
The conventional wisdom has it that there are writers' writers and readers' writers. The
latter are those happy few whose books, by some pheromonic chemistry the former can never
quite duplicate in their own laboratories, appear year after year on the best seller lists. They may
or (more usually) may not satisfy the up-market tastes of "literary" critics but their books sell.
Writers' writers get great reviews, especially from their admiring colleagues, but their books don't
attract readers, who can recognize, even at the distance of a review, the signs of a book by a
writers' writer. The prose style comes in for high praise (a true readers' writer, by contrast, would
not want to be accused of anything so elitist as "style"); the characters have "depth"; above all,
such a book is "serious."
Many writers' writers aspire to the wider fame and higher advances of readers' writers,
and occasionally a readers' writer will covet such laurels as royalties cannot buy. Henry James,
the writers' writer par excellence wrote one of his drollest tales, The Next Time, about just such a
pair of cross-purposed writers, and James's conclusion is entirely true to life. The literary writer
does his best to write a blockbuster -- and it wins him more laurels but no more readers. The
successful hack does her damnedest to produce a Work of Art: the critics sneer, but it is her
greatest commercial success.
Philip K. Dick was, in his time, both a writers' writer and a readers' writer; and neither;
and another kind altogether -- a science fiction writers' science fiction writer. The proof of the
last contention is to be found blazoned on the covers of a multitude of his paperback books,
where his colleagues have vied to lavish superlatives on him. John Brunner called him "the most
consistently brilliant science fiction writer in the world." Norman Spinrad trumps this with "the
greatest American novelist of the second half of the twentieth century." Ursula LeGuin anoints
him as America's Borges, which Harlan Ellison tops by hailing him as SF's "Pirandello, its
Beckett and its Pinter." Brian Aldiss, Michael Bishop, myself -- and many others -- have all
written encomia as extravagant, but all these praises had very little effect on the sales of the
books they garlanded during the years those books were being written. Dick managed to survive
as a full-time free-lance writer only by virtue of his immense productivity. Witness, the sheer
expanse of these COLLECTED STORIES, and consider that most of his readers didn't consider
Dick a short story writer at all but knew him chiefly by his novels.
It is significant, I think, that all the praise heaped on Dick was exclusively from other SF
writers, not from the reputation makers of the Literary Establishment, for he was not like writers'
writers outside genre fiction. It's not for his exquisite style he's applauded, or his depth of
characterization. Dick's prose seldom soars, and often is lame as any Quasimodo. The characters
in even some of his most memorable tales have all the "depth" of a 50s sitcom. (A more kindly
way to think of it: he writes for the traditional complement of America's indigenous commedia
dell-arte.) Even stories that one remembers as exceptions to this rule can prove, on re-reading, to
have more in common with Bradbury and van Vogt than with Borges and Pinter. Dick is content,
most of the time, with a narrative surface as simple -- even simple-minded -- as a comic book.
One need go no further than the first story in this book, The Little Black Box, for proof of this --
and it was done in 1963, when Dick was at the height of his powers, writing such classic novels
as THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE and MARTIAN TIME-SLIP. Further, Box contains the
embryo for another of his best novels of later years, DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC
SHEEP?
Why, then, such paeans? For any aficionado of SF the answer is self-evident: he had great
ideas. Fans of genre writing have usually been able to tolerate sloppiness of execution for the
sake of genuine novelty, since the bane of genre fiction has been the constant recycling of old
plots and premises. And Dick's great ideas occupied a unique wave-band on the imaginative