SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
First of all, thanks for doing this! This is exactly what I needed.
First of all, it is important to know that Rick Deckard is an android. This might not be apparent on first reading, but there are clues scattered throughout to point out that this is more likely the case, and Dick has pretty much come out as saying that he is one. The book makes much more sense when you take this into consideration.
No, this wasn’t apparent at all, or I totally missed it. I think I’ll have to re-read it again. But thinking about it, I can’t even recall any clues. Perhaps I read the book and didn’t see any of the deeper themes. The other bounty hunter was also an android, were all bounty hunters androids? And even though Rick was, he still felt a great deal of empathy for both Priss and Rachel toward the end, even though he still managed to kill Priss.
I haven’t read the book in two years (I’ve been working my way through all of PKD’s books since then; this was the first one I read so it’s a little fuzzy, gotta reread it soon), but my take on it is this: there are no clear lines between humans and androids; the only determining factor is the V-K empathy test, which is not always accurate. Dick posits that empathy for other humans and living things is the most vital component of being a human. However, is empathy only the domain of humans? Perhaps an empathy-possessing android is more human than a non-empathic human. And if so, then our definitions of artificial vs. authentic are entirely man-made, and we must come up with a new definition of humanity, one which is based on empathy and love, instead of DNA and parentage. This theme (empathic artificiality is more “human” than non-empathic authenticity) is even clearer in DADoES’ semi-prequel, We Can Build You, in which an empathic machine throws into sharp light the uncaring, emotionlessness of the “schizoid” main female character, who is a biological human.
Ok, yes, that was one of the things I did pick up out of the book. No clear lines, even the V-K test had failed on some of the questions. So Dick was saying that even the androids could be human? Or an android, built well enough, could be human? Should I try to read We Can Build You? And is there significance in saying that our definitions of humanity are man-made, even when applying them to a man-made object such as an android?
The androids were given four-year lifespans in order to prevent them from developing emotions and empathy, and thus always passing the V-K test (i.e. making even an inaccurate test entirely worthless, and thus making completely obsolete our current biological definition of humanity, something that the establishment would never abide). This seems to say that what makes something or someone feel is not heritage, but rather experience, and that empathy is not the accidental side effect of the freak evolution of the species homo sapiens, but instead a quality which is separate from our species and can arise in anything. This is a radical concept since it basically says that the quality we admire most in humans has nothing to do with humans at all, which is why the humans in the book went to such lengths to ferret out feeling machines and make sure they never arose at all.
So the androids could develop empathy. And we were killing them because & when they became too human. I remember a section of the book where they said that animals could not feel empathy, predators most especially not, and it did strike me as a little odd that humans had developed this trait and still were predators.
Who is more “human” using the empathic definition of humans: a machine that’s been taught to care about other beings and act tenderly toward them, or a natally born sociopath entirely devoid of feeling whose only reason for not hurting and killing other beings is because he might get caught at it, not because it will make other people hurt and feel bad? The Mercerism in the book (though it was cut out of the movie) was a religion based on empathy; you literally put yourself into someone else’s mind and felt what they felt. Our “humanity” is not something within ourselves but a communal experience, important only in our relation to other beings. It is not what you think that makes you human; it is what you feel.
The Mercerism, yes, confused me quite a bit. This explanation helps. But again, I will have to reread and try to understand.
The artificial vs. authentic theme is also apparent in the humans’ devotion to their animals. Even though all humans preferred to keep real animals (owing to our aforementioned prejudice toward the natal “real” instead of the manufactured “fake”), they were tender toward the fakes, because it is in the nature of most human beings to show empathy toward other creatures. At the end, when Deckard discovers the toad which turns out to be a fake, he doesn’t cast it aside, but instead uses it as a channel for his own empathic drive (which might not be “authentic” itself). Which brings up another interesting interesting tangent: if Deckard is an android, with a “false” empathy, and the object of his empathy is false, does it really count up to anything on that great tote board in the sky? And if you say it doesn’t, isn’t that a position based on prejudice and reactionary thought? Dick is saying that in the end, our love toward one another and toward “lesser” (be it animal or machine) beings is the only thing that counts, and that biological authenticity doesn’t matter, it’s empathy that counts. Or at least, that’s what I gleaned. It’s been a long time since I read it.
Or is there even a great big toteboard in the sky? It seems to me, if Deckard’s empathy is real, even if the object and the giver are unreal, then Dick is saying in the end that’s what matters. Is this right?
Which version of the film are you familiar with? The director’s cut is far superior and throws light on the authentic vs. artificial schism, whereas the original cut is rather shallow wrt these themes. It is also clear in the DC that Deckard is an android, whereas you were less likely to infer that from the original. (I watched the original when I was a kid, and didn’t grasp it at all, but when I grew up and read the book and saw the DC I got so much more out of it.)
The question you asked - which version am I familiar with - is a good one. I am familiar with the original cut. However, when we bought it, we bought director’s cut. I’ve only seen the director’s cut once though…I think once I reread the book with the idea in my head that Deckard is a android, I will watch the director’s cut again and see if I can understand it.
Thanks for the description. Exactly what I needed.
