Deckard Loves Rachel - Science Fiction Fantasy Chronicles: forums

Kanazaka · 26th January 2005, 02:04 AM

My favorite thought-provoking difference between Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Blade Runner is Deckard's love for Rachel. In another post in this section, I've mentioned that it makes sense for Deckard to love Rachel if they're both replicants. This is true, and it's also true that he doesn't face any obstacles to love because he doesn't have a wife (of course, he never had a wife because he is a replicant, and his memories of his "ex-wife" are false). In the novel, Deckard tells Rachel that he would marry her if she wasn't an android, but he also no doubt decides not to fall in love with Rachel because he loves his wife too much. Comparing the book and the film, I'm fascinated by the concept of love knowing no boundaries except for the boundaries that we impose upon ourselves. I wouldn't extend this outside of humanity or simulated humanity, but I still feel that this is a strong statement. I also think that Deckard could have decided to love or not to love Rachel in both the book and the film, and it still would have made sense. In the novel, after all, Deckard seems rather disatisfied with his marriage, and could have given into temptation if he decided to give up on his marriage. In the film, Deckard could have decided not to involve himself with Rachel because she is a replicant (as he does in the novel) or simply because she won't live long enough for them to have a meaningful relationship. Any other thoughts?

Dave · 26th January 2005, 11:23 AM

It isn't something I had thought of until you brought it up in another thread. I had some thoughts though...

Firstly, I think one can sometimes analyze these things too much. Some books and films are really not that complicated and the writers and directors never put that much thought into them. I like films where they did, and I think 'Bladerunner' is in that class. I'm convinced of that from all the little clues put in about whether Deckard is a Replicant or not.

Now, both in Isaac Azimov's Robot stories and Philip K Dick's Simulacrum stories, the androids (I believe) are an allegory for slaves, or at least for the "working classes" - they do hard manually labour, have no rights and their views are of no importance. There can be a 'morality play' about discrimination. In Azimov's books, the Robots are unjustly blamed for the lack of jobs, which draws a parallel with immigrant labour. The Replicants in 'Bladerunner' are off-world miners and are staging a bid for freedom or a workers revolt. That does not prevent them from having 'human' emotions, in fact it makes them more 'human'.

But, most Robot/Android stories on film and TV have the Robot/Android as unable to love, or unfamiliar with the concept. I'm thinking 'Data' in 'Star Trek: TNG' here, or 'Star Trek: The Original Series' in general with Captain Kirk having to 'teach them the meaning of love.' The simple reason is that they need to be not completely human, otherwise it would be difficult to write any differences, and the lack of emotion is an easy one to write. And 'Love' is an important emotion.

In contrast, in the new 'Battlestar Galactica' TV Series the Cylons are shown to be capable of Love, Hate, Lies, Fear, Pregnancy, Religious experiences - 'human' in almost every way.

I have found that PKD's Simulacrums are always very human, though I'm not sure we can assume that all his Simulacrums and the Replicants are identical. There could be different kinds of android in different stories, but the Replicants in 'Bladerunner' would not return to Earth unless they did feel emotions - that was what drove them to come back 'home'.

So, going back to your question...

I think PKD probably meant them to love and, as you described, for this to be a part of the plot, but I think Ridley Scott left it out of the film deliberately. I couldn't say why, but it's strange that although he seems to have commented on other aspects of his vision of the story, he has not done so on this one.

imported_lazygun · 29th July 2006, 11:26 PM

That is what I took from the Book and Film,after a great deal of thought,lol.
The difference between Human and Replicant in the end was the programmed short life-span.Genetics.
Even today there are people with a life-span of only 30-35 years,due to genetics.
And at the risk of offending,I have also seen the relevance of the Replicants being an echo of escaped slaves,back when Africans/Blacks were classed as being souless,and therefore could be classed as animals/beasts of burden.
.P.k.D. please remember,also wrote the short and gut-wrenching story,"Pre-Persons".A story set not too far in the future where the Wife in marriage was legally allowed to abort/kill her child up to the age of five.

That's five Years out of the womb,not five months pregnant.
A very well known female author was quoted soon after that she would like to smack him in the mouth.

26th January 2005, 02:04 AM	#1 (permalink)
Kanazaka Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Worth, IL Posts: 104	Deckard Loves Rachel My favorite thought-provoking difference between Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Blade Runner is Deckard's love for Rachel. In another post in this section, I've mentioned that it makes sense for Deckard to love Rachel if they're both replicants. This is true, and it's also true that he doesn't face any obstacles to love because he doesn't have a wife (of course, he never had a wife because he is a replicant, and his memories of his "ex-wife" are false). In the novel, Deckard tells Rachel that he would marry her if she wasn't an android, but he also no doubt decides not to fall in love with Rachel because he loves his wife too much. Comparing the book and the film, I'm fascinated by the concept of love knowing no boundaries except for the boundaries that we impose upon ourselves. I wouldn't extend this outside of humanity or simulated humanity, but I still feel that this is a strong statement. I also think that Deckard could have decided to love or not to love Rachel in both the book and the film, and it still would have made sense. In the novel, after all, Deckard seems rather disatisfied with his marriage, and could have given into temptation if he decided to give up on his marriage. In the film, Deckard could have decided not to involve himself with Rachel because she is a replicant (as he does in the novel) or simply because she won't live long enough for them to have a meaningful relationship. Any other thoughts?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

26th January 2005, 11:23 AM	#2 (permalink)
Dave Wherever I Am, I'm There Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Greater London Posts: 11,308	It isn't something I had thought of until you brought it up in another thread. I had some thoughts though... Firstly, I think one can sometimes analyze these things too much. Some books and films are really not that complicated and the writers and directors never put that much thought into them. I like films where they did, and I think 'Bladerunner' is in that class. I'm convinced of that from all the little clues put in about whether Deckard is a Replicant or not. Now, both in Isaac Azimov's Robot stories and Philip K Dick's Simulacrum stories, the androids (I believe) are an allegory for slaves, or at least for the "working classes" - they do hard manually labour, have no rights and their views are of no importance. There can be a 'morality play' about discrimination. In Azimov's books, the Robots are unjustly blamed for the lack of jobs, which draws a parallel with immigrant labour. The Replicants in 'Bladerunner' are off-world miners and are staging a bid for freedom or a workers revolt. That does not prevent them from having 'human' emotions, in fact it makes them more 'human'. But, most Robot/Android stories on film and TV have the Robot/Android as unable to love, or unfamiliar with the concept. I'm thinking 'Data' in 'Star Trek: TNG' here, or 'Star Trek: The Original Series' in general with Captain Kirk having to 'teach them the meaning of love.' The simple reason is that they need to be not completely human, otherwise it would be difficult to write any differences, and the lack of emotion is an easy one to write. And 'Love' is an important emotion. In contrast, in the new 'Battlestar Galactica' TV Series the Cylons are shown to be capable of Love, Hate, Lies, Fear, Pregnancy, Religious experiences - 'human' in almost every way. I have found that PKD's Simulacrums are always very human, though I'm not sure we can assume that all his Simulacrums and the Replicants are identical. There could be different kinds of android in different stories, but the Replicants in 'Bladerunner' would not return to Earth unless they did feel emotions - that was what drove them to come back 'home'. So, going back to your question... I think PKD probably meant them to love and, as you described, for this to be a part of the plot, but I think Ridley Scott left it out of the film deliberately. I couldn't say why, but it's strange that although he seems to have commented on other aspects of his vision of the story, he has not done so on this one.

29th July 2006, 11:26 PM	#3 (permalink)
imported_lazygun Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Uzbekistan Posts: 21	That is what I took from the Book and Film,after a great deal of thought,lol. The difference between Human and Replicant in the end was the programmed short life-span.Genetics. Even today there are people with a life-span of only 30-35 years,due to genetics. And at the risk of offending,I have also seen the relevance of the Replicants being an echo of escaped slaves,back when Africans/Blacks were classed as being souless,and therefore could be classed as animals/beasts of burden. .P.k.D. please remember,also wrote the short and gut-wrenching story,"Pre-Persons".A story set not too far in the future where the Wife in marriage was legally allowed to abort/kill her child up to the age of five. That's five Years out of the womb,not five months pregnant. A very well known female author was quoted soon after that she would like to smack him in the mouth.