Jump to content

Talk:Ubik

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Badnewswade (talk | contribs) at 00:13, 12 June 2009 (→‎How about this - Similarity to Life On Mars / Ashes To Ashes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconNovels Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Further deception

I removed from the summary the mention that Joe Chip was against having Pat Conley in the group of agents, since the book states the opposite: "Runciter pondered moodily. "Joe thinks she's dangerous. I don't know why." "Did you ask him why?" Runciter said, "He mumbled, the way he always does. He never has reasons, just hunches. On the other hand, he wants to include her(Pat Conley) in the Mick operation"".

I think the summary needs to take into account the final pages, in which Runciter discovers his coins to be changing face (in an obvious parallel to what happened to Chip), in as much as this implies that Runciter is himself mistaken about being alive and not in a half-life, and possibly wired into the group as well. --maru (talk) contribs 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My impression upon reading the novel was that "Ubik" represented God, or salvation through God. The final Ubik "ad copy" reinforces this idea by saying "I am everywhere". Am I wrong? --71.125.20.241 05:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are wrong - the ubik is the ubik - it is a genuine artifact of PKD. If dick wanted to talk about the conventional conception of god he would have done it - the ubik "mythos" is something more elaborate than that. To Marudubshinki : I think that these pages are a literary mistake on the part of dick - they are awkward - not needed. I 'm pretty sure he regretted them himself - it is a cheap ending to an otherwise very original novel. Unlike the turnover in the middle of the book, when one figures out what is going on really, these pages have no force. Or maybe they have :-)

The Ubik 16:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot synopsis inadequate

The plot synopsis reads like a teaser from a book cover. It sounds like it is trying to avoid giving away what happens in the novel. This is an encyclopedia and it has to talk about what actually happens, including the ending and all surprising plot twists. I haven't read the book, so I can't do this myself. --24.86.252.26 17:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is This Worth Mentioning/Exploring?

I recall reading an interview with Bret Easton Ellis wherein he referred to the bizarre clothes worn by the characters in "American Psycho" as his own invention. If you haven't read the novel, "American Psycho" details the life of a serial killer (or imagined serial killer), Patrick Bateman. It seems to me the two books have a lot in common, and many of the ideas Ellis takes credit for appear in Ubik, which appeared at least twenty years earlier!

--210.240.107.30 08:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this - Similarity to Life On Mars / Ashes To Ashes

Ubik has a lot in common with the aforementioned UK TV serieses- compare the coma patient heroes for the "half-lifers" in "cold-pak", Martin Summers in Ashes for Jory Miller, and of course the worlds of 1974 and 1982 for the regressed 1939 of Dick's novel. Think I should mention this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badnewswade (talkcontribs) 17:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Don't just delete stuff, it makes people not want to contribute again.--Badnewswade (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B?

Hardly B without any referencing to the article. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many useless links in the article to milk, fact and such. I am going to remove them, because they are a distraction. --CyHawk (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]