PKD presents us with an interesting narrative. Unlike so much apocalyptic fiction, Dr. Bloodmoney makes very little pretense to why the apocalypse, nuclear or otherwise, occurs. Bombs drop, the ground heaves, and life is forced to move on. I imagine this abrupt holocaust was an interesting take on Cold War paranoia: On one hand, the role the Emergency plays in Dr. Bloodmoney is essential, providing the backdrop and world that the characters struggle through; conversely, the event itself is explained, and each character enjoys a very separate perspective on the initial proceedings.
My last blog post was a rather aggressive reaction to Hull's "Protagonist and Antagonist: Beyond Hero and Villain." I argued that many competent authors, PKD among them, avoid using the cookie-cutter antagonist/protagonist dynamic, allowing more organic characters to develop and interact, providing a strong basis for introducing drama and portraying philosophical interaction. Dr. Bloodmoney seems to support this line of reasoning, with a range of characters residing in and around the San Francisco area; each with their own perspectives, skills, and neuroses.
Of interest to me is the pre-Emergency/post-Emergency characters, Stuart, Bonny, and so on. The characters base personalities or character roles, the coward, the lover, never seem to change. Is this the core of PKD's purpose in Dr. Bloodmoney? Does Dick believe that humanity repeats intrinsic patterns no matter what externalities are occurring?
I have very little to say; I lack the closure of the novel. I think I'll go read the last chapters.
Your second paragraph is similar to the my view about how this PKD apocalyptic setting seems to have more emphasis on character development than other post-apocalyptic media. I envy your ability to cite literary theories. I went with a more basic answer in that the absence of guns leads to stronger character development.
ReplyDelete