Marketing a Book Into Failure | A Scanner Darkly | But It's Not a Review

I read my third Dick novel. At this point, I am a bit fatigued. I am beginning to recognize the patterns in how Dick writes novels. Worse, I don't think I can actually write a true review. I did not write a review of Ubik, mainly because there wasn't much to say beyond blind praise. I did enjoy that one, so I at least did a short talk about it. I also read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and I was confounded by some aspects of that one. I did write an extended review of that one, and I talked about some of my frustrations. It is in that review that you will find the foundations of my criticisms for this book. They are my criticisms of Dick in general.

However, in this post, I just want to talk about a frustration that I have with the marketing of this book. I feel like it could have compromised my ability to like this novel and even write a legitimate review in the first place.

Book Description

The back cover description of the book was incredibly misleading. This is fairly common among classics. In fact, I've learned (and apparently forgotten) to ignore descriptions of these kinds of books for this reason. Part of the reason is that Dick probably did not write the one that was on my cover. Here it is:

Bob Arctor is a junkie and a drug dealer, both using and selling the mind-altering Substance D. Fred is a law enforcement agent tasked with bringing Bob down. It sounds like a standard case. The only problem is that Bob and Fred are the same person. Substance D doesn't just alter the mind, it splits it in two, and neither side knows what the other is doing or that it even exists. Now both sides are growing increasingly paranoid as Bob tries to evade Fred, while Fred tries to evade his suspicious bosses.

I want to contrast this description with the one that I saw on goodreads:

Substance D is not known as Death for nothing. It is the most toxic drug ever to find its way on to the streets of LA. It destroys the links between the brain's two hemispheres, causing, first, disorientation and then complete and irreversible brain damage.

The undercover narcotics agent who calls himself Bob Arctor is desperate to discover the ultimate source of supply. But to find any kind of lead he has to pose as a user and, inevitably, without realising what is happening, Arctor is soon as addicted as the junkies he works among.

I will start by saying that I much prefer the second description, having read the actual book. The notable difference between the two is the specification that Bob and Fred are the same person, and that Fred is being tasked with taking himself down. The problem is not that the first description spoils the story. The reader learns about the connection between the two identities right from the beginning. The description is problematic, first, because it is misleading. An impression is given that the main plot is Bob tracking down Fred, but that doesn't come until later in the story. The main plot is better articulated in the second description: that Bob is searching for an ultimate supply source. This is the reason Bob is in the place he is, in the first place.

More importantly, I would say that the story is not plot-driven in the first place.

The reason I am making this such a sticking point is because I feel like I was misled by the first description and my perceptions of the story were very likely impacted in a negative way. I expected something approximating a thriller, with this odd twist of a man chasing after himself, but that was not what this story was at all. This story is full of long, rambling conversations between junkies that are darkly comedic and sad in a pathetic way—and as I stated before, the part where Fred is assigned Bob to investigate does not come until later. Further, that part does not feel like a thriller either. It's more of a deliberate exploration of a concept.

This is why I'm talking about the book description. It is possible that I might have enjoyed this book more if my expectations had been properly adjusted to what the story actually was. I don't know. I would have to reread it.

Not a Review

I was not sure if I wanted to write a review of this book. Partly, it was because of my annoyance at being misled by the description like this. At the same time, I think I also projected expectations onto it. I gave it a 5/10. That means neutral. If I read it again, the rating could change. I generally follow a principal of not reading the backs of books, especially if I'm already planning on reading the book, especially if it is a classic, and this is precisely why.

So, my question to anyone who is watching: has this ever happened to you? These book descriptions kind of matter. It reminds me of when I read John Grisham books long ago, and the first half of the book was summarized by the back of the book. I had to avoid reading them in order to enjoy the books.

Quote

While I was reading, I recognized a quote, actually. It wasn't exact, but I had to wrestle with my memory in order to find it. It was the quote that was adapted to the movie. Here is the book quote:

"The pain, the cut in his scalp, so unexpected and undeserved, had for some reason cleared away the cobwebs. It flashed on him instantly that he didn't hate the kitchen cabinet: he hated his wife, his two daughters, his whole house, the back yard with its power mower, the garage, the radiant heating system, the front yard, the fence, the whole fucking place and everyone in it.

[. . .]

That life had been one without excitement, with no adventure. It had been too safe. All the elements that made it up were right there before his eyes, and nothing new could ever be expected.

[. . .]

But in this dark world where he now dwelt, ugly things and surprising things and once in a long while a tiny wondrous thing spilled out at him constantly; he could count on nothing."

I came across the quote in a song, actually. Chemicals + Circuitry by Grendel opens with an excerpt from the movie. There are multiple editions of the song, so I will link the relevant one.

Song: https://youtu.be/6Fo-a9QvFPA?si=Fp14ATOxo4S9HtaF

Video: https://youtu.be/kKQCDdXUdZY