Don writes in with this question:Philip K. Dick wrote seven mainstream novels. I think they are pretty terrific, but except for sci-fi fans, no one pays much attention to them. Can you or your readers explain why these novels have received so little recognition among readers of “literary fiction”?Long before Dick became a science fiction icon, before he began writing the sci-fi novels he’s most famous for, Dick aspired to write “serious,” mainstream fiction. He spent much of the early part of his career, in the 1950s, writing these novels and was devastated by the rejections he received. In his biography of Dick, Divine Invasions, Lawrence Sutin writes of Dick’s early career, “from 1951 through 1958, [he wrote] eighty-odd stories and thirteen novels-six SF, seven mainstream. The six SF novels were all promptly published, but the seven mainstream novels languished. It was an anguish to him. And out of that anguish, his best work would come.”From what I can tell, in total Dick actually wrote at least eight and as many as ten or more (though some people classify different books differently) mainstream novels, some of which are still unpublished or were destroyed by Dick. Here’s a list of the eight I found: Confessions Of A Crap Artist, Gather Yourselves Together, Humpty Dumpty In Oakland, In Milton Lumky Territory, Mary And The Giant, Puttering About In A Small Land, The Broken Bubble, and The Man Whose Teeth Were All Exactly Alike. Most of these were eventually published after his death, and many are out of print. Certainly, none of them even approach the popularity of most of his sci-fi novels.The obvious answer as to why Dick’s mainstream novels are underappreciated is that he was long ago pigeonholed as a sci-fi writer, and the blockbuster movies based on his books have only exacerbated this phenomenon. It’s not news to anyone who pays attention to books that “genre” fiction – be it sci-fi, mystery or romance – is “ghettoized” in bookstores and in book review sections and that crossover success is rare. But, at the same time, as any real book-lover knows – readers who ignore the best of what genre fiction has to offer are doing themselves a great disservice.With regards to Dick, specifically, though, I’d like to return to the quote above. Sutin writes that Dick’s failures pushed him to write his best work – his famous sci-fi novels. Now I’ve never read Dick’s mainstream fiction, but I’d wager that despite the quality of that work, Dick’s well-known, award-winning science fiction represents the pinnacle of his body of work. Many of history’s greatest writers have impressive bodies of work, but they become known for what is considered their best work and – often unfairly – the lesser work is underappreciated. Herman Melville wrote a lot of great stuff, but Moby Dick gets all the attention. This phenomenon is likely doubly true for Dick because his underappreciated work is in a different genre from his best and best-known work, so casual fans don’t even know that these mainstrem novels exist. I didn’t.Thanks for the question, Don! I’m no expert on sci fi, so, readers, please share your thoughts in the comments.
I even struggle with this issue when I'm considering a new novel by an author with previous books that aren't related to the new one.
For whatever reason, I tend toward the oeuvre approach, i.e., watching the writer's trajectory.
This is probably a bad thing in the sense that I've sat out on writers like John Irving because I feel like I've already missed too much.
In Ford's case, I think Frank is a layered and developed character with a history that is covered in the two prior books. I'm not sure you need to read them to understand Frank, but I think it's more satisfying to do so.
It's not quite the same question as whether you should start one of those multi-volume presidential biographies with the meaty years or at the beginning, but it's close.
It's an interesting question because, though component parts of the same story, the three books are very different. I think I started with Independence Day and then worked backwards to The Sportswriter. My feeling, without getting too lyrical, is that Independence Day remains the definitive Bascombe book, complete, spacious, elegant. But I see no harm in starting at the end, so to speak, with T.L.O.T.L. In each of the books, Frank Bascombe is at a specific stage in his life, and that i think needs no additional context to appreciate. The comment about an author's oeuvre makes me think of going back a bit further, to Ford's short story collection Rock Springs, which contains some really hard-hitting, clean and lean writing. Check out the last story, entitled 'Communist'…
N.D.
ank you for your responses to my comment. I am leaning toward #s 2 and 3.
I suspect my reading of the books will be different now because I will be reading them back to back as opposed to waiting for 10 years for the latest.
There is something to be said about following a writer's work. I found I liked Claire Messud's "The Emperor's Children" less than her "The Last Life" (which I love best among all her work). Not sure how I would have reacted if I had read EC first.
But better late than never to jump in. Thanks again.