Back in 2021, I read a handful of Philip K. Dick books. I have always loved the movies that were based on them, but I was very surprised by the contents of the books. I found that he constantly derided women and portrayed blindly supporting the police, regardless of their intentions. I did enjoy the books overall, but I'm not as quick to praise him these days.
He was also deeply paranoid and delusional, since he was high on speed most of the time. Don't see "blindly supporting police" in his works actually, any form of authority is usually portrayed of having bad intentions. Although his protagonists are often some form of cop, they are usually in conflict with their colleagues in some form.
Most of his novels are basically bog standard 1950s sci-fi, but with the weird metaphysical twist that completely turns everything on its side by the end. The characters are empty vessels, but it probably doesn’t matter.
Valis is very upsetting if you understand Phil's upbringing, history with drugs and counter-culture, home life and his abusive relationship with sanity.
Every night, as me and my wife are going to sleep, I lean over and whisper into her ear, "It's too bad you're not going to live. But then again, who does?"
That reminds me of this FASCINATING deep dive by Innuendo Studies on agency / protagony. Warning: while not technically NSFW... caution is still advised.
No it doesn't. How does it prove Deckard is a replicant versus proving Tyrell Corps had become just that good at replicating life. In both Blade Runner movies to prove something was replicant they had to get electron microscope close to find printing on cells. Perhaps Rachael was just that human. Unless it was explained somewhere I missed.