why do I still read Philip K. Dick?

Dick was an abusive partner and a misogynistic writer.

further more, even from a strictly literary perspective the misogyny can't just be ignored or skipped over. a lot of it is central to characterization and plot. Dick seemed to really only know how to write basically the same angry, bitter, entitled, jealous, sexually insecure jackass protagonist for nearly every book (Timothy Archer being one of the few exceptions). from Ubik to Scanner Darkly to Stigmata to Clans of the Alphane Moon to Pot Healer to Flow my Tears to Counter-Clock World to A Maze of Death, it's the same guy over and over, with the same angry, cruel asshole. these characters are usually unhappily divorced and treat every woman of their age (and younger, Dick's worst writing of all concerns minors) like a prop for their own spiritual development and sexual satisfaction, a commodity to be used and abused and then either reconciled to or replaced with a younger woman. Man in the High Castle and VALIS, both of which I consider among Dick's best works from a literary perspective, have these problems, though the memoir nature of VALIS lens itself to a self-critical reading. I often go through long periods where I don't read any of his work at all because I can't handle his bullshit.

yet I do still read him. I find a few of his books to be genuinely really well written (especially some of his later works that seem to be consciously critical of his past misogyny, especially Timothy Archer) and because I'm interested in his impact on the field of SF as a whole. likewise I still read David Foster Wallace and Salmon Rushdie and a fair number of other men who in both their writing and actions ranged from problematic to outright horrible. partly it's because I'm interested in their genres and subfields, interested in the impact they've had and I try to seek out critical responses they've prompted from other writers, especially women.

eventually I may stop reading him altogether, but for now I guess I find it worthwhile to read and engage and push back and write critical reviews of his work, because the nature of an informally canonized work is that it's ripples have already been sent out into the rest of the field, and you can either deal with them explicitly or try to ignore them, but ignoring them can often allow the more subtle/moderate influences to perpetuate further without critical recognition.

Dick's work will always be marred for me due to his sexism. I'll always view his work as flawed, always lend any questionable things he says less grace because of how often he's shown himself to be writing from a bad faith, bigoted perspective. I'll keep reading his works as cultural artifacts for now, but I wouldn't defend him from any move to reject him or exclude his work from consideration in literary discussions. Gods know he's already had more than his share of focus and idealization and influence and adaptations.

if Dick were alive today, I wouldn't purchase any of his works first hand. as it is, the royalties go to his estate which I believe benefits his daughter. I wouldn't recommend any Dick book without including the caveat that the vast majority of his writing includes a lot of misogyny, and there are many people to whom I wouldn't recommend anything written by Dick at all.

finally, as a remediation, I would recommend that if you like Dick for his concept work, check out the works of female authors Octavia Butler, Nicky Drayden, Ursula K. LeGuin, Mary Doria Russell, or Becky Chambers. they've engaged in a number of themes and premises similar to Dick's (aliens, telepathy, xenotheology, altered humanity), not only with greater empathy but also more skillfully from a literary perspective. for an honorary mention I'll also add Stanislov Lem, who admired Dick's work but whom Dick resented and (baselessly) accused of plagiarizing. Lem in particular really does read like Dick with 90% less sexism.