Talk:Valis (novel series)

Archer not a part of the Trilogy?

This is a common misconception, found also in books written by literary critics such as Patricia Warrick's Mind in Motion. Such a wrong idea stems from the very simple fact that until this year (2010) the sixth and last volume of Dick's letters was unpublished and not accessible. Now that we have his letters covering the last months of his life, there's no doubt that:

• Dick saw Archer as a part of the Trilogy
• If he had written Owl, it could have been a further part of the VALIS Trilogy, which would have been a tetralogy

Btw whenever someone discusses whether we should treat the three novels as a trilogy or not, based on how Owl might have completed the trilogy instead of Archer, s/he seems to forget that Owl was never written, it wasn't even began. Dick described the plot and the basic themes in several letters, but those plotlines and themes are different in each letter! And what he could have actually written could have been completely different from what he wrote in his letters (this had already happened for VALIS!). So we must understand that Owl cannot be used to prove anything, because it does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.63.32 (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am an Italian scholar who has written a book on Dick, to be published next year (2011) in the USA, and I discuss this issue in the eighth chapter of my forthcoming monograph, so I know what I'm talking about. --93.40.48.91 (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If Phil liked Tim Archer being part of the VALIS books, well, fine, since he was the author, but it bothers me. Radio Free Albemuth fits much better, as it was a warm up forVALIS.