Men’s Crack: The Game

I’m no model or god with women, dry spells to be sure, but I’ve never had a serious problem meeting women nor sustaining long term relationships. A few years ago I stumbled onto 'The Game' through a female friend, weirdly enough. It’s a book based on supposedly real events. Rolling Stone writer Neil Strauss emerges himself in the world of ‘Pick Up’, a quasi secret internet society – based in America but also spread around the world – dedicated to the sole art of picking up women. Strauss transforms from geek to smooth operator and delves into the skills he learned and describes the people he met, as well as his self transformation.

Strauss explains things here.

I found the book initially very amusing, these wacky characters on some alternative lifestyle trip. Strauss is a good writer too.

Since then, the ‘Pick Up Community’ has grown exponentially, from a geeky and amateurish underground subculture, punching through to mainstream visibility (Strauss’ book was a New York Times bestseller) with accompanied gloss and sheen. These days, witness VH1, an American TV channel, which ran two seasons of ‘The Pick Up Artist’ hosted by ‘Mystery’, a ‘Pick Up’ pioneer and character who features heavily in Strauss’ book; similar shows continue to be produced, like ‘Keys to the VIP’.

Perhaps the biggest barometer of the movement is the slew of products from a gaggle of gurus who have their own websites, e-books, DVDs, seminars and live weekend boot camps where students are taught by coaches, and then are taken in-field to test their mettle – for a hefty fee.

The idea basically being sold is this: there are certain rules to social interactions spanning fashion, body language, verbal tonality, as well as what to say and when. Most gurus have simplified models detailing the various stages of seduction, from meeting a women to having sex. Although not all are so rigid, with some preferring a more ‘natural’ style of ‘game’. This idea – a blueprint for success – presumably appeals to people having no luck with their amorous approaches, or those looking for some fine tuning.

The theories, tips, tricks, and insights are mix of self-help, social psychology, psychiatry and evolutionary theories.

Since reading ‘The Game’, I’ve read a lot of the material out there, spanning most of the 'systems' espoused by various gurus. I used to think it was very funny stuff, almost absurd. But all is not harmless fun. At first glance things seem anodyne, guys meeting girls, and although there is a good side in purportedly helping guys with no social skills, it is also apparent that a lot of the material sold to guys is (expensive) vacuous marketing hype, which is ethically dubious in content and underlying philosophy.

So here are some of my pithy dissenting remarks about the ‘Pick Up’ scene:

-- I think there is a claim here to preying on male insecurity as women's gossip and fashion magazines partly do to women. The situation is often set up as such: ‘Are you too: bald, fat, insecure, old, tall, short, poor, inept, sexually stunted etc.’ ... And the solution is of course to buy the latest material .... 'then I can teach you how to meet any women you want, all in the space of 200 pages!' There is no denying that the ‘Pick Up scene’ is now a multi-million dollar industry with products priced in their thousands for a boot camp and hundreds of dollars for audio products and DVDs.

-- A lot of the theories are based on a narrowly circumscribed evolutionary theory of humans. ‘Push the right buttons, and she will be “hardwired” to respond.’ This is faulty namely because it doesn't take into account the role of real life personality differences and situations, culture, ideals, nor intellect. To me, there is something missing painting humans and women especially, as the sum of their DNA. Further, a lot of mating and flirting rituals are culturally formed, and transform culturally, so I am not sure that I agree with the hard core evolutionary argument often implicit in many of these theories. Pushing it to its logical conclusion, you should be able to walk up to ANY woman, ANY time and push the right buttons. This is clearly not the case and to assume so is mad. In a move of (to me) astounding illogicality, many of the systems state, or their gurus confess that ‘some women just don't want to be picked up and you just have to improve your odds by learning the material.’

-- -- A realist response is that the techniques work so it must be hardwired responses. However, the information that isn't revealed is the ratio of success to failure. It might be the case that certain women respond differently to different guys, and if so, it appears to be some other variable accounting for success or failure than tapping into their hardwired responses. The ‘Pick Up’ literature in general sweeps the problems of failure under the preverbal rug, insisting that following the method exactly leads to success. Failure is a result of not executing properly. This, it seems, would serve to internalise and personalise failure for the student; hardly helpful stuff.

-- Many of the 'Pick Up' gurus have a narrative: transform a socially inept introvert to a ‘cool’, smooth and attractive extrovert. While this may be admirable in some respects, it falters in others. Namely, it doesn't account for different types of people meeting each other. For instance, the theories assume that geeky (or insert any pejorative term) guys cannot meet attractive women. However, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that geeky guys can meet other geeky women, and geeky guys can meet (attractive or otherwise) women who like geeky guys. There is a lot of variance among people, and it’s not necessarily the case that a man need become a LA type socialite to a) attract women or b) live a happy life.

-- A lot of systems seem to be about borderline manipulation. If one gets into the material, you will hear a lot about 'frame control', 'alpha males', 'dominance' and such. To me, these are just euphemisms for doing what you want to whomever you want merely for the purposes of being 'attractive' or getting your way. Whilst this may be an aspiration for some, it is not something I need nor advocate. The people I am close to don't feel the need to dominate or manipulate others because the starting point is different: acting civilly and with virtue is just a good thing to do outside of the possible benefits you might accrue. A lot of this murky thought stems from the evolutionary point of view adopted: society is one big competition; men strong, women weak; men lead, women follow; men need to ‘take’ or ‘claim’ women and show dominance; men fight each other for women; men just need to figure out the right buttons to push on women to get them to work properly, that is, for them to work for men. While there may certainly be truths or half-truths in this puddle of thought, it all seems a little caveman, 20th century, and too black and white for me. It positions the lone male as the only active force against passive or mean-spirited females that need to be won over and conquered – a little base and basic. Essentially, women are dehumanized by being viewed as animals or machines.

-- A lot of the philosophies are very often narrowly utilitarian. That is, acting in a certain way is only justified because of the results you will get. This is ethically bankrupt. Many gurus teach things like: ways of stealing a guy’s girlfriend, ‘fake it to you make it’ to convince a women of your ‘worth’, an arsenal of ways for getting women to say ‘yes’ to sex if they initially refuse, and other assorted manipulative techniques to increase ‘compliance’ from women; i.e. getting women to do what you want.

-- You are what you eat. Likewise, you are what your teacher is because you adopt their worldview. A very small proportion of the gurus have long term girlfriends, wives or families. This is fine on the grounds that this might be what they want. A lot of guys shun monogamous norms, which is also fine. However, digging a little a deeper, and I get the sense that there is a lot of sexual addiction for the 'successful' guys in the community. A lot of the gurus claim to have a lot of sex. It appears that they don’t engage in what people in the adult world call, relationships of substance. Which again, is fine; I’m not one for preaching how to live your life. But I think it is important to recognise the underlying lifestyle that is being pushed here. A lot of the original gurus are now (oddly) approaching middle age, but it still seems that the material teaches you to get the girl, but not keep her. This makes sense in that the entire industry is called ‘Pick Up’, and not ‘find a nice girl to connect with and marry’. But I wonder what happens when the ‘pick up’ finishes and the relationship begins? Do the women realise they’ve fallen for a shell of a man? It would be interesting to read some retrospectives in 20 years time though.

-- A lot of the material is canned, even in so called 'natural game'. You learn what to say, what not to say, what to do in certain situations, what not to do in others, what to wear, what personalities to have, what jokes to tell etc. Although there is attraction in a rigid system and dogma for ease of learning, it is very robotic and hollow. Do you want to show women who you are, or what some guy has told you to be? This reliance on canned material also reinforces the underling psychological message: you alone are not good enough. This feeds into the business feedback loop: buy more products and we can cure you of your anti-social disease(s).

-- There is a limited pool of useful information; a lot of gurus recycle each other’s information (the web of former work associates is very tangled as companies go bust and others spring up) as well as there own, just in slightly different packaging, which leads to trench warfare among rival companies which are all vying for the average Joe’s desperate dollar, without producing much real innovation or really new ideas.

-- There is significant backlash now both from gurus themselves (sniping at each other) and from their clients. See sites such as this, this and this. It seems that the sell-redundant-and-expensive-information-to-desperate-guys bubble is about to burst. Many claims abound: fakery in ‘pick up’ videos, money back guarantees not honoured, appropriation of content, and marketing scams all rate high on the growing list of gripes.

-- There is also latent academic attention. One study finds that:

These problematic texts privilege biological responses as “truth” and position women's bodies against themselves by teaching men to arouse women and then to interpret this physical arousal as consent and ignore women's verbal communication.

This refers to the essential aim of many of the theories: arouse a women emotionally and physically; this will override her logical objections. Again, not a very flattering or inspiring picture painted of women.

In summary, whilst there is no doubting that some of the stuff works, especially for people who are on the shy side, I would suggest to anyone considering getting deeper into the material to take what they read with a pinch of salt and a glass of gin. Indeed, with many of the ‘Pick Up’ products priced at thousands of dollars, and all theories borrowing heavily from psychology and psychiatry, why not cut out the middle man and go see a real shrink? It seems many male problems stem from a lack of self esteem and social awareness, and sexual anxiety. Real problems to be sure, but I’m not entirely convinced that the ‘Pick Up’ scene is tackling these problems at their roots, but rather, are offering one band aid per DVD sold or boot camp booked.

That's my take on the ‘Pick Up’ scene.

The Tongue Scraper

I recently purchased a tongue scraper. I don’t suffer from bad breath – at least no-one has complained – but I was waltzing down the healthcare aisle last week and came across the curious little specimens. I’ve always been vaguely aware of them, but I don’t know anyone who regularly scrapes, until now!

So, a week into my tongue scraping and things are going well. I’ve noticed a markedly cleaner feeling post-brush, and dare I hint, fresher breath. I’m sure everyone is aware of that white pasty film left on the tongue after you brush your teeth – even after a mouthwash attack? Anyways, that pearly sheen is full of bacteria. Adding to the funk, Professor Google tells me that at the back of your tongue are little dimples, and most of the really bad and stinky bacteria are found in-between these dimples, all festering and doing their bacteria thing. The bacteria release sulphur, that rotten egg smell. They account, apparently, for around 80-90 percent of our bad breath. Associate Professor Wikipedia opines that there are around 500 different types of bacteria found on the tongue; probably a lot of these characters are harmless, or even beneficial, but that still leaves a large contingent of unwelcome disco dancers.

The problem with merely brushing the tongue is that the brush is too coarse and bulky to do the job in the dimple territory, unless you like to gag. However, the tongue scraper is a nimble fellow and gets right back into the cheap seats to bring out the badness. It’s easy, and the difference is noticeable. Get into it and let me know how you fare!

The White T-Shirt

The white t-shirt is a nice all-rounder that I’m appreciating more and more these days.There’s something special about a white t-shirt. Of course the black t-shirt is a mainstay in any modern man’s wardrobe, but the white t-shirt has a certain pizazz that’s attractive. Its downright simplicity and versatility is hard to beat.

No, not the gangster version, but the sleeker, more stylish kind.

I’m heading out for a quiet coffee with a friend? Cool, no problem, I’ll just chuck on some tidy shorts, and a nicely pressed white t-shirt, smart shoes, and maybe a hat; I’m rockin’ that relaxed but tidy look.

What’s that? I’ve got an afternoon workout? Nice. Sweatpants or shorts and a nice plain white t-shirt. I’m feeling fresh and ready to roll. Also for me, there’s something weird going on at the gym, because I know suspect that I run longer and harder when I’ve donned a pallid colour, compared to the darker shades.

I’m just bumming around home? I’ll just put on either a white t-shirt, or a white singlet. It gives me a fresh feeling and it also slightly inoculates me from that itch which says I should be doing something more productive. If I’m lazy at least I feel clean in white.

Going out for a big night? Cool. I’m just slipping on some nice fitting jeans, funky shoes, and a pressed white tee with a funky design on; or perhaps a plain understated little number, because I’m like that, I come in under the radar.

So, why do I like the white tee so much? Well the psychology of colour appears to be my answer.

In humans at least, white seems to evoke the following for: purity, peace, comfort, simplicity, cleanliness, freshness, holiness, and trustworthiness to list a few. So here we infuse signs and symbols, with feelings and emotions. I’m not sure about holiness, but these emotional attributes are ones that I admire, seek to cultivate in my life, and respond well to; so it seems logical that I like white.

Also, in Summer, white tees keep you cool because they reflect light. There’s nothing like a fresh, white cotton tee to keep you cool in the torrid months.

Black is the other popular colour for tees, as well as the little black dress for women. Black’s more formal, having connotations of elegance, power, authority, mystery and sleekness. That, coupled with the well known fact that black is a good base colour for fashion, has seen it play a central place in my wardrobe for years. Whilst I’m by no means getting a divorce, I’m subtly shifting black and darker shades out of the default choice, and ushering in the simplicity of whites, especially the white tee.

Gym Stereotypes

Frequent any gym for a decent period and you'll come across a subset of people that conform to a gym stereotype. Here is a light-hearted look at the wonderful people I commonly see at the gym. I'll use the pronoun 'he' for the most part because most of these apply to guys; girls don't seem as ridiculous as guys at the gym.

Here's where I'm coming from:

THE TALKER

This is the guy that just won't stop talking. He comes in and starts talking to you when you are maxing out on your third set of death-squats. The blood-red color, and pained expression on your countenance doesn't deter him. Your sweat drenched shirt, heaving chest, and despondent body language all fail to drop any useful hints. He wants to know how you are, how the family is, what happened on the weekend, what you ate for breakfast and what the state of your stool was. Simply put, he doesn't get that you're trying to work-out and a nice simple hello would suffice, and maybe a chat a bit later on.

THE SCREAMER/THE GRUNTER

I'm quite fond of this guy because he is bat-shit crazy, and great entertainment. This is the guy that insists on screaming during sets. The funny thing is, that the screams don't correlate to the load lifted: the mind shattering war cries pump out at astronomical decibel levels on the 3kg bicep curl, as with the 100kg bench. He wants the whole gym to know how much pain he is going through.

THE GRUNTER is of a similar breed to THE SCREAMER. This guy insists on grunting ridiculously loud during each rep. He sounds like he is urgently humping something mixed with a pinch of desperation, like time is running out.

Perhaps SCREAMER and GRUNTER should ally and form a tag-team partnership. Or even more perverse, a choir. I'm sure there is a niche there. Perhaps other Grunters and Screamers would buy their wares. Grunters and Screamers might listen to this stuff on the way to work in the car as well as at the gym on their ipods. There might even be practice groups because you don't want an off-key grunt now do you?

THE STEALER

This is the guy that is oblivious to the world around him. As a rule, if a set of dumbbells are at someone's feet, one might conclude that they are in use. Likewise, if I'm using a plate-loaded machine, it's wise to assume that the plates in the immediate vicinity of the machine, are going to be used shortly. So, taking these items is a no-no. There is a way round this that 90% of people seem to oblige by, it's called "working in." That is, just politely asking: "Hey, can I quickly use these (dumbbells or plates etc) while you are taking a rest?" But not so for THE STEALER. He will time his run so you are in the middle of your set. Then, he'll avoid eye contact, and nonchalantly walk off with a small truck-load of weights, the very truck-load that you'd have used! Confronting THE STEALER is like asking a wolf why it kills its prey. It's in THE STEALER'S nature, don't bother.

THE HAWK

Of a similar family is THE HAWK. Sometimes there are too many people for the machines being used. A standard way around this that again, socially intelligent people seem to have figured out, is by buddying up with another person. So I use it while Mike rests and visa versa. Not so for the HAWK. He has an inability to talk. So while I'm using a machine, I'll see Mr. HAWK staring at me, circling me, and breathing on me as he waits for the machine to be free. Think Smeagol/Gollum from Lord of the Rings. It stuffs up my flow and makes me feel weird. Then, when I give even the slightest signal that I'm done, Mr. HAWK swoops down with a sneaky little self satisfied smile on his face; yes the precious is his.

THE POSEUR/MIRROR MAN

This guy is comedy gold. He struts around the gym like Arnold. He is usually wearing some garish skin tight attire and sporting a cheesy hair cut. He looks at other people with utter contempt. He loves working out in front of the mirror and periodically flexes after each set to check out those guns. The worst thing is that these guys are usually not body builders, they are just regular Joe's who love themselves a little too much. The biggest case of this that I've ever witnessed, was when a MIRROR MAN was doing squats in long sweat pants. He went for his customary post-set flex but those darn sweat pants weren't cooperating. So he rolled them up (to look like short-shorts). He then had this crazy bunched up mess around his groin area. Yes, that made him happy. Gotta see them thighs.

CREEPY GUY

So this one is obvious. This guy makes the ladies feel a little uncomfortable. He insists on working out behind where the ladies are doing their yoga stretches. Or he might be strategically stretching at a chosen point because of the view. It's obvious. It's weird. Here's a CREEPY GUY POV:

And actually, ya know what? I just did a search on Youtube for something like "looking at girls in the gym" and there's an arsenal of stuff. Jeez. CREEPY GUYS are out in force.

FLIRTY GIRL

FLIRTY GIRL is the best of the worst listed here. There is probably a male version but I've included it in with (TRAINER/MODEL). I'd rather be talking with FLIRTY GIRL than with Mr. MIRROR or THE TALKER. But still, flirty girl is a little intense. She is usually not wearing much at all and puts on makeup to workout. Something like this:

And it's not really about what FLIRTY GIRL is wearing, it's about what she does. She'll come up to you (and all the other guys) and be all touchy-feely: high-fives, hugs and even a few ass-slaps. She'll complain that she is getting fat (subtly inviting you to protest), faux complement your physique, and generally proceed to brazenly flirt up a storm. Sometimes FLIRTY GIRL engages in black ops and snipes at her female counterparts. Now usually I don't mind this carry on at all, except in the gym. At the gym I'm a sweaty mutant. I'm there to work out. I don't want to worry about fashion, flirting or anything related. FLIRTY GIRL is a little much for me at the gym -- too much energy required to play FLIRTY'S game.

THE TRAINER/MODEL

There's always one. It must be something about the self-selecting bias of the profession. But there's always a personal trainer at the gym that is some aspiring model/stud/actor. I generally like trainers, but THE TRAINER/MODEL is just as intense and weird as FLIRTY GIRL. He will be tall, good-looking, athletic, and boy does he know it. He'll generally zero in on any half attractive women and talk to her in a macho postuering way. He'll offer odes of advice with chest puffed out and hands on hips. If he has to go anywhere he will crab-walk his way over. I also see TRAINER/MODEL looking in the mirror a lot, it's all about the hair baby. He is kind of like this:

ADVICE GUY

This guy is usually well intentioned. He'll come up to you in various states of mild agitation and he'll either flat out tell you that you're doing an exercise wrong, or 'politely' give you some advice on form. This isn't actually that bad, but there's something about the way that ADVICE GUY is a busy-body that is unsettling. I've seen ADVICE GUY walk across the whole gym to sprinkle some morsels of advice on some unsuspecting lifter. It's like ADVICE GUY just can't bear to think that there are different ways to do an exercise, or someone might not be using picture perfect form. Get a life ADVICE GUY; concentrate on your own workout.

THE GYM IDIOT

This guy has no idea what he is doing in the gym. He really need lessons because he jumps on the machines and starts pumping away with no idea as to what he is meant to be doing. It's dangerous! I can't understand THE GYM IDIOT because all you have to do is a) read a book/internet, b) ask someone or c) copy what other people are doing. GYM IDIOTS fail on all three counts.

Something like this:

THE PHONE FREAK

This is the guy that uses his phone whilst exercising. He'll be busting out a leg press while calmly texting. How are you supposed to be working out? Is your phone that important that it can't wait for 40 min? There are other variations of this, like people making obnoxiously loud phone calls while walking around the gym. Also, some seem to like getting on the cell phone when on the treadmill. This is sometimes done in tandem with going about 2km/h and watching TV. This admittedly impressive multitasking still baffles me!

TOO CLOSE GUY

This guy has no concept of personal space. In an already crowded dumbbell section he'll jump right in front of you and starting exercising, almost completely restricting your range of movement. It's not uncommon to have dumbbells whizzing past your head or rattling around your feet, threatening to amputate toes as TOO CLOSE GUY unloads his repertoire without concern for others. I'm not sure if this is done purposely. Actually, that'd be a little more comforting. The alternative -- that he is oblivious --- is rather more vexing.

TAG TEAM DUO

Commonly, two work out buddies will work out together. This is all well and good until the high-fives, chest-bumps, first-smashes, ass-slaps and assorted brotherly banging happens. Their vernacular consists of "One more"(they always seem to be doing one more rep), "push it" and I've actually heard "feel the burn!" It's like being in high school again. The TAG TEAM DUO can be found in all age ranges.

Here's some related funny as hell videos I've found after I made this list. Enjoy.

Grade Inflation Part 2

The New York Times has an article about the grade inflation mentioned in a study I blogged about yesterday. Rampell, the author of the Times article, provides this graphic. It shows a comparison of private and public universities in the years 1960, 1980, and 2007. Yes, private schools are the main offenders. Shame on you!

Rampell cites the paper's authors as to the likely (but unproven) causes of grade inflation; it being due to:

a more “consumer-based approach” to education, which they say “has created both external and internal incentives for the faculty to grade more generously.” More generous grading can produce better instructor reviews, for example, and can help students be more competitive candidates for graduate schools and the job market.

This seems to answer my second question from yesterday. Yes, market based universities need to curry favour with their "customers" in the form of grade inflation.

More worryingly, however, is recent evidence that students actually don't learn that much in American colleges. Again, is this a global trend? A study, 'Academically Adrift' gave a basic logic and writing test to college students before, during, and near the end of their college education. It was designed to measure critical thinking skills supposedly learned in college, and required for later life.

The findings of the book are nicely summarized at The Chronicle. The study found that:

“gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skills (i.e., general collegiate skills) are either exceedingly small or empirically non-existent for a large proportion of students”;

36 percent of students experienced no significant improvement in learning (as measured by the CLA) over four years of schooling;

less than one-half of seniors had completed over 20 pages of writing for a course in the prior semester;

total time spent in academic pursuits is 16 percent; students are academically engaged, typically, well under 30 hours per week;

scholarship from earlier decades suggest there has been a sharp decline in both academic work effort and learning;

“students…majoring in traditional liberal-arts fields…demonstrated significantly higher gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills over time than students in other fields of study. Students majoring in business, education, social work , and communications had the lowest measurable gains”;

35 percent of the students sampled spent five hours or less a week studying alone; the average for all students was under 9 hours.

So basically, students are not learning very much, doing less work than previous generations, but receiving ridiculously high grades. These findings, coupled with the rise of tuition prices, begs the question: Is a college worth the price? Especially considering that an American college education (tuition) easily costs around $100,000 for four years.


Financially, the answer seems to be, yes, university graduates earn more money than non-graduates.



Even if the Academically Adrift findings hold true, it still seems a large portion of students do make learning gains. Still, if a good chunk of students are now learning less, paying more, but still enjoying a job market premium over non-degree earners, what actually happens at college for these non-learning students to be successful after college? Most probably, for the average non-learning college student, college buys access to networks and/or real learning happens later. I suspect, for the low (non) achievers of college, an undergraduate college degree merely buys them the paper which certifies that they enjoy the critical skills necessary for higher paid jobs. Moreover, the traditional university has never been about gaining vocational skills. It is about gaining critical thinking skills. But now this certificate is being called into question for a subset of students, which in turn raises the question: Has the university system failed the non-learners, or are they simply not up to the grade inflated standard?

That A was really a B or a C.

A new American study revels that around 43% of all letter grades are As in university. Private colleges have more grade inflation than state ones. I wonder two things: 1) Is this a global phenomenon? 2) Is it a function of market forces invading the university? The implication here is that when students are viewed as consumers, the need to please them -- by rewarding higher grades -- becomes more urgent.

A Partisan Electorate

America is becoming more partisan , I suspect in part, because debate is fueled by niche cable news channels.

Review: A Scanner Darkly

A while ago I sent out a call on Facebook asking people if they could recommend any good Science-fiction books. You see, I recently purchased a Kindle DX and felt like sprouting my genre wings. Two names popped up: Phillip K. Dick, and my namesake, Neal Stephenson. I went with Dick because I enjoyed Minority Report, a movie based on one of his books. Usually the books are better than the movies; the logic appeared sound, and it was. A Scanner Darkly is essentially about addiction and identity. Written in the 70s, Dick is preoccupied with the questions of his age: fluidity of identity, counter-culture and drugs, and resisting authority.

We are introduced to a group of Californian addict friends. The addicts we meet are all helpless: victims of their own aversion of straight, authoritarian society. They lack much in common except their addiction to Substance D, and penchant for waxing lyrical on crack-pot fantasies, paranoid delusions, and mindless banter. The book is set in the midst of a Substance D epidemic. The drug has nasty side effects including massive paranoia, schizophrenia, brain damage, and delusions.

Here's the trailer for the movie (which was very closely based on the book):



Fred (undercover alias Bob Arctor), is a NARC agent hoping to slink his way higher up the food chain and tap into supply nodes of Substance D. He secretly monitors his addict housemates -- Ernie Luckman, James Barris, and Charles Freck -- through clandestine cameras, which he watches from another house.

The book runs as a psychological narrative of drug users -- especially Arctor. We glean insights into drug culture: The paranoia, amorphous lifestyle, pointless conversations, hair-brained schemes and assorted banter of the users are all front and center. The basic plot investigates if and how Arctor can maintain himself to successfully infiltrate the drug ring. His management of his nut-job housemates, his feelings toward Donna Hawthorne, a love interest and drug supplier, as well as his own psychological demons all coalesce into a spooky, but riveting story-line.

I'll spare a more detailed plot summary and go into what I got out of the book.

There are some interesting themes which emerge. One is that of identity. Fred, the undercover NARC agent, has been ingesting substance D as much as anyone. He develops brain difficulties which essentially prevent him from cognitively translating reality effectively to his brain. He gets confused as to his core identity. He starts out posing as a drug user (alias Arctor), but then becomes a real drug addict. This calls into question if he (Arctor) is actually posing as a NARC agent (Fred). Also, in a twist of irony, it transpires that Fred is narking on Arctor -- writing reports about his activities in the house -- which is essentially Fred narking on himself. He struggles to realize this point.

The police also wear special 'scramble suits' which are head-to-toe suits that project changing body parts, a kaleidoscope of eyes, hands, mouths etc. No-one knows anyone else's identity because of these suits. It logically ties in because all the undercover agents need to remain secret from each other, even their bosses. However, it certainly emphasizes a chameleonic view of identity, one that was popular among the counter-culture of the 60s and is still so today in many circles.

Also, the reader is constantly reminded that we don't really know anyone for real. The prevalence of the in-house cameras and Arctor constantly monitoring his housemates on them gives a voyeuristic element. Arctor's distrust of lunatic housemate Barris, and Barris' constant scheming reinforces a deep skepticism about trust. Arctor's unrequited amorous feelings for Hawthorn, and her tidal comings and goings reflect a shallowness of heart and lack of commitment to humanistic ideals of compassion and love. All this takes place in the midst of each character's central focus: Substance D.

There's also a heavy anti-authoritarian current to the book. California has turned into a police state. Police officers use force easily, and are always on the lookout for drugs, evidently bugging houses in the case of the housemates and Arctor. Even though Arctor is a police officer, the reader is not encouraged to have empathy for the police. Rather, we view them as monopolists of violence and persecutors of the lower class. When the vulnerable start to view the police and government as not acting for or with them, it is a symptom of a breaking and lop-sided society. The housemates are constantly and justifiably worried about being watched, bugged, followed, and busted by the police. Barris, the lunatic, is highly given to waxing ad nauseum about this, often concocting hilarious but utterly insane scenarios, which the housemates (including Arctor) take at least moderately seriously.

And finally, there is the drug itself. Dick gives a brutal account. There are no redeeming qualities to Substance D. We see it take away from its users. Arctor's addled mind, Barris in a paranoid whirl, Freck's suicide attempt, and the general effect on the populous are lucid points. Modern equivalents might be crack cocaine.

However, to read A Scanner Darkly as just a drug book would miss the point. I think it is, at its heart, a view into an alternative world, one which sympathizes with its hapless members: people who made a decision to follow an alternative lifestyle, but ultimately paid too high a price. It is easy to moralize with such hell-raisers. But such posturing is lazy, and Dick doesn't do this.

The post-script to the novel is edifying. I'll quote liberally from it.

Dick details how many of his friends died from taking too many drugs in the 60s. They didn't want to grow up, they wanted to remain playful and possibly coveted their alternative status. This was keeping with the times.The narrative of the rise and decline of the American 60s experience has been well covered so I won't repeat it here. I think it is illuminating to read Dick's work as a bookend to the 60s because their was no 'up' in the novel, just futility and meandering despair. Also, I think that one can take a structural view, but this is only implicit in the novel. If small numbers of people in a given society go off the beaten path, we can probably justifiable say that this is of no concern. But if large numbers of people feel so isolated from society, its people, institutions and processes, that they take to a life of drugs, paranoia, and ultimately a dead-end, then more serious questions need to be raised outside of the self-aggrandizing and justifying morality usually leveled at these patrons by more privileged members of society. Sure it's a choice, but reality is so much more complex.

"

This has been a novel about some people who were punished entirely too much for what they did. They wanted to have a good time, but they were like children playing in the street; they could see one after another of them being killed—run over, maimed, destroyed—but they continued to play anyhow ....

In this particular life-style the motto is “Be happy now because tomorrow you are dying,” but the dying begins almost at once, and the happiness is a memory. It is, then, only a speeding up, an intensifying, of the ordinary human existence. It is not different from your life-style, it is only faster. It all takes place in days or weeks or months instead of years ...

If there was any “sin,” it was that these people wanted to keep on having a good time forever, and were punished for that, but, as I say, I feel that, if so, the punishment was far too great, and I prefer to think of it only in a Greek or morally neutral way, as mere science, as deterministic impartial cause-and-effect. I loved them all.

It was, this sitting around with our buddies and bullshitting while making tape recordings, the bad decision of the decade, the sixties, both in and out of the establishment. And nature cracked down on us. We were forced to stop by things dreadful."

Springwatch: Mickey Smith BBC Two 2011

Legendary Investor Jeremy Grantham Thinks We're Screwed