Imagine living on Earth where most of the population emigrated, animals are extinct and flying cars exist. In Philip K. Dick’s novella, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (1996), and Ridley Scott’s loosely based film adaptation, Blade Runner (1982), explore the futuristic happenings in Rick Deckard’s point of view. However, the book and the film differ in how the world became a miserable place to live. The book explains how World War Terminus left radioactive dust, forcing many people to live on an off world colony. The film, on the other hand, leaves the audience guessing as to why people emigrated. This is just one example as to how the film parallels the novella. In this blog, I aim to compare the novella to its film counterpart by exploring selected elements in each work’s plot, the main character’s development and the significance of human and animal life.
In the novel, Rick Deckard is married to Iran who is severely depressed in the beginning. Deckard continuously advises Iran to dial a variety of moods such as “888, the desire to watch T.V no matter what is on” and “3, stimulates the cerebral cortex into wanting to dial” (Dick 6). While they own an electric sheep, they desire a real animal. Therefore, Deckard works as a bounty hunter to retire escaped androids for a reward. Androids escaped from the Mars colonies to avoid being slaves to the human population that emigrated there. Their main goals are survival and freedom. The heart of the novel is Mercerism which is the religion everyone follows and androids cannot participate in. These are highlighted scenes which makes the novella uniquely different from the film.
Unlike the novella, the film places Deckard as a single, retired ‘Blade Runner.’ He is called out of retirement only as orders to retire rouge ‘Replicants.’ The characters in the movie are not chemically altered to simply dial for a mood and Deckard does not own an electric sheep. Rachel and Pris are identical androids in the book, but are clearly not in the film. Also, Mercerism, or any type of religious themes, are absent from the film. In addition, the replicants have a different goal: to extend their four year life span. Because of these changes, the film does not capture the same ideas Dick wrote in his novella. Therefore, there is less complexity to Deckard’s motives in the film compared to the book. In other words, the novella is more surreal and complex than the film.
Another difference between the two works is the presence of real and artificial animals. In the book, Deckard is determined to buy a real animal rather than own an electric sheep. His determination comes from the fact that owning a real animal is a type of class status. Animals also represent a marker of humanity. This is why he accepts the mission to retire the remaining six androids to earn extra income and possibly advance in his career. Also, J. R. Isidore works at the pet hospital which is nothing more than a pet robotics shop. However, the importance of real and artificial animals is not emphasized in the film. This difference changes Deckard’s objectives for his bounty money and J. F. Sebastian (Isidore in the novella) is a bright technician who the androids still manipulate. Overall, the lower profile of animals in the film creates different characters for Deckard and Sebastian than their novella counterparts.
While reading the novella and watching the film, a question may come to mind: is Deckard’s character good or bad for ‘killing’ androids? We see in the novella that his wife thinks Deckard is bad as she states, “You’re a murderer hired by the cops” (Dick 4). However, Deckard believes he is serving the community by retiring the androids. As the novella progresses, Deckard begins to care about the androids after retiring Luba Luft for being so talented. With his change of character, Deckard continues to retire the remaining androids to earn a living, but decides to quit his job seeing that his wife was right. The film does not have this dramatic change of character for Deckard. He is just an awe-inspiring blade runner trying to do his job. Only towards the end of the film is when we see Deckard’s minor change of heart when he and Rachel are seen leaving together. In other words, the film and novella do share Deckard’s mind change towards androids, but the novella shows more emphasis than the film.
Additionally, both works encompass the question of what is fundamentally human. It is clearly understood in the novella that androids are not human with their inability to empathize. We see this when Isidore discovers a real spider and Pris, Irmgard, and Roy cut the legs off without hesitation, eager to watch it struggle. We also see Deckard contemplate the value of life by thinking to himself, “Do androids dream?” (Dick 182). In the film, there is one specific scene where Deckard has a memory of a unicorn which has to be false since unicorns are fictional. Therefore, he is uncertain whether he is an android or human. Since the concept of Mercerism was cut from film production, we see less of qualities of human life in the movie than the novella since it involves human empathy.
In closing, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and Blade Runner are two different formats of the same idea. The novella provides more explanation with deeper meanings for animals and the retiring of androids while the film excludes key elements like Mercerism to produce a two hour film adaptation. However, both works do give the question of human characteristics and life itself. Also, Deckard is seen exploring the same question through his interactions with the androids. Through his exploration, we see him care more about the androids in both works, but more in the novella than the film. Arguably, Blade Runner can be viewed as a perfect example of science fiction, but poorly grasping the originally novella.
Works Cited
Blade Runner. Dir. Ridley Scott. Prod. Ridley Scott and Hampton Francher. By Hampton Francher and David Webb Peoples. Perf. Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, and Sean Young. Warner Bros., 1982. DVD.
Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York: Ballantine, 1996. Print.
