So there’s a question I’ve been having for a while now: Why is Ubki, from Philip K Dick so popular ? I’ve read it, and was pretty disappointed. The scenario starts pretty well, but becomes very obvious amongst the rest of the book, there’s little no to connection between the scenes, everything seems to have no relation, the final characters (Ella and Joe) are barely introduced, the resolution (Ubki’s provenance) is barely explained, …
Overall, I feel like I’ve read a really good scenario idea from a great author, but it feels like a missed opportunity; I’m left feeling unsatisfied.
I read in a period where I was reading the top 100 sci-fi books. This was somewhere on number 30 or so. It was a very different read from most other sci-fi books, very quirky. I like those unique kind of approaches I have never seen or didn’t expect. That’s why tropes work. It’s always someone’s first contact with the trope. (Kubik is not a trope though, I haven’t seen i copied yet)
Taste?
I loved it; it’s in my “classics” list. But I loathe Game of Thrones - both the novels and the TV series, and those were wildly popular with a lot of people.
It’s just personal taste; I’m not sure there’s an explanation.
I get that taste has a lot to do with it, but usually when I read one of the SF “classic”, even though I don’t like it I can see what other people like in it. Ubik is really one of the first where I didn’t understand this. I just read an article saying that what I consider a lack of connections between the different part of the story is in fact a writing effect, to make readers have a “dreamy feeling” while reading the book. I hadn’t considered it that way, and was looking to analysis like this, I’m not trying to tell people my taste is better, just wanted to have their input on the book
And it’s pretty typical of Dick. He often wrote surreal stuff.
I get what you were asking; I just don’t know how to answer the question. Mind-bending, byzantine stories are a matter of taste, just as gritty grimdark is.
The first time I read Ubik, I was younger and the plot device hadn’t yet been endlessly copied in other books; it wasn’t obvious to me what was going on, and I enjoyed the voyage of discovery, and the novelty of the style. It sounds like you figured it out early, and that reduced your enjoyment of it. You can only experience that once, though, and now when I re-read it knowing how it ends, and what’s happening, I can still recall how great it was the first time, and that makes up for the spoiler effect.
I think I understand a bit better now, thanks for your interesting comments !
I was taught this lesson by “anything written by Dan Brown”.
As a regular reader of fiction, when The Da Vinci Code blew up in popularity I had all kinds of people around me telling me how amazing it was. I read it and was very disappointed. Its okay, but fairly formulaic and two-dimensional characters. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it doesn’t stand out as exceptionally good like I’d been led to believe. Then I realized none of the people recommending it to me were regular readers. So to them, it likely was amazing. If they read more often of other authors they might have been equally if not more amazed by better books.
That didn’t stop Da Vinci Code nor the follow up Angels and Demons from being commercial successful and very popular books.
I read it and recall enjoying it, but it’s far from my favorite PKD, and I honestly don’t remember much about it.
Same. I recall it was fine, but not very rememberable.
