The Man in the High Castle, by Philip K. Dick **1/2

I found this book a little disappointing, if only because I'd had hopes for it to be sensational. With all the hype, all the movies made from his writing, etc., I'd been eagerly anticipating my first reading of PKD for some time now. This book wasn't bad, but it just didn't grab me the same way that I'd expected it to. His writing is fine, relatively clean and simple, with characters well-delineated by voice and style, but I wouldn't describe the prose as especially exciting, beautiful, or thought-provoking. The writing could be better described as efficient.

As to the material of the book itself, it seems the kind of thing that would have been more relevant when it was written. The book deals with Nazism and compares our US culture with Japan's and Germany's, which I'm sure had more of an impact in 1960 than it does now. I think I'd much prefer to read a PKD story that's based more on things completely new as opposed to this cultural stuff. Nonetheless, PKD's ideas and characters are well-thought out, and the book moves in unexpected and challenging directions.

The strange thing is that this might be PKD's most revered work, at least within the sci-fi community (as opposed to the casual film fan turned on by Blade Runner, Paycbeck, etc.). It's regularly referred to as a classic - just today I saw it referenced in a totally unrelated context (regarding Ursula K. Le Guin). With my less-than-enthusiastic response to Ringworld, Ender's Game, and now this book, I'm wondering if there's something inherent in certain sci-fi books that renders them somehow less "timeless" than fantasy novels. I don't know if I'm onto anything here at all, especially since I'm currently enjoying a Brian Aldiss book that's clearly more along the distopia sci-fi lines. But there's no question that I haven't been excited by many of the science fiction classics.
(Winter 2004)

Close this window