And, in Juliana’s case, she obviously, like all normal people, desires not to be lied to, not to have sex with people who are manipulating her, and not to be involved without her knowledge in an assassination plot. Given this, Joe thwarts Juliana’s desires without her knowing and harms her in the process.
Wait, So I Can Be Harmed After I Die? That Sucks
If we can be harmed while we’re alive without ever knowing that this harm has occurred, posthumous harm seems possible. If we can be harmed without ever knowing that this has occurred, then why does it matter if we’re alive or dead? Either way, we won’t know that the harm has taken place but we have been harmed all the same.
The philosopher Douglas Portmore asks, “If it is not necessary that you learn of the slander, or experience any ill effects as a result of it, for it to be harmful to you, then why would you need to be alive at the time of the slander for it to harm you?” This is made even clearer by the fact that we can have desires that extend beyond our lifetimes. As Portmore says in the case of slander, “Since you can desire to be respected not only while alive but also after your death, the slandering of your reputation, even after your death, can harm you.” If the thwarting of my desires can harm me without me knowing it, and if I can have desires that go beyond my lifetime, then I can be harmed after my death.
Consider this thought experiment based on Mr. Baynes:
Mr. Baynes wants to inform the Japanese government about Operation Dandelion, which is a Nazi plan to obliterate the Japanese Empire in a deadly surprise attack. Baynes painstakingly arranges a meeting with General Tedeki in order to tell him about Operation Dandelion. After much difficulty, he succeeds in telling General Tedeki about the plan. Although this deviates from the book, suppose that Baynes is fatally shot by the Nazi soldiers who infiltrate the Nippon Times Building. Then, suppose that, General Tedeki escapes and boards a ship back to Japan to inform the Emperor about Operation Dandelion. Due to the importance of this information, he tells nobody about it, waiting to tell only the Emperor. However, Tedeki suffers a heart attack halfway through the voyage and dies. Nobody ever finds out about Operation Dandelion.
In this case, we intuitively want to say that Baynes has been harmed. His desire was not just to give the information to Tedeki; rather, his desire was that the Japanese Emperor would learn of this information in time to act upon it. That desire was thwarted, and Baynes was harmed as a result, even though he was dead when this occurred.
Has Amazon Harmed Philip K. Dick in His Grave?
The question now facing us is whether or not the changes made in the TV adaptation of The Man in the High Castle thwarted some of Dick’s desires, thus harming him.
The Man in the High Castle is a difficult book to adapt to a video format. As executive producer, and former adapter of another Dick book, Ridley Scott, said in an Entertainment Weekly interview, “it’s a hell of a book to break down. There are about nineteen stories in the first twenty pages. How do you make that work? How do you get it down to the bottom line?”
Well, the answer is that, in order to adapt Dick’s writing to the screen, many changes are inevitable. The creators of the TV show were well aware of this, but they tried to make changes in ways that preserved Dick’s vision. As the creator of the show, Frank Spotnitz put it, “we departed from the novel, but we only did it to try to be more faithful to the ideas, and find ways to dramatize them more clearly.”
As Caitlin Gallagher has observed, the three major plots in the TV show (Mr. Baynes in San Francisco, Frank Frink in San Francisco, and Juliana with Joe in Colorado) are also in the book. In other ways, the TV show deviates from the book. The TV show alters the timeline of events that comes from the book. In the book, the very first line begins with the story of Robert Childan, but in the TV show, Childan first appears in episode 4. The TV show changes certain facts about the characters, as well as introducing new characters. In the book Juliana and Frank are already divorced, and Juliana already lives in Colorado. In the TV show, they are engaged, and she begins her story in San Francisco. In the book, Joe’s last name is Cinnadella, whereas his last name in the show is Blake. The TV show creates the characters of Chief Inspector Kido, Juliana’s half-sister Trudy, and John Smith, none of whom appears in the book. In the book, The Grasshopper Lies Heavy is a book, whereas it’s a newsreel in the TV show.
Have These Changes Harmed Dick?
Remember, the thwarting of my desires makes me worse off than I would be otherwise, which harms me. And, not only do I not need to know that this has happened in order for me to be harmed, I also can have desires that go past my lifetime; if these desires are thwarted, I can be harmed after my death. If the alterations to The Man in the High Castle have posthumously harmed Dick, they must thwart or hinder some desire that he possessed while he was alive and which can extend beyond his death. Which of Dick’s desires might have been thwarted by the TV adaptation?
Dick might have desired for movie adaptations of his work not to be made. If this were true, then the TV adaptation would have harmed Dick, because it would have thwarted a deeply held desire. But, the evidence suggests that Dick did not possess this desire. Although he died before he could watch the theatrical cut of Blade Runner, Alex Santoso reports that Dick saw “a special effect test reel of the movie” before he died. Upon seeing this version of the movie, he was overjoyed, saying “it was my own interior world. They caught it perfectly.” If Dick were against adaptations of his work, he surely would not have had this reaction to Blade Runner. So, the TV adaptation of The Man in the High Castle can’t have thwarted Dick’s desire for his works to not be adapted, because he had no such desire!
Second, perhaps Dick was fine with his work being adapted, but desired that no substantial changes be made in the adaptation. If this were true, then Dick would be harmed by the TV adaptation of The Man in the High Castle, because it contains fairly significant changes to his book. But, again, Dick’s reaction to Blade Runner suggests that he did not possess this desire. Blade Runner contains substantial alterations to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Dick declared himself happy with Blade Runner. If he had desired that no noticeable changes be made to his works in their adaptations, he would not have had this reaction.
Third, maybe Dick, like most authors, desired for his work not to be altered to the point of losing its original purpose. Thus, if the TV show changed his book so much that it lost its original purpose, then the adaption would have harmed Dick. But it seems pretty clear to me that the TV version of The Man in the High Castle, despite its changes, is faithful to the overall purpose and trajectory of Dick’s book. So, this desire has not been thwarted.
Fourth, Dick cared deeply about the success of science-fiction as a genre. In a letter that Philip K. Dick wrote before his death, he discusses his excitement that Blade Runner would help revitalize Sci-Fi as a genre:
The impact of Blade Runner is simply going to be overwhelming, both on the public and on creative people, and I believe, on science fiction as a field. Since I have been writing and selling science fiction works for thirty years, this is a matter of some importance to me. In all candor I must say that our field has gradually and steadily been deteriorating for the last few years. Nothing that we have done, individually or collectively, matches Blade Runner . . . Let me sum it up this way. Science fiction has slowly . . . settled into a monotonous death: it has become inbred, derivative, stale. Suddenly you people have come in . . . and now we have a new life, a new start.
Here Dick signals how deeply he cared about science fiction and how much he desired for it to thrive and innovate. Furthermore, he thought that Blade Runner contributed in a major way to this goal. So, if The Man in the High Castle had reduced the success of science fiction as a genre, then this would have been harmful to Dick. But, quite to the contrary; the production of this TV show will very likely enhance the recognition of science fiction.
The very fact that you’re reading The Man in the High Castle and Philosop
hy shows that The Man in the High Castle’s TV adaptation has created a demand for more writing and theorizing about science fiction! So, if anything, the TV adaptation has not thwarted, but rather has fulfilled, one of Dick’s deeply held desires.
Parting Thoughts from the Man in a Medium-Sized Chair
If posthumous harm is real, then we should be careful with how we treat the legacy of the dead. When we adapt the work of a deceased author, we ought to have in mind this author’s desires. If we don’t, we may posthumously harm the author.
However, in the case of The Man in the High Castle, Philip K. Dick has not been posthumously harmed by the changes made to his work, because the TV show has not violated any of Dick’s desires. Sadly, Dick is dead, but he’s no worse off, and maybe even somewhat better off, because of the TV show The Man in the High Castle.
Bibliography
Anthony, Karl K. 1988. A Guide to the I Ching. Anthony.
Arendt, Hannah. 2006 [1963]. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Penguin.
Arnold, Kyle. 2016. The Divine Madness of Philip K. Dick. Oxford University Press.
Augustine. 1964. On Free Choice of the Will. Pearson.
Aurelius, Marcus. 1983. The Meditations. Hackett.
Balaguer, Mark. 2010. Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem. MIT Press.
Baynes, C.F., trans. 1994. The Classic of Changes: A New Translation of the I Ching as Interpreted by Wang Bi. Columbia University Press.
Benjamin, Walter. 1968. Theses on the Philosophy of History. In Benjamin, Illuminations: Essays and Reflections. Schocken.
———. 2005. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. In Lawrence Rainey, ed., Modernism: An Anthology. Blackwell.
Berlant, Lauren. 2011. Cruel Optimism. Duke University Press.
Bertschinger, Richard, trans. 2011. Yijing, Shamanic Oracle of China: A New Book of Change. Singing Dragon.
Boonin, David. 2014. The Non-Identity Problem and the Ethics of Future People. Oxford University Press.
Bruner, Jerome. 1987. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard University Press.
Constantine, Murray [Katharine Burdekin]. 1937. Swastika Night. Gollancz.
Coppenger, Brett, and Kristopher Phillips. 2011. Is Justified True Bluth Belief Knowledge? In Kristopher Phillips and J. Jeremy Wisnewski, eds., Arrested Development and Philosophy: They’ve Made a Huge Mistake. Wiley-Blackwell.
Cover, Byron. 1974. Interview with Philip K. Dick. Vertex.
Crary, Jonathan. 2014. 24/7. Verso.
Cormack, Mike. 1992. Ideology. Michigan University Press.
Debord, Guy. 2000 [1967]. Society of the Spectacle. Black and Red.
Denton, Sally. 2012. The Plots against the President. Bloomsbury.
Derrida, Jacques, Giovanna Borradori, and Jürgen Habermas. 2003. Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Chicago University Press.
D’Holbach, Baron Paul. 2011 [1770]. Of the System of Man’s Free Agency. In d’Holbach, System of Nature. Theophania.
Dick, Philip K. 1962. The Man in the High Castle. Putnam.
———. 1977. A Scanner Darkly. Doubleday.
———. 1991. The Selected Letters of Philip K. Dick 1974. Underwood.
———. 1991. In Pursuit of Valis: Selections from the Exegesis. Underwood.
———. 1993. The Selected Letters of Philip K. Dick 1975–1976. Underwood.
———. 1993. The Selected Letters of Philip K. Dick 1977–79: Book Five. Underwood.
———. 1996 [1968]. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Del Rey.
———. 1997. The Selected Letters of Philip K. Dick 1938–1971. Underwood.
———. 2010. The Selected Letters of Philip K. Dick 1980–82. Underwood.
———. 2011 [1966]. Now Wait for Last Year. Mariner.
———. 2011 [1981]. Valis. Mariner.
———. 2011. The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick. Houghton Mifflin.
———. 2012 [1956]. The World Jones Made. Mariner.
———. 2012 [1969]. Ubik. Mariner.
———. 2013 [1970]. A Maze of Death. Mariner.
———. 2016 [1964]. A Game of Unchance. In The Eye of the Sibyl and Other Classic Stories by Philip K. Dick. Citadel.
Epictetus. 1983. The Handbook (Encheiridion). Hackett.
Epicurus. 1994. The Epicurus Reader. Hackett.
Feinberg, Joel. 1987. Harm to Others: Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Fumerton, Richard. 1987. Nozick’s Epistemology. In Steven Luper-Foy, ed., The Possibility of Knowledge: Nozick and His Critics. Rowman and Littlefield.
Gallagher, Caitlin. 2015. How Does “The Man in the High Castle” Compare to the Book? It May Be the Most Faithful Philip K. Dick Adaptation Yet. Bustle (November 21st).
Gallagher, Paul. 2012. Nothing Matches Blade Runner: Philip K. Dick Gets Excited about Ridley Scott’s Film. Dangerous Minds (April 18th).
Garber, Megan. 2015. “Edelweiss”: An American Song for Global Dystopia. The Atlantic. www.theatlantic.com.
Gettier, Edmund. 1963. Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis.
Goldman, Alvin. 1976. Discrimination of Perceptual Knowledge. Journal of Philosophy.
Hawthorne, John. 2004. Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford University Press.
Hitler, Adolf. 1998. Mein Kampf. Houghton Mifflin.
Holiday, Ryan. 2014. The Obstacle Is the Way: The Timeless Art of Turning Trials into Triumph. Penguin.
Hume, David. 2000 [1738]. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press.
Ihde, Don. 1993. Postphenomenology. Northwestern University Press.
Kang, Inkoo. 2015. “The Man in the High Castle” Creator Frank Spotnitz Dishes about Building a Nazi America. The Village Voice.
Kattago, Siobhan. 2001. Ambiguous Memory: The Nazi Past and German National Identity. Praeger.
———. 2012. Memory and Representation in Contemporary Europe: The Persistence of the Past. Routledge.
Lamont, Corliss. 1990. Freedom of Choice Affirmed. Continuum.
———. 1999. Freedom of the Will and Human Responsibility. In John Burr and Milton Goldinger, eds. Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. Prentice Hall.
Lampe, Evan. 2015. Philip K. Dick and the World We Live In. CreateSpace.
Laplace, Pierre-Simon. 1996. A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities. Dover.
Lefebvre, Henri. 2014. The Critique of Everyday Life. Verso Books.
Lewis, C.S. 1952. Mere Christianity. Harper Collins.
———. 2015 [1944]. The Abolition of Man. Harper.
Lewis, David K. 1973. Counterfactuals. Blackwell.
———. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell.
Lewis, Sinclair. 1935. It Can’t Happen Here. Doubleday Doran.
Li, Shirley. 2015. Man in the High Castle on Amazon: Ridley Scott, Frank Spotnitz Preview the Chilling Thriller Set in an Alternate History. Entertainment Weekly (November 18th).
Lynn, Richard John, trans. 1967. The I Ching or Book of Changes. Princeton University Press.
Minford, John, trans. 2015. I Ching: The Essential Translation of the Ancient Chinese Oracle and Book of Wisdom. Penguin.
Marcel, Gabriel. 2008. A Path to Peace: Fresh Hope for the World. Dramatic Explorations. Marquette University Press.
Mason, Timothy W. 1995 [1981]. Intention and Explanation: A Current Controversy about the Interpretation of National Socialism. In Mason, Nazism, Fascism, and the Working Class: Essays by Tim Mason, Cambridge University Press.
———. 1995. Nazism, Fascism, and the Working Class. Cambridge University Press.
Maass, Donald. 2012. Writing 21st-Century Fiction: High-Impact Techniques for Exceptional Storytelling. Writer’s Digest.
McLuhan, Marshall, and Quentin Fiore. 1967. The Medium Is the Massage. Bantam.
Meyrowitz, Joshua. 1985. No Sense of Place. Oxford University Press.
Morris, Tom. 2004. The Stoic Art of Liv
ing: Inner Resilience and Outer Results. Open Court.
Musil, Robert. 2012. Posthumous Paper of a Living Author. Penguin.
Nabokov, Vladimir. 1955. Lolita. Olympia.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. 1987. The Essential Reinhold Niebuhr: Selected Essays and Addresses. Yale University Press.
Nozick, Robert. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press.
Olander, Joseph B., and Martin Harry Greenberg, eds. 1983. Philip K. Dick. Writers of the 21st Century Series. Taplinger.
Panter, Nicole. 2003. The Second Coming of Philip K. Dick: The Inside-Out Story of How a Hyper-Paranoid, Pulp Fiction Hack Conquered the Movie World 20 Years After His Death. Wired (December 1st).
Paskin, Willa. 2015. “What does ‘Peak TV’ really mean?” in Slate. www.slate.com.
Plato. 1992. Republic. Hackett.
———. 1995. The Statesman. Cambridge University Press.
Platt, Charles. 1987 [1980]. Dream Makers: Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers at Work. Ungar.
Popper, Karl R. 1982. The Open Universe. Routledge.
Portmore, Douglas W. 2007. Desire Fulfillment and Posthumous Harm. American Philosophical Quarterly 44:1.
Rickman, Gregg. 1985. Philip K. Dick: The Last Testament. Valentine.
———. 1988. Philip K. Dick: In His Own Words. Valentine.
Roberts, David D. 2006. The Totalitarian Experiment in Twentieth-Century Europe: Understanding the Poverty of Great Politics. Routledge.
Russell, Bertrand. 1925. What I Believe. 1925. Routledge.
Santoso, Alex. 2014. Philip K. Dick Never Saw Blade Runner and Ridley Scott Never Finished Reading the Novel It Was Based On. Neatorama (January 30th).
Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1995 [1948]. Anti-Semite and Jew: An Exploration of the Etiology of Hate. Schocken.
Schaefer, F.C. 2014. Beating Plowshares into Swords: An Alternate History of the Vietnam War. F.C. Schaefer.
———. 2017. All the Way with JFK: An Alternate History of 1964. F.C. Schaefer.
Seneca. 1969. Letters from a Stoic. Penguin.
The Man in the High Castle and Philosophy Page 23