Allyn Gibson wrote:
But I'm referring to this issue. On its own, it's extremely superficial. Slott's writing lacks the depth that Philip K. Dick or Warren Ellis would bring to the concept. You have two personalities fighting for control of a single mind. What we get is a brief battle that lacks stakes or any sense of jeopardy.
Is that really a fair critique? As far as I am aware, Dick wasn't required to knock out books aimed at the hamburger franchise crowd which have to come out every month without fail. If he was writing like Philip K. Dick, he would likely be fired within weeks because the majority of the readers would not like it/could not understand it!
I think Philip K. Dick, from the mid-50s to the mid-60s, when he was writing five to seven novels and fifteen to twenty short stories a year just so he and his family could have a roof over their heads and food on their plates, would be the first person to say that was he wrote was crap aimed at the hamburger franchise crowd.
Yes, he aspired to more than that (see his posthumously published mainstream fiction of the same era) and he was capable of more than that (see, well, any of the major works of the period, such as The Man in the High Castle
or Martian Time-Slip
), but he also had a formula that sold and sold well enough that he could live.