"The Variable Man" by Philip K. Dick

            Most people who are aware of Philip K. Dick often note his deeply thought-provoking philosophical themes. Phil's philosophical themes seem to be the reason he is so well known (he is now, at least, he wasn't too well-known when he was alive). However, these themes didn't always permeate through his stories, and this was one of those stories. Some of Philip K. Dick's readers might think that a break from these themes familiar to them concerning Phil would make his other works boring (and it's not like Phil hasn't written anything that wasn't good), but this novella, "The Variable Man", is proof of quite the contrary. In fact, this is one of my favorite stories of all time.
            It's quite strange how inspiration can come out of nowhere, because I didn't expect "The Variable Man" to be as good as it is. I was simply strumming through public domain science fiction, but I would've gladly paid money to read this story. It's such a perfect whirlwind of satire and serious flair. It's written in a serious tone, but everything that happens is just so obviously ridiculous you can't help but laugh; things like the titular Variable Man being able to not only fix, but improve, literally anything he touches with the most unreal explanation as to why, or bombing a whole mountain range just to kill this one person, with rationalization for why, and he still escapes!
            That is the key, however, is each and every silly thing is rationalized to make it seem more plausible and to give characters reason for every single solitary thing, no matter how ridiculous (and I won't spoil the rationalizations, because that's all part of the brilliance and surprise). Philip K. Dick obviously had fun writing this story, as I'm sure he did writing many of his others. This isn't the only story by Philip K. Dick that's anything like this because Phil's work, even his most serious, seeps with satire underneath a thoughtful veil, but this is perhaps his greatest example of both blending in tune together. It's a genius work I can't help but recommend regardless of whether you like Phil's work (or certain portions of his work) or not, and it's absolutely, totally, legally free to read right now as we speak. Here is a link providing various formats for eBooks (there seems to be no PDF file in particular), or you can simply read it online:

 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32154

Enjoy!

"Johnny Mnemonic" by William Gibson

          I want to like William Gibson. I really do.

          William Gibson creates unique imagery, settings, and ideas. This is why he has gained a following; because of things like the Navy using cyborg dolphins addicted to heroin. The problem is, evidenced from everything of his I've read (and I've read more than I've talked about on the blog), he just generally sucks at storytelling, and his editors don't seem to care.

          This story has the exact same problems as Neuromancer, so I won't bother with much more detail on that. I will at least say the "lack of important detail" problem works better for a short story than a whole novel (and Neuromancer is still far worse with that problem), but I was still irritated because this story, despite being so short, still could've been clear. He only needed to add just a few little sentences or so.

          I think I understand why William Gibson is this way. Maybe, I could be wrong. He apparently found a line in the film Escape From New York very influential (despite the film being released shortly after the publication of "Johnny Mnemonic"). Gibson said, "I was intrigued by the exchange in one of the opening scenes where the Warden says to Snake 'You flew the Gullfire over Leningrad, didn't you?' It turns out to be just a throwaway line, but for a moment it worked like the best SF where a casual reference can imply a lot." It seems to me this line of thinking is what created this idea that references like that make for better stories, because that's what he does so often in his work. And it doesn't really work that way, particularly if that reference itself makes no sense. Even if it does make sense, that can't be your sole point in characterization, world building, and especially plot building. He is certainly right about that line in its context, and you can do things like that, but you should be selective in order for that to really be effective.

          In any case, here's the ultimate point of advice I'd like to make about this, particularly for writers like him or aspire to be like him. I don't care how interesting your ideas are. You need to have a basic ability to relate to your reader, and that's a basic principle of writing much of anything, even if your story is difficult to read otherwise. If you fail that, you could have the greatest story in the world and it wouldn't matter because your writing is so bad it distracts from the amazing things you hope to show us. This isn't hard at all. It's actually one of the easiest things you can possibly do, so to fail this one basic principle, at least time and time again, is mind-boggling. In particular, how an otherwise obviously competent writer in William Gibson can still do this and can prove he can do better as "Burning Chrome" has shown, and still have a large following and apparently write a novel that's considered an all-time classic is beyond me.

          Regardless, the story itself wasn't any good even if it was clear, so the only thing going for it is the unique descriptions held within. It's just a ridiculous, crass, formulaic little romp in rundown downtown Cyberville. There's really not much more to say than that, it's just bad. I recommend avoiding this, and at this point suggest avoiding William Gibson's early work in general. Don't feel bad about doing so, there's plenty of other great stuff out there, and I'll even make it a point to discuss something good in my next post, whatever that may be. Rest assured, I'm at least done torturing poor Mr. Gibson.

          Additional super fun fact: This short story is wildly different from the film adaptation. I haven't seen the film, so I'll reserve judgment on that. I'm sure I can say, though, that if you didn't like the film, then I doubt you'll like this story at all. You'll gain very little out of it.