I’m participating in the Philip K. Dick-of-the-month-club and Exegesis support group along with some other book nerds in the blogosphere, having decided that it was a good idea to solider through Dick’s Exegesis en masse rather than in isolation—throwing bloggers over-the-top to wade through the trenches of Dick’s mind, dodging the paranoid shrapnel of Dick’s most surreal ideas, and his bizarre analysis of the most alien of authors… himself. Seemed like a good idea at the time. So far, I am around 75 pages in, and wanted to get some thoughts down so as not to leave Nikki hanging.
I’ve been a fan of PKD’s work since the time I really started reading SF, and it didn’t take too long before I heard about Dick’s Exegesis. It has a reputation as a pretty dense piece of work, partly because of how much recognition Dick has received since his death, and because the Exegesis is supposed to be the Full Dick experience—all the paranoia, the metaphysics, the questioning of reality without any filler. It doesn’t hurt that the published Exegesis is over 900 pages in length and consists of letters, notes, journal fragments, and other epistolary debris… and that’s but a fraction of the (in)complete Exegesis, often redundant and circular. Or at least, that’s what THEY tell us… what secrets have been excised, hrrm?
So, around Feb-March 1974, Dick began to experience visionary experiences after having his wisdom teeth removed—the fulcrum was a girl sent by the local pharmacy to deliver painkillers, whose ichthys necklace triggered Dick undergoing a series of hallucinations and religious visions, plus a side-show of abstract and hypnotic light-patterns. The Exegesis was Dick’s attempt to theorize and understand the cause behind all this, and his theories are both pretty far-out and somewhat rational. He jumbles together elements of (then) cutting-edge neuroscience, classical philosophy, Christian iconography, referring to everyone from John Calvin to Plato, trying to establish whether he’s unlocked some secret of the mind or whether he’s receiving thoughts from the mind of God. Like most of the characters in his books, he’s looking for meaning in the chaos—trying to distinguish the signal from the noise. As he becomes more engrossed in his theories, there’s no surprise that religious elements and “reality vs illusion” become strong themes in his novels.
It’s about as wild and crazy as I’d hoped; that said, while some of the theorizing can get dry or far-out, so far it’s been more accessible than you might think—with its reputation, I honestly wondered how many of those 900 pages consisted of Time Cube-style nonsense. I like that the editors chose to ease the reader into the Exegesis by starting with content drawn from PKD’s letters. I think there’s a bit more context here that grounds and humanizes him—it’s just one piece of his everyday life, and you can kind of feel how confused and manic he was, digging away at what was for him was a huge, pressing issue, which in fact the fate of the universe did rest on. Dick certainly didn’t shy from discussing his theories, along with tidbits of metaphysics and classical mythology and Christian histories, with various friends, readers, critics, and whoever else wrote him a letter that week.
And, most interesting to me, PKD starts by trying to analyze the work of a foreign author—the work is Ubik, by Philip K. Dick. Or was it Philip K. Dick by Ubik? In college, all those Lit classes drive you to understand the different schools of literary analysis, criticism, and theory which now just automatically happen as I read—the capitalist/Marxist perspective, the feminist perspective, the postcolonial perspective, etc. But here’s Philip K. Dick, putting on the analytical lenses of Religious Experience to comb his own work for unintentional meaning—anything that could have been subconsciously fed to him by his external influencer. You don’t really think about an author analyzing their own work to the degree PKD did, but here he is, gaining more meaning from his own work than he did when he wrote it.
graycope14 said:
Yes it is surprisingly readable so far, but I’m at the same point as you, so who knows where it will go from here. He was an obsessive letter writer, wasn’t he! At times, it seemed like he was sending letters to the same person almost every day. We are indebted to these good people for keeping hold of his correspondence. As you say, these detailed letters provide us with a fascinating glimpse into his mindset at this particular period in his life. By the way, there are a couple of very good documentaries on PKD on Youtube; a BBC Arena production and another one, possibly fan-made.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Richard Fahey said:
I see the “Arena” documentory in 1994.It was the first one I’d ever seen about him,so was very exciting at the time.The previous year though,he was included in a documentary on authors and drugs in a programme called “Cutting Edge”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
graycope14 said:
Thanks Richard, I’ll look out for that.
LikeLike
Richard Fahey said:
Yes,it included others,and Brian Aldiss I remember,read from Anna Kavan’s “Ice”.
LikeLike
nikki @bookpunks said:
I have been really happy and surprised about how accessible it has turned out to be so far. But maybe that is just the “we’re starting this!” euphoria talking. I wonder what we’ll all be saying 500 pages from now. Probably, fuck this guy and his ramblings, hahaha.
Since reading the introduction I have often tried to imagine what it must have been like to edit this mother fucker. I am not sure I even can imagine. What a trip. Part of me is asking the same Dickianly paranoid question WHAT ARE THEY HIDING FROM US?! when I think about what has been left out, and part of me is just so so glad someone else did some filtering. It is kind of a miracle this ever was published at all, though his status as a cult mind does seem to guarentee interest in a strange text like this. I find myself very curious about the responses to these letters as well. Did the answers encourage his line of thought? Call him crazy? That would add a contextual element I think I would really enjoy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: exegesis with a side of fiction: the 2016 pkd read along schedule - We are book punks.We are book punks.
Peter S said:
I came across a two word review of this once: “Insanity Ahoy!”.
LikeLiked by 3 people
admiral.ironbombs said:
Succinct and accurate!
LikeLike
Richard Fahey said:
I can’t really argue that he wasn’t crazy,but even if he was,can’t you say that of any of us with religious beliefs?The whole of religious mankind relies on faith rather than truth to verify their convictions,lacking any concrete reality.That’s hardly the pathway to sanity anymore than the one Dick was treading I think.
At least Dick’s belief system was based on personal experience.He seems to have a much greater claim to theological truth than those with purely institutional faith,even if he was mad,rather than the majority whose beliefs seem to be based on thin air.Is that rational thinking?
He had the courage and insight to declare what he thought he had experienced and analysed it.There’s something to be said for that I think,rather than just the ramblings of a madman.He even had doubts about his sanity,something individuals of strong faith don’t do.
Sanity in this case would appear to need a better definition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
marzaat said:
Thanks for the report and encouragement.
I’ve read most of PKD’s sf, but I just haven’t felt like wading into the mysticism of the VALIS books and the Exegesis.
It’s good to know that, at least at the start, the Testament of Philip Kindred Dick, is not indigestible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Richard Fahey said:
During his lifetime,he was unknown outside of the SF genre,but even there,he was unknown or unfavored by many SF readers,and only gained any recognition because he was the “science fiction writers’ science fiction writer”.He was up against some very tough opposition,but even they must have found him formidable to have regarded him as their literary guru.Some excellent SF authors such as those of the British “new wave” like the brilliant J.G.Ballard,a lethal opponent who Dick could still stand-up to,didn’t regard him so highly,apparently because he was too American!
I think the fact of his obscurity during his lifetime,was very largely what helped to make great.He wrote what he wanted to do,without adhering to what was considered politic to write,which explains why he only had a small but strong core following.Even if it had of have been that he’d gained recognition in his lifetime however,the reaction to his stuff,might have been very different.I think reputable SF authors such as Michael Moorcock,Robert Heinlein and Frank Herbert were widely read and popular simply because they were considered to be required reading,but I failed to be so impressed.This wasn’t true for Dick,who was followed by those who were intrigued by what they knew about him and liked his stuff.
I would like “The Exegesis” I think,if like his books it’s of literary quality,not just wild metaphysical musings.Is “Valis” flawed because of it contains strong autobiograpical elements of metaphysical enquiry that are to be taken literally,but is a novel of rambling quality? In it though,it’s Horselover Fat who sees God not Dick.Perhaps that’s how we should think of this piece.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cavershamragu said:
I read a lot of his stuff in time teens and early 20s but I did start to find it all too obtuse and confusing as the books progressed and it has been ages since I read one of his. I suspect this one would not get me back in the fold 🙂 really enjoyed the review though!
LikeLiked by 1 person
transrealfiction said:
Interesting stuff. (The review and the book (or what I read of it, anyway!))
Back in the 80s I was reading whatever I could about PKD although I don’t think I own any of the books & articles now – Electric Shepherd and so on – but my interest waned over the years. But I did pick up the Exegesis ‘highlights’ book that Underwood Miller published in 1991. Sadly, I never made it to the end back then, so I have no real intention of attempting this much longer volume now!
I did get the 2011 book in as stock when it came out but I didn’t keep it in as a stock item. Your review, however, has prompted me to order it in again!
LikeLiked by 1 person
admiral.ironbombs said:
It is a tome compared to the Underwood Miller volume, almost all primary source, and there are several hundred pages omitted… I think even the Underwood Miller is biting off more than the casual sf fan us willing to chew! It’s a fascinating book, but one that only appeals to a niche audience in a niche market, and it makes for pretty weird reading material… It’s more like reading a haphazard philosophy text than a nonfiction work or biography.
LikeLike
transrealfiction said:
Yes, some of the content was fascinating but I really prefer more plot in my books!
I’ll definitely take another look at it next week when it comes back in but the chances of my doing more than browsing for an hour or two are fairly low!
LikeLiked by 1 person
transrealfiction said:
Nothing to do directly with the Exegesis, but I thought you might be interested in this newly posted article about what PKD’s next book was going to be… http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-shifting-realities-of-philip-k-dicks-final-unfinished-novel?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=atlas-page
LikeLiked by 2 people
fromcouchtomoon said:
“…but here he is, gaining more meaning from his own work than he did when he wrote it.”
THIS. This is what I’m getting out of Exegesis. And this year-long schedule has been great because I don’t think I could read this thing straight through. I guess we’ll see where the next 75 pages takes us in February…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick (II) | Battered, Tattered, Yellowed, & Creased