I'm a little embarassed to admit I've had this book for years but have only just now read it. I bought a copy when I was still into Project Moon games- the lyrics to String Theocracy reference it, and I see now the paralells between it and Angela's development during Library of Ruina and I'm like a little obsessed. But I digress.

Now, I can't say I've ever written a review for a book outside of school settings, so this will likely be poorly organized and messy. I also don't plan on editing this in-depth, as unwise as that is. Apologies in advance.

There are spoilers ahead, but the book is short and was published over 50 years ago, so I doubt many people care about that.

Put simply, this is probably one of the best pieces of fiction I've read recently. It really appealed to the sort of themes and style I love in novels and was executed very well. God, the difference in which androids and electric animals are treated is so interesting and is easily my favorite aspect of this novel. Electric animals look indistinguishable from real animals and are expected to be treated like real animals- both by their owner(s) and the people who casually interact with it- even when the species could be dangerous to people. Androids, built to be human-like, are not to be treated the same as humans- androids and humans can't have sex, authorities must be aware of their presence- whether they're legal or illegal immigrants- and are considered a danger if they came to Earth illegally. This contrast work so well when looking at how humans treat other organisms (or fake organisms). To society and the police, it's fine if fake animals exist and not everyone is told which are fake or not, for they see animals beneath humans, so fake animals are not a threat. To create artificial humans, however, it brings into question what humanity itself is- an organic animal and an electric animal are both put into the box of 'animal,' while androids are put into the box of 'object.' If a human can't tell an android (an 'object') apart from another human and it can do the exact same things, what's the point of humans? What makes something human? Where does one draw the line between human and android when you can only tell the difference after they're dead?

This is especially relevant today, what with Large Language Models continuing to improve. As they get better at replicating how a human would text their friends, writing essays, composing lyrics and poetry, and acting as a conversational partner, the things we as humans do become obsolete. Of course, ChatGPT and DeepSeek are not attached to a physical humanoid body, so we aren't quite to the point where they're out in the real world masquerading as living beings, but many social media accounts these days (especially on Twitter, I've noticed) are not run by people, yet pretend to be human. Usually you can tell these accounts aren't real people, but the sheer amount of these accounts is concerning.

I personally have strong feelings regarding human-like robots and A.I. I feel like designing these things to be human-ish is dishonest and unnecessary, and I feel the border between human and human-ish is very solid and literally cannot be crossed- at least with the tech we currently have. Things like LLMs do not think or feel, they simply calculate probability and apply it- and consciousness is a very weird, abstract concept, so it's difficult to say whether something artificial can have a conscious, but for now I think it's not possible and I find the way we treat and humanize A.I very very silly. Again, I digress.

Also, Isidore as a character really stood out to me. For a disabled character conceived in the 50s, when everyone and their mother was in love with eugenics, he was written quite well and I enjoyed the commentary regarding society's expectations of the disabled. It's not very prominent, unfortunately, and I feel like the way he consciously keeps himself from thinking deeply should have been explored a tiny bit more. He has lowered mental faculties due to radiation, and is labeled as a "special"- unable to go to Mars, to reproduce, he is expected to be stupid and incapable of much thought. Many times while he introspects, he remembers his 'place' in society- as someone lesser than, as someone unintelligent- and doesn't let himself think too hard or too much. That, along with his isolation, makes his character so amazing and it's really a shame he's mostly stuck to the sub-plot. Seeing a chapter was from his perspective would make me very giddy.

I think that there are multiple messages and conclusions Philip K. Dick was pointing towards and, unlike most other fiction, it's difficult to pin one down as The Definitive Moral. It seems to, instead, lead you into asking questions and coming to your own conclusions.

I only finished reading it today, and this was only some of my initial thoughts. I might make another post in a week or two after I've had time to really sit and think. I would absolutely recommend this book, it's not a difficult read and explores some really interesting concepts. Solid 4/5.