Just about everytime when someone feels oppressed by authority, should they reach for a reference, they’ll lazily pluck a George Orwell reference out of the air — most likely Nineteen Eighty-Four, but maybe Animal Farm. Bringing up “newspeak” and “doublethink” often ends up drowning in horribly unintentionally meta-parody. If said someone is asked to name other books Orwell wrote or if they actually read those two, the answer is almost always an unsure “No” or “Parts of it a long time ago”. Compare that with The Matrix, which still gets namedropped lots but whose quotees have actually experienced. (And on the cinematic side, the Orwellish Brazil has come out atop of the Nineteen Eighty-Four adaptation.)
Abstract mangling of Orwell’s original words have become like this massive gaussian blur — sure, the original meaning gets expanded (like how Alanis Morissette stretched out “Ironic”’s definition like carefree taffy), but it becomes boring. Dare I say this makes the original literature any less meaningful? No, but there are few surprises here, and when minds get numb, they don’t care.
So let’s care.
Despite Philip K. Dick’s Hollywood-derived popularity, his eponymous adjectives aren’t employed as much. Googling for “Orwellian” reveals 1,920,000 hits, while “Dickian” is 9,030 and “Phildickian” is a scant 3,500. Nevertheless, the themes of mistrust (even paranoia) in authority come up frequently in Dick’s work, and I’d argue are articulated far more practically, vividly, powerfully, yet realistically. A lot of that has to do with his far more prolific output and high-concepts-for-everyone mode of writing which is more approachable and not so, ah, bureaucratically standoffish. More people can relate to the doubts and fears of Dick’s Everymen characters like Bob Arctor and Rick Deckard than a Winston Smith. (And there should be more Everywomen characters in spec-fi too. :p )
The last time I saw an Orwell reference used well, it was by Cory Doctorow. He’s one-of-a-kind. And before that, I did like Apple’s landmark 1984 commercial, among the most famous ads of all time.
But just like I said before — go for references that may be unfamiliar, so those who get it are far more likely to have deep conversations of value with you. If Blade Runner aka DADOES feels too overused, reach for the brief gems of “Foster, You’re Dead”, “War Veteran”, and others which are within The Philip K. Dick Reader. I’ve read and recommend it.
Why skim the surface for driftwood when you can plunder the depths for treasure?
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
It's sorta like people immediately caling upon Nazi imagery, even in situations where such a heavyhanded analogy is unwarranted. Call these the "low hanging fruit" of analogies.
I do partially agree. I have read a couple of books by Dick and I adore his writing. But the two (Dick and Orwell) are distinctly different.
Dick can and should be the one to pull up, when you discuss (or even critizise (or make a protoversy))) the idea of clear cut realities or lack thereof. His jumping and blending of reality levels just lends to that.
But politically, in relation to the dynamics and methods employed between governments and people or the mechanics of manipulation, Dick is just lame compared to Orwell. I may have missed a specific book, but in my view, this area just remains vague.
The difference is that Dick just shows a general dislike of governments and the fact that they tend to be manipulative, but Orwell very precisely and even painfully shows *how* they are manipulative.
Apart from that. When you want to make a point with a broad audience, you got to make references which the readers understand, unless you want to dive into explanations. Referring to the Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldrich rather than referring to Matrix is like writing a blog in Sanskrit.
"Ubik drops you back in the thick of things fast. Taken as directed, Ubik speeds relief to head and stomach. Remember: Ubik is only seconds away. Avoid prolonged use."
Pretty much seconding what Nicholaz said–the reason we use such references is because they provide a simple shorthand for certain concepts.
E. D. Hirch, Jr. came up with the term "cultural literacy" for the knowledge needed grasp common references. In other words, the reason we need to learn Shakespeare in high school isn't just as literature, but so we can understand what the heck people are talking about when they refer to Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet.
In the US at least, Orwell is taught in high school. Dick isn't. Ergo, an Orwellian reference will be understood more readily than a Dickian one.
PK Dick's The Man in the High Castle was required reading for some English classes at my high school. That said, I follow your point, but . . . Dick does make a nice change from all the Orwell references and I think Tor's right about that gaussian blur over Orwell's works. Last time I re-read 1984 it was really refreshing to see again what it actually said, clearly, without peering through the fog of memories of things that people attribute to it.
@Mari: Yes, Godwin's Law and all that! Spoiled fruit at that, too… since I prize creativity.
@Nicholaz: I was looking for instances where PKD refers to Owell. I felt there must be some influence (to paraphrase Newton, we see farther from the shoulders of giants), and this gem showed up: http://totaldickhead.blogspot.com/2008/06/old-vertex-magazine-pkd-interview-and.html Specifically on page 7, in the lower-left.
Incidentally, I had actually read the cited work, The Android and the Human ( http://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdweb/The%20Android%20and%20the%20Human.htm ), and while terribly dense and challenging at parts, I'd call it the closest I've seen so far about PKD's views on Orwell's writings.
As for references, I tend to mix things up, but have a proportion of obscure references — I continually hope people will help popularize things which deserve attention by seeking them out.
@CyFishy: Since PKD's work keeps riding the Hollywood train and he's in the Library of America, I hope his work — and its relevancy to our Third Wave (as Alvin Toffler wrote) societies — continues to rise.
@Kim: Ubik had some wonderfully sly subtext about marketing! =)