the Dead" are all a significant part of Gnostic Christianity. Do you understand that simple fact or do you need more information? Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand quite clearly that this is about the third time you've attempted to insult me – thanks, I already own several books on world religions, and, yes, I do know that those things mean, so I don't require you to explain.

I'll tell you what I'd like from you, if you're up to it, I'd like some citations, please. You mentioned above that there are "dozens" of other sources, plus all those citations from Sutin you were going to provide. I think I've shown quite clearly that Carrere is not a reliable source for factual information (as opposed to impressionaistic explorations of what went on in Dick's mind), so I won't accept any cites from there, but with dozens of other sources, plus Sutin, you've certainly should be easily able to provide some evidence that Dick is a Christian writer. I imagine that people reading this conversation would be interested in seeing that evidence as well. Now seems as good as time as any - not to convince me, but to convince them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you what - it's been loads of fun, but I have some other stuff to do now, so I'll head off to do them. I won't distract you with any more facts or citations, and you can have some time to post some citations which show that Dick is a Christian writer. (Could we please have some semblence of quoted text from your sources? A title of an essay doesn't really prove things one way or the other.) I'll check back in tomorrow, and see what you've come up with from all those dozens of other sources you had lined up and ready to go -- oh, and the quotes from Sutin as well that were going to support your argument.

See you later. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You've established and communicated your POV - a POV that has explicitly stated that no evidence will convince you. I'm waiting for others now. Thanks again for sharing. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Um, this is a title. How about some excerpts? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I've told you several times now, I'm not addressing specific evidence just yet. I've asked for people to join this discussion, first. People who are actually interested in discussing the topic, not forcing their view on others. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see, so you have lots of evidence, dozens of sources, but you won't share them with me because my opinion is different from yours, so you're waiting for other people to show up and you'll present the evidence to them and not to me. But you haven't made your mind up, it's still open, right? Dick may be a Christian writer, or he may not be? You're just waiting to make up your mind about that, and what I've provided here hasn't helped any, so you want somebody else to help you decide --is that the stance you're trying to put across here?

As I said, that's a hard sell, fella.

'Night. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and letting me know where you stand. I'm waiting for others to discuss the topic now. Thanks again. Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(out) I'm a little disappointed that you didn't take up my suggestion and provide some excerpts from these sources to back up your contention that Dick is a Christian writer. After all, a list of references doesn't really say anything one way or the other, since the content could (potentially) contradict the apparent thrust of the titles. Providing excerpts, particularly summary statements, would help clarify this and provide some needed grist for the conversational mill. This is perhaps especially the case when the relevance of the reference is not immediately apparent from the title: "The Cathars: the most successful heresy of the Middle Ages", "Screening Scripture: Intertextual Connections Between Scripture and Film." (bearing in mind that Dick wrote short stories and novels and not, with the exception of the un-filmed "Ubik", screenplays). Since I do not have access to these references, I cannot check them out, but since, presumably, you do, it would be great if you could provide some stuff from them to support the contention that Dick is a Christian writer.

There's actually one exception to the above: I do own a copy of Mark Dery's Flame wars: the Discourse of Cyberculture, which is buried somewhere in my library. However, it's been over ten years since I read it, so I don't recall what part of it is relevant to the question of whether Dick is a Christian writer. I'll be happy to dig it out, if you would please provide the pages in it that you feel are relevant to that question.

I'm glad to see that, after some hesitation, you've provided more specifics about what parts of Sutin support your contention that Dick is a Christian writer. I'll get to your specific citations momentarily, but in general I'd like to comment that what we're looking for is not indications that Dick was, at some points in his life, a Christian, or that he was as fascinated by Christianity and the Christian mythos as he was about many other aspects of religion, theology and metapysics. All that really goes without saying. The real question here is not whether Dick was Christian (at times) or relgiously pre-occipied, but whether the Christian elements in his writing (which certainly do exist) are of such a nature as to be dominant enough to justify his being categorized as a Christian writer. (I would say that they co-exist with so many other non-Christian elements, that the categorization does a disservice to Dick's unique and ever-changing personal synthesis.)

So, as for specifics:

p.128 - is a discussion of the Gnostic elements in Palmer Eldritch, which are undeniable. However, see the excerpt from Dick's conversation with Greg Rickman I quoted above.

p.239 - concerns the evaluation of a friend of PKD that he was, at root, a Christian in outlook. Certainly this is relevant to the question of whether Dick was, at that time in his life (near the end of it) a Christian - and note that she does not claim that he was, merely that he was "at root" one, had a "Christian outlook" and so on. She says "If you had asked him what he believed, his answer would have depended on what kind of theoretical fever he was running at the time." Exactly right, and this is reflected in his writing. She goes on "In a sense, religion became Phil's business when he started to write theological novels in the seventies. Not that he wsn't religious. But it also had this quality of being useful - as material for the next book." This strikes me as a case of a deeply religious Christian person trying to be as honest as possible while still making a case for Dick being a Christian. She can't lie, she sees his exploitation of religion for what it is, but she fervently wants him to be a Christian, and does the best she can with the data she has. In any case, while certainly interesting, it's more about his personal beliefs and not about whether his writing is of a nature to support the contention that Dick is a "Christian writer."

Chapter 10 - which is about Dick's "pink light" experience and his search for the meaning of it. As I've already mentioned above, and as the existence of the "Exegesis" shows, Dick search for the meaning of 2-3-74 took him many, many places, not the least of which was various aspects of Christianity, but it seems to me that it's quite difficult to cite that search as any kind of evidence that he was a Christian writer.

Finally, a brief thought about the "Exegesis" and whether it should be considered as part of Dick's writing or not. I don't have a firm position on this, because I think you can argue it either way, but the fact is that Dick never intended the Exegesis to be published, and it is much more in the nature of a diary, albeit a fascinating one written by a man with a fascinating and troubled mind. It is not part of Dick's public dialogue with the world, but part of his private dialogue with himself. Thus while it can shed light on his beliefs (or lack of firm one), it really doesn't qualify in and of itself as evidence of Dick being a "Christian writer", because it wasn't really intended to be part of his "writing".

As I said, you can argue that either way - not that it makes any particular difference, since what I think any reasonably reading of it underlines is the mercurial nature of Dick's beliefs. It certainly doesn't provide any strong evidence that Dick is a "Christian writer." Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was going to leave it at that, but I just recalled that I wanted to correct the misimpression created by your comments above that my citation from page 233 from Sutin was about a particular period in Dick's life. In point of fact, that it not true, Sutin was making a comment about Dick in general and not about a specific time period. That's clear from the quote itself (see above), but a look at the context on the originating page will indicate that as well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please learn how to use talk pages. There are not used to post long screeds about your personal opinions. We use talk pages to discuss how to improve an article. You are clearly emotionally invested in the outcome of this discussion. Take a step back. Our job is to best represent the sources and views. The article needs to be expanded to discuss PKD's religious beliefs. Yes, it's really that simple. Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We're certainly discussing the article. The question is whether or not the category "Chrisian writer" should be added to the article, which is, indeed, the question I keep referring to, as is obvious from the abopve. As for expanding the article to deal with Dick's religious beliefs, I would welcome an even-handed treatment of that subject. Why not give it a try? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, do you think it might be possible for you to check your condescending attitude at the front door? It's really rather difficult to carry on an adult conversation when one party is constantly asking the other if he really understands X policy, or needs some books, or actually understands the terms of the discussion. I think I've dealt with you as a peer and an intellectual equal, perhaps you might be persuaded to do the same? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed, the "condescending attitude" began here and can be traced directly to you. If I need your personal opinion, I'll ask for it. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perception, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. Concerning the discussion here - you don't have to bother to ask for my opinions - as long as there's a discussion here, I'll be weighing in on them with or without your permission. Mahalo. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion wasn't requested nor needed. If I need it, I'll ask for it. I specifically asked for the opinion of two editors who do not have the name "Ed Fitzgerald". Now please, let other people discuss this topic without your constant incivility, bad faith, and misbehaviour. Enough already. And for goddess' sake, learn how to use a talk page. How many years have you been here? This is not the place for your personal essays. We're here to improve the article and represent significant POV's. That's it. Please notice, it did not take me 1000 words to explain this to you. Do not continue to leave long screeds and rants here. This isn't EdTV, no matter how hard you are trying to make it so. Go take a commercial break and fluff something. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(out)Please, Viriditas, calm down. You need to get a grip. I really don't want to provoke you, so I'll back out of this particular part of the conversation until something substantive comes up, but, look (1) You don't get to say when people participate in this conversation. It's not your talk page, it's an open conversation in which anyone, including myself, can partipate, as long as they have something to say that's relevant. And as long as they're saying something relevant, the length and content and style of they say it is their choice, not yours. (2) Don't you think it's slightly ironic that you're accusing me of trying to control the conversation, when you've told me several times "If I want your opinion I'll ask for it"?

OK, that's it - but do, please, watch yourself, it appears as if you're going off the deep end. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed, earlier you said, "...sure, trot out your "evidence"..It will prove nothing, and never can, because Dick is not a Christian writer." That does not sound like someone willing to discuss an issue in an open and honest manner. You've made your opinion known. So, why are you continuing to repeat it? Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The category in question comprises articles pertaining to those who write or wrote commentary on Christian themes. This category also includes Christians who were involved in the authorship of books, videos, articles, journals, and audio recordings. Christian fiction writers are listed separately under Christian novelists. Did PKD write commentary on Christian themes?

I'd like to weigh in here, and have dug my copy of The Divine Invasion to find my favourite quote to try and make this simple. The book was sitting between Doris Lessing's Shikasta cylcle and C.S.Lewis' Voyage to Venus and Screwtape books. Regardless of what was going through Dick's head, regardless of what religious institution or philosophy he identified with, and regardless of what others might assume about these things (it appears as though arguments for his status as a "Christian Writer" could be supported both ways), Dick wrote about Christian themes. His status as a heretic is even irrelevant, as to write "Commentary on Christian Themes", one needn't be orthodox or adhere to the Nicean Creed in any manner whatsoever. He wrote COMMENTARY about such classicly Christian themes such as rebirth, redemption and salvation, the fall, creation, a personal relationship with the Divine and Divine Knowledge, the afterlife, and the Christian notion of "Judgement Day", which leads me to my passage. Here's my quote, from page 219/220 from my Vintage Books July 1991 edition. It's stated by "Elias", an Old Testament prophet (Elijah) we're all familiar with:

"This is the sign. You are right. Something has happened, something he - they - did not expect. Herb, there has been another fall. And I slept. Thank God you woke me. Probably it is not in time. The accident - they allowed an accident to occur, as in the beginning. Well, thus the cylces fulfill themselves and the prophecies are complete. My own time to act has now come. Because of you I have now emerged from my own forgetfulness. Our store must become a center of holiness, the temple of the world. We must patch into that FM station whose sound you hear; we must use it as it has in its own time made use of you. It will be our voice."

"What will it say?"

Elias [Elijah] said "It will say, sleepers awake. This is our message to the listening world. Wake up! Yahweh is here and the battle has begun, and all your lives are in the balance; all of you now are weighed, this way or that, for better, for worse. No one escapes, even God himself, in all his manifestations. Beyond this there is no more. So rise up from the dust, you creatures, and begin; begin to live. You will live only insofar as you will fight; what you will have, if anything, you must earn, each for himself, and each now, not later. Come! This will be the tune that we will play over and over. And the world will hear, for we shall reach it all, first a little part, then the rest. For this my voice was fashioned at the beginning; for this I have come back to the world again and again. My voice will sound now, for a final time. Let us go, let us begin. And hope that it is not to late, that I did not sleep too long. We must be the world's information source, speaking in all the tongues. We will be the tower that originally failed. And if we fail now, then it ends here, and sleep returns. The insipid noise that assails your ears will follow a whole world to its grave, and rust will rule and dust will rule - not for a little time but for all time and all men, even their machines, for all that lies ahead."

I don't think that anybody could argue that that passage lacks distintively Christian themes, and that he's put his own spin on many of the concepts, thus providing some commentary on them, and their modern interpretations and relevancies. I welcome comments, but hope that it doesn't get as heated as above. i also agree with writing in some of the many points made above about PKD's predilection for spirituality, of whatever kind, even if his stance and commentary and subject matter changed. Just taking the Valis cycle as an example qualifies him for this category, based on many tracts like the above. Regards Shamanchill (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added the Christian Writers category here, pending further comments, as per the above. I'll try to help add to the article in re:Spiritual Topics of PKD, but hope that a reference to the definition, and a perusal of Dick's actual work pre-empts any silly arguments about this. References to why he might NOT be included can be added to that section, and I'm open to arguments against the addition I've made, but hope to come to a consensus on this matter quickly. Shamanchill (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've got the procedure backwards. The category shouldn't be added unless there is support for it in the article, so you need to add whatever you're going to add to the article, and then add the category. Making the argument for it here is not sufficient. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Carrere

I appreciate you going out of your way to find a negative review of Carrère's "biography", but do I really need to remind you, a long-term editor, of WP:UNDUE? Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked hard and long to find a review in an extremely obscure journal to express the generally held opinion that Carrere's book is more novel than it is biography. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's Sean O'Hagen in The Observer

Emmanuel Carrère has written what he calls 'a very peculiar book, a kind of imaginative biography which purports to depict the life of Philip K Dick from the inside'. Sometimes, it appears almost novelistic ...More ominously, there is nothing here in the way of an index or footnotes, none of the usual evidence of deep research that gives a biography the solid stamp of authority. And though Dick was the subject of several marathon interview sessions, most notably by Rolling Stone magazine journalist Paul Williams, and, towards the end of his life, by science fiction critic Charles Platt, we seldom hear his voice or see his words appear directly on the page. What a clever Dick

Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you've found two negative review of the book. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it, but merely observing that WP:UNDUE has not been followed. I'm sure you are familiar with it, right? Looking very briefly, I note many reviews of the book, some positive, some negative. Is this article the place to highlight a negative review of a book related to PKD, or do you think Carrère's own article would be a better place? I'm asking you, Ed, because you don't seem to see the problem. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether the review were "negative" or "positive" is irrelevant. In fact, the Observer review I just quoted was a positive review: "Carrère's labour of love is as good a place as any to start trying to understand the enigma of Philip K Dick, one of the few postwar novelists who deserves the title 'visionary'." What reviewers all over the place (and ordinary people, too) noticed was that the book was not trustworthy in regard to its representation of facts. It's "novelistic", it's an "interpretation", a "recreation" of the mind of Dick -- all these phrases and many other equivalents can be found in just about every review. The Times review isn't an aberration, it's representative of the general critical response.

All of which means, and what this forked off from, is that it's not reasonable to cite is as evidence or proof that Dick was a Christian writer. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Positive reviews in SFGate, French Book News, New York Observer, and many more. Please consider WP:UNDUE. We are not here to represent our personal opinions but to adhere to NPOV. This article is probably not the best place for you to highlight your preferred review of the book. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not my preferred review - I read it once when it came out and haven't have occasion to refer to it since.

Except from your first "positive" review:

Carrere, author of "The Adversary," takes a novelistic approach to Dick's life, ... Did Dick really think and feel the thoughts and emotions ascribed to him by Carrere? Without sources, we'll never know, but based on what is revealed in Dick's very autobiographical novels, "I Am Alive and You Are Dead" seems right.

Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't really do "preferred" reviews. For some reason, you have chosen to discuss a review of Carrere's book in this article. I don't know why, but you have chosen to ignore WP:UNDUE and only describe the book in a negative fashion. First, I doubt this is the right article for a discussion of Carrere's book. Either Carrere's bio or the bibliography article would suffice. Second, every effort should be made to represent significant POV's, such as positive and negative reviews. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you are absolutely itching to delete the mention of the Carrere book - you've only waved the flag of "UNDUE" about 35 times now (perhaps I miscounted). I wouldn't do it, because the Times review accurately represents the broad range of critical opinion about the book, which can be shown quite conclusively. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't speculate on the beliefs of other editors. Stick to the discussion. Do you understand the policy of WP:NPOV? Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for inquiring. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. Then I look forward to seeing you characterize opinions of people's work in line with NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Note:The conversation above was refactored numerous times as it was occuring. For a reconstruction of the actual flow of the commentary, please see User:Ed Fitzgerald/talkpkd reconstruction. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Lead

A great deal of the lead is interpretation. I think the interpretations are pretty safe and minimal but they are interpretations of his work nonetheless. If a dispute develops over what interpretations belong in the lead, the approach will need to change to one of citing themes identified by prominent critics, rather than the encylcopedia flatly stating which themes are the major ones. I think metaphysics is a theme in all stages of his writing, not just the later work, so I added that information. Ed Fitzgerald reverted this with the explanation "leded." Please discuss concerns here.

Incidentally, Igorberger is following me around from article to article and starting fights with me. It looks like he going to bring that battle here. Life.temp (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the edit not on the editor.Igor Berger (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes an editor's behavior is impossible to ignore--such as when he follows you around from article to article trying to interfere with everything you do. Other editors here should know you showed up here only because you compulsively check my contribs and try to oppose me.

Life.temp (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what Igor did or didn't do, I've already reverted your edit once already, because you're adding "metaphysical into the lede when it's already there, dealing with his later work. You can't simply make a change in one part of the paragraph without looking at how it affects the rest of the graf. I agree that a case can be made that metaphysical themes were present throughout Dick's career, but there's also no doubt that in his later writing (after 2-3-74) the emphasis on metaphysics became more palpable. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC) updated 00:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead currently suggests that Dick's early writing didn't have metaphysical themes, which isn't true. I'd say metaphysical and existential themes are more prominent in his early work than political themes. What do you suggest? Life.temp (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten it a bit, see what you think. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Thanks. Life.temp (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Was PKD the first "science fiction" writer in LOA?

An editor is trying to replace the statement that Dick is the first science fiction writer to be covered by the Library of America with one that says he is the "second", since H.P. Lovecraft was covered before Dick. However, the majority of Lovecraft's writing was horror and fantasy, not science fiction. I have no doubt that he wrote some science fiction, but that doesn't make him a "science fiction writer" any more than Doris Lessing's "Canopus in Argos" series makes her a science fiction writer. Dick wrote mainstream novels, but we wouldn't characterize him as a "mainstream writer." In terms of generalizations, which is what we're dealing with in that statement, Dick wrote science fiction, and Lovecraft wrote fantasy and horror, and that makes PKD the first science fiction writer in the LOA. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Dick is, above all, in the tradition of science fiction. Lovecraft is not. - Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it cited? We don't decide issues of who is and who isn't a science fiction writer at Wikipedia; we leave that up to reliable sources. I don't think we can make the claim one way or the other without a reliable source to attribute it to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored, with cites from the LOA site that refer to Dick as "science fiction" and Lovecraft as "wierd fiction", plus an article from USA Today which referes to Dick as "science fiction" and Lovecraft as "horror". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link in the Toronto Star that explicitly identifies Dick as as the first in the science fiction genre, "It is the first time science fiction has entered the LOA canon, which already includes the horror stories of H.P. Lovecraft, who died in 1937." --MPerel 21:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added that as a reference. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, I'm glad it was helpful : ) --MPerel 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop refactoring the discussion

Viriditas: I did not object to your first refactoring, in which you added some labels to certain parts of the discussion, I merely altered those labels to more correctly reflect the contents, and then placed a marker to indicate where the section of the discussion had originally been, but now you've moved things around several times, and it gets to be impossible to follow the flow of conversation - so I've restored what was there before your last refactoring, and added you most recent comment where it should have appeared.

Refactoring discussions to reflect your point of view is a no-no, you've been around long enough to know that. If you do it again, I'm afraid I'll have to seek administrative assistance. I really don't want to continue this argument with you, I consider it done until there's something substantive to talk about, so I do hope you'll see clear to simply adding your comments where they're supposed to go and leaving the rest of the conversation alone. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please seek out administrative attention immediately. Section headings were originally added to separate your rantings and ravings from actual discussion. I will continue to remove your addition of "pointers" that have zero bearing on the text in question, and only serve to distract from actual discussion. You have made it clear that you have no interest in discussing this topic, so your continued interference appears to be trolling. For the second time, you do not own this article, nor this talk page, nor do you have any control over these discussions. (removed personal comment about other editor --Enric Naval (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)) Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

What are the guidelines for adding somethng to the "Selected List of Works?" I'm rather fond of The World Jones Made. Also, I think the awards section should be restructured. At first glance, it looks like he won all those awards for which he was only nominated. Life.temp (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point re: awards - I've reformatted the list to make it clearer. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a specific set of criteria about the selected list - it's been through the rough and tumble of additions and deletions to arrive at a rough consensus of what his major works are - after all, there's a full bibliography elsewhere, so only the "best" or most significant of his books should be described here. I'm not sure that I would agrre that "Jones" qualifies as a major work -- it certainly hasn't received the critical attention that other novels have. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The World Jones Made is of note in Dick's development. It is very early--1956--and I think it's the earliest example of in-depth, slightly manic-depressive existentialism that Dick later developed. It's also a good read. In short, I agree with the review from John Toon, Infinity Plus, 2004 on this page: [1] Life.temp (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read it, so I'm not in any position to argue its merits. You can add it in, but I'd be prepared for people to object to its inclusion - which would mean you might want to find some cites that back up the contention that it's among Dick's best or most significant works. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's been at least 10 years since I read it, so maybe I won't. Few of the books in the list are backed with cites indicating quality. It mostly looks like a list of famous and/or editor favorites. Just a thought. Life.temp (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly true. Like most articles on Wikipedia, it's under-referenced. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As this was also mentioned in the peer review, why not use his novels released in the SF Masterworks series? They automoticaly have been judged as his best or most significant by the editors (others of his books were released concurrently outside this series by the same publishers, showing they are selected). Along with his complete short stories, this would give a great starting pooint for new PKD readers. Can also mention he has the most books in the series (with cite!), hence showing it is a RS selected list and re/affirminghis standing with critics. I~ll do it myself if no/one objects.Yobmod (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, all the books currently discussed are in the Masterworks series, so just needs an intro sentence for that section. Oh, and Man in the High Castle was in the hardcover series, so can be cited as being his "best". (Others were missing, mazbe could all be mentioned in one sentence> Martian Timeslip, The Simulacra, Penultimate truth...).Yobmod (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Religious affiliation and influence on works

I haven't completely followed all of the earlier discussion above on this, but I agree some sort of section is warranted discussing PKD's religious views and their influence on his writings. Adherents.com quotes PKD as saying "I am an Episcopalian". It also states, "The rest of this introduction (pages 10-23), as well many of his other writings, make clear Philip K. Dick's Christian affiliation and background, although his religiosity is highly idiosyncratic." And here from Depauw University Science Fiction Studies: "Philip Dick was indeed, as Jay Kinney says in his introduction to In Pursuit of Valis, a modern gnostic and an original theologian." He certainly has an interesting background and outlook, and a google search with his name and "gnostic" turns up whole websites devoted to discussion about it. --MPerel 22:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the article is missing a section on Dick's explorations of religiosity and theology and how they influenced his work, although I think it should be broader than merely dealing with the question of whether he was an Episcopalian or a Christian -- after all, Dick's investigations took him into some wierd and wonderful places. That should certainly be dealt with in any section about Dick & religion. Why not give a try and start one, that's usually the best way to get others to contribute. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree (about the broader aspect). I'll go ahead and give it a whirl in a few days if no one else starts it. I'm about to go offline in a bit for a few days so it won't be right away but I'll be back... --MPerel 22:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This needs some fixing:

At one point Dick felt that he had been taken over by the spirit of the prophet Elijah. He discovered that an episode in his novel Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said was a detailed retelling of a story from the Biblical Book of Acts, which he had never read.[12]

The one source only documents somebody else saying Dick felt possessed by Elijah. The paragraph also doesn't clearly connect itself to anything about mental health. Life.temp (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review reminder

Just in case anyone missed it: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Philip_K._Dick/archive1 Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

excellent

an excellent articl imho Johncmullen1960 (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Addition to films "Time Out of Joint = "The Truman Show"

Would appreciate it if someone could summarise the issue of Dick's book "Time Out Of Joint" and the movie starring Jim Carrey "The Truman Show". Dick was uncredited, however, from what I have heard, the Truman Show was almost certainly plagiarised from Time out of Joint. I haven't read Time out of Joint, yet, so I can't be sure. But, on the surface it looks almost certainly a case of rampant plagiarism. Can someone who has read the book and seen the film and surveyed the general consensus please summarise the situation. I believe Dick deserves to have the Truman Show listed as an adaptation of his work. Ta. IbleSnover (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Easter - in September?

Does anybody think the hidden links in years add anything to the article? They were recently added; per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context and WP:MOSDATE I removed them but they have been replaced. It's hard for me to see what additional utility to our readers a (hidden) link to a [[Year in ... ]] article will add to their understanding of the subject of this article. What do others think? --John (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The utility they provide is the obvious one, the same that every other wikilink provides. The reader comes across "science fiction" and wonders what exactly that is, clicks on the link and is taken to an article about science fiction. Similarly, a reader comes across the date of publication of one of Dick's books, or the release date of a film based on his writing, and is interested in a little context about it, He or she clicks on the wikilinked date, and it taken to an article on "The year XXXX in film" or "The year in literature". These articles provide additional context, and answer the question about what else was going on in that field at the time that book or that movie came out.

You'll note that not every date is linked, only significant ones: Dick's birth and death, publication and release dates, etc. This may not seem selective, because an article like this is bound to have a lot of those dates in it, but, in fact, it is a very selective choice of what dates should be linked, and what they should be linked to. I don't believe you're going to find any links here simply to the general article on any year. If you can questions about the choice of specific dates that are linked, I'll be glad to discuss that with you, but I don't believe there's any doubt that linking to "year in film" or "year in literature" articles is proper and helpful to the reader. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, these links are not "Easter eggs" nor are they "hidden" in any functional way, they're straightforward links, obvious to anyone who looks at the page, indicated in exactly the same way every other wikilink is indicated. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The links to year articles are not needed (who is anxious to discover the literary events on his birth date for example?) But the piped "year in lit" or "year in film" links are useful after his works, they put them into context, eg. Showing how far blade runner was ahead of it's time.Yobmod (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The birth and death of major figures in any field of endeavor are usually considered to be significant events, and the years those events occured in are notable. A "year in literature" article doesn't (or shouldn't) contain only publications in that year, the birth of those who will become significant in the world of literature and the deaths of those who have been should certainly be noted as well. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 08:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So how exactly is 1928 in literature important to the PKD article? Why would readers be interested in what happenend in literature in that year merely because PKD happened to be born then? His birth wasn't an important literary event - it wasn't a literary event of any sort. The link adds absolutely nothing to the reader's understanding of this article. Auden goes to Berlin in the same year PKD was born, how is that relevant? Yobmod (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The links are hidden, or Easter eggs, because they do not make it clear where they link to. They are not obvious to anyone who looks at the page unless they mouse over the links. Links like this [[1928 in literature|1928]] are I think always a bad idea. Several projects have guidelines against them. As they are neither transparent nor relevant they fail Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. I agree with Yobmod that they add nothing to this article. I am still waiting for you, Ed Fitzgerald, to clearly explain their utility to the readers of this article. --John (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've explained to you, John, quite clearly what their utility is, and I would also point out that your summation of Yobmod's opinion is incorrect. Yobmod expressed the opinion that the links were useful except for Dick's date of birth and death. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You've stated an opinion that they are useful, one which policy does not support and I disagree with. I suggest taking it up in project talk to see if you can build a consensus there that this type of link is useful. As for mis-stating Yobmod's point, I apologize, you are quite right on that one. --John (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please point me to where, specificially, in the guideline (not "policy") such links are proscribed. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

With pleasure. Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context: "Only make links that are relevant to the context. It is counterproductive to hyperlink all possible words. This practice is known as "overlinking".[1] A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following. (Example: Lucy went to the store.) Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is analogous to a cross-reference in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see:)"." --John (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree about overlinking. I frequently unlink words like "film" and "calendar" - I sometimes think that people believe that readers of Wikipedia have no common understanding of English at all! So, I'm with you on overlinking -- I'm agin' it. But this isn't overlinking. As I said, not only are the links contextual, but they serve to provide context by giving access to the larger world of the field involved. Just as there's no reason to link to common-sense words or concepts, there's no reason to be wary of linking to something that will expand the context of the information provided in the article, just as any other wikilink would. While I agree that linking to the article on the year "1963" is not necessary in a general article, I do believe that linking to the "1963 in film" or "1963 in literature" in an article that deals with movies or books is a reasonable linkage that is helpful to the reader, especially those who may not be aware that we have those articles in the encyclopedia.

Further, while your analogy to a book is useful -- I've used it myself on a number of occasions -- it's also limiting because Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia (there's a link to that subject, but I can't recall what it is), and doesn't need to interrupt a text with "(see:)", because we do it by a font or color change.

I don't disagree that overlinking or unnecessary linkage can be distracting, that's something I am in fact very aware of -- I spend a lot of my time trying to make articles more accessible to the ordinary reader -- but in this instance I have to disagree with the idea that linking dates in this specialized way is a problem -- especially when many of them, such as release or publication dates, are in parens anyway, setting them off from the text. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 06:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Jung

Presenting Jung as self-taugh (in Themes) is definitely funny. The man was a physician, a psychiatrist, a university professor and studied with Freud. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)