DR. BLOODMONEY by Philip K. Dick
Happy endings are rare in the canon of PKD’s novels; even in those where things end up sort of alright for the protagonist(s), life in general is still horrible and depressing. A happy ending loses its impact when everything that precedes it is dark and dsytopian and paranoid. So what if the Allies won WWII in some other reality? The Nazis won here, and life sucks.
Dr. Bloodmoney, though, is actually a hopeful novel, despite the fact that it’s set seven years after a nuclear war has wiped out most of the world’s population and destroyed most man-made infrastructure. People have managed to survive, and have begun re-building civilization. The community which is the focus of the novel has what appears to be a cooperative government, and it has a school.
The picture is not at all utopian, of course. Communities are fairly isolated, owing to the descruction of infrastructure and the difficulty of travel, and are more willing to steal from neighboring communities than work with them. Also, they are insular, distrusting any outsiders. The Army, where it survives, is naturally corrupt. There is racial prejudice - against both blacks and “war darkies,” people disfigured by radiation - and against phocomeli and “funny people” - mutants, children conceived after the bombs fell. And common animals have mutated and become uncomfortably intelligent.
But life goes on, and the two threats to the new civilization - Dr. Bloodmoney and Hoppy Harrington - are defeated. The book ends on a decidedly positive note, which really confuses me. How am I supposed to take it? Is it really a statement of belief in mankind’s ability to persevere in the face of disaster? And if it is, did Dick think that was an admirable quality? Or is the whole thing actually cynical and ironic - Dick saying, “Even nuclear war won’t stop people from being petty and selfish”? I don’t know. But it was a good read, anyway.