VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:47:11 07/12/11 Tue
Author: Vice Verser
Subject: Philip K. Dick/Eye in the Sky

I'm reading a book by Philip K. Dick, he was a very talented science-fiction writer. This will be the second book of his I read. Ironically, the first book of his I read was a novel he did that wasn't science-fiction. The book I'm reading now is called, "Eye in the Sky".

A team of scientists are hit by a beam of radiation and knocked them unconscious. There is 8 of them. They're unconscious and they're mind, body and soul is transferred first into the character Arthur Silverster's subconscious and personal fantasy-world. They're all inside his mind at the start.
In the part I'm reading they've been transferred into the mind.subconscious of a lady named Edith Pritchet. In her realm the World is turned into a puritanical, quasi-feminist, artistic Utopia, where in a sense art has taken the place of religion.
I feel that in this part of the story that the author is making an argument of, "What if things people merely found unpleasant were abolished according to their will".
I feel he's trying to show by example how destruction or abolishment of something is a huge deal and people should take it seriously.

I feel that he's saying extremism can lead to cultures or nations declaring things that are merely unpleasant and categorizing them as social evils. I also feel that he's satirizing personality and the morality of the individual.
I feel that in his own way he's making fun of the lenghts
authority figures go to justify their deeds.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.