Newfag here, mostly lurkfag from other boards. What is /lit/s general opinion on this guy?
>>7770851
He's a pretty neat dude. /lit/ in general hates genre fiction tho
good shit as long as you're more interested in stoned out twilight zone episodes than actual scifi
is that neetch
>>7770851
He's liked buy a fair bunch of people. He's a low importance meme.
>>7770851
People pretend he and Gene Wolfe are valid literary figures, but they are wrong. Stanislaw Lem remains the only sci fi writer to break the threshold.
He wrote 45 novels and maybe 10 of them are good. (But don't get me wrong the good ones are good)
>>7770851
He is very handsome
>>7770860
Lem is overall great, Dick can't even compare to him. Almost every book by Lem is pretty based, even the "a bit childish" ones.
>>7770866
Yeah, Ubik, Eye in the Sky and Blade Runner are pretty decent. Although Ubik and Eye in the Sky follow pretty much the same formula.
>>7770877
Blade Runner/Androids is fucking shit and Ubik is second rate.
>>7770860
And you pretend you know what you're talking about. Fuckin' newbaby.
>>7770860
I'm guessing this is a dumb question but what about Frank Herbert?
A favorite between the ages of 15 and 20, and thereafter. Love him dearly, but cannot rationalize that feeling. Like so many of his stories that it is difficult to choose one.
he has dick in his name xD
he must be a dick
>>7770896
Herbert has a massive grasp on the political and spiritual dimensions, but Dune is a flawed masterpiece. Scenes lack the inner life that literary novels accomplish, seemingly without trying to. It also has one-dimensional villains, poor female characterization, and soft racism (Yoo hoo hoo, gertdem brownskins needs a white manz to lead 'em), which is still racism. Also, character development is almost nill, despite long internal monologues, and the ending is rushed, which is a classic flaw for sf writers. As a world-building narrative, as well as ecological and spiritual tract, Dune offers a powerful message, but this isn't what the establishment is familiar with responding to.
LotR suffers from similar problems.
>>7770986
Okay, I probably should've asked this first, but what does it mean for someone to be a valid literary figure?
I'm not sure if I'm /lit/ enough (although I have read many memes), however, I think Dick's work is amazing and quite unique in its complex examination of the different models of reality.
>>7770986
>one-dimensional villains, poor female characterization, and soft racism
Unless by soft racism you mean that their characterization is oversimplified by stereotyping them, that shouldn't have any effect on its literary merit.
>>7771066
It does because it detracts from the efficacy of plot development and conflict, which harms the meaningfulness of Paul's journey.
>>7771017
Oops, didn't see this.
In a nutshell:
Themes that explore the human condition
Writer offers personal touches on subjects, while showing restraint
Narrative should be show cohesion, nuance, and balance
Prose should enhance storytelling, rather than be merely a prop
>>7771076
>It does because it detracts from the efficacy of plot development and conflict
The readers biases towards potentially racist ideas are what cause that, not the soft racism.
>>7771089
>while showing restraint
I don't know if I agree with that point. To an extent, yes, writing is an exercise in restraint, but deliberately limiting yourself, or whatever exactly you mean by this, doesn't make you a better writer.
minimalists pls go
Genre-fiction garbage
>>7771118
That's not what he meant, imbecile, he meant that the work shouldn't devolve into a philosophical treatise shoehorned into the book, e.g. Rand.
>>7771118
>>7771134
Counterpoint, yes. What I meant by that is that a writer shouldn't insert himself too much in his works--being an unapologetic, rampant, misogynist for example, otherwise that work is marred by a fallacious attitude. Just like how there are no women in the world.
For the record, I've read GR and Ulysses, so I'm all about maximalism.
Other writers have different criteria, but those are what I've communicated. I admit trying to be concise may have marred them, but I covered at least 80% of the aspects of literary writing.
>>7771140
>unapologetic, rampant, misogynist for example
This sounds like you have someone specific in mind.
>>7770851
He's a goldmine for very interesting or just plain trippy ideas which make him very worthwhile to any scifi enthusiast, but he doesn't have anything really else going for him. His characters are just two dimensional cogs for his plots, which are in essence just excuses for the next idea--which is not a bad thing at all. Because of this, however, his short stories are often better than his novels, which usually supply their fair share of mindwarping concepts and end before they have the chance to outstay their welcome. You can't consider yourself a true scifi elitist if you haven't read anything by him.
My favorite is the one about Joe Everyman who works for that government sector and his wife is cheating on him but one day at work a dark haired pale girls unveils a device that rips a hole in reality and he trips out for a while while discovering govt. conspiracy and then flies off to mars a stolen ship and waxes philosophical about God and reality and his responsibilities to family
>>7771350
You realize if you changed the word "sci-fi" that would apply to Moby Dick
>>7771709
There are at least 3 characters in Moby Dick who are well-formed and fleshed out characters, so no. It doesn't.
>>7771709
Even if that were true, I don't know if it would change anything. I never said Philip Dick was bad.
>>7770856
>buy
>He's a low importance meme.
