August 16, 2007
under the control of a clearly crazy author
But Dick has also become for our time what Edgar Allan Poe was for Gilded Age America: the doomed genius who supplies a style of horrors and frissons. (In both cases, it took the French to see it; the first good critical writing on Dick, as on Poe, came from Europe, and particularly from Paris.) Like Poe’s, Dick’s last big book was a work of cosmic explanation in which lightning bolts of brilliance flash over salty oceans of insanity. Poe’s explanation of everything was called “Eureka.” Dick’s was “VALIS.” The second, literary Dick is now in the Library of America ($35), under the excellent editorial care of Jonathan Lethem, a passionate devotee, who also provides an abbreviated chronology of Dick’s tormented life. Four of the sixties novels are neatly packed together in the handsome black covers: “The Man in the High Castle,” “The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch,” “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” (the original of “Blade Runner”), and his masterpiece, “Ubik.”Dick’s fans are not modest in their claims. Nor are they especially precise: Borges, Calvino, Kafka, Robertson Davies are cited, in the blurbs and introductions, as his peers. A note of inconsistency inflects these claims—Calvino and Robertson Davies?—but they are sincerely made and, despite all those movies and all that praise, have a slight, useful tang of hyperbolic defensiveness.
more from The New Yorker here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 05:25 AM | Permalink






Comments
Dick is like the Stevie Wonder of literature: everybody steals from him.
Posted by: beajerry | Aug 16, 2007 8:37:12 AM
[He] felt repelled by the teaching machines. For the entire public school was geared to a task that went contrary to his grain: the school was not there to inform or educate, but to mold, and along severely limited lines. It was the link to their inherited culture, and it peddled that culture, in its entirety, to the young. It bent its pupils to it; perpetuation of the culture was the goal, and any special quirks in the children which might lead them in another direction had to be ironed out.
That sounds pretty clear to me. Is it any wonder that the group of snobs who run the New Yorker, Gopnick chief among them, would try and do a cheap and easy take down of a man dead 25 years? If there's one thing that is not tolerated in this country it's a genuine subversive, and that's what PKD was. To attack his language is pointless though, and that's the weak spot in Gopnick's argument. You can't separate the ideas from the language used to convey those ideas. And as far as how PKD wrote, in great spurts, impelled by economic and familial pressures, well, that seems very petty coming from a writer who shuttles back and forth between New York and Paris and then passes off his diary scribbles about where he went and what he had to eat as revised, sculpted, tortured prose.
Posted by: Ken Ehrlich | Aug 16, 2007 12:27:19 PM
Post a comment