Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

A bounty hunter named Rick Deckard is licensed to kill androids so perfectly humanlike that the only way to tell them from people is a test measuring empathy. From that premise Philip K. Dick built Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the 1968 novel that became the basis for Blade Runner and one of science fiction’s most lasting meditations on a single, unsettling question: what makes someone human? It’s a strange, philosophically restless, deeply Dickian book, and a landmark of the genre.

Set in a decayed, post-apocalyptic Earth where most animals are extinct and owning a real one is a mark of status and humanity, the novel follows Deckard through a single day of hunting rogue androids, and uses that pulp-thriller frame to ask questions that have only grown more relevant.

Dick unsettles me in the best way. He takes a pulp setup about a bounty hunter and uses it to ask a question I can’t stop turning over, and he refuses to hand me a comfortable answer. I’ll take that kind of discomfort over a polished, forgettable book any day.

Empathy as the human test

The book’s central and most lasting idea is that empathy, not intelligence, is what distinguishes the human from the artificial. The androids Deckard hunts are brilliant, capable, and outwardly indistinguishable from people; what they lack, supposedly, is the capacity to feel for another being, which the empathy test is designed to detect. Dick then spends the novel complicating this neat distinction, showing humans behaving without empathy and androids that seem to feel, until the line he set up begins to dissolve.

The question stops being how do we tell them apart and becomes whether the distinction means anything at all, and that’s the unsettling heart of the book.

I think that dissolving line makes the book great. Dick doesn’t let the human characters off the hook, and some of the coldest behavior in the novel comes from people who’d pass the test. The longer I think about it, the darker the book gets.

Watch: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep - Philip K. Dick |Animated Audiobook|, Matthew Silas Sedgwick

Reality, paranoia, and the Dickian atmosphere

Around that core, the novel is saturated with Dick’s signature preoccupations: the instability of reality, the manufactured nature of belief and feeling, the mood-altering technology and synthetic religion that let people dial their own emotions and share a collective faith of uncertain authenticity. The world feels both mundane and deeply wrong, an atmosphere few writers achieve. The mood organ grabs me more than any of the androids. A machine that lets you dial up the feeling you’re supposed to have is a nasty, funny idea, and it’s aged in ways that make me uneasy. For a science fiction writer, Dick is a model for using the genre’s tools not for spectacle but for philosophical and psychological inquiry, building a strange future that exists to pressure-test ideas about consciousness, authenticity, and what’s real. The ideas, not the technology, are the point.

What are the weaknesses of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Dick is a writer of ideas more than of polished prose, and that shows. The plotting can feel loose and episodic, the prose is functional instead of beautiful, and some elements, the synthetic-religion subplot, the mood organ, are more provocative than fully resolved. A reader expecting the sleek noir of Blade Runner will find a stranger, messier, more philosophically tangled book; the film took the premise and atmosphere and made something quite different.

The prose is my one real complaint. There are clunky passages that made me want a red pen, and I forgive every one of them because the next page usually hands me an idea I can’t shake.

This is a novel you read for its restless, unsettling intelligence, not for craftsmanship in the conventional sense, and a reader who needs elegant prose may bounce off it.

Is Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? worth reading?

It’s a landmark of science fiction and one of the genre’s essential idea novels, a book whose central question, what makes us human, and whether empathy is the answer, has only sharpened in an age of advancing artificial intelligence. Its prose and plotting are rougher than its reputation might suggest, and it’s stranger and less sleek than the film it spawned, but the intelligence and the haunting central inquiry more than make up for it.

For any reader interested in science fiction as serious thought, it’s required reading. I’d also make any writer tempted to fill a book with gadgets and explosions read it first, just to see what the genre can do when it cares more about people than hardware.

Frequently Asked Questions