The Man InThe High Castle by Philip K Dick

The 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the second world war has been much in the news this weekend.



Above: coincidentally I am currently reading The Man In The High Castle by Philip K Dick. The book describes a world in which the Allies lost the war and America has been divided between German-occupied eastern states and Japanese-occupied western states with a sort of American quisling-state buffer zone in the middle. I don't normally read science fiction, but I am finding this novel very complex, subtle and interesting - with an appearance by Philip K Dick himself, thinly disguised as the dissident "man in the high castle".



Above: Philip K Dick is supposed to be more than just a science fiction writer. He is widely regarded as a prophetic visionary who can "see" the future. His statements, so we are told, are not to be dismissed lightly.

Therefore you can imagine my surprise when I reached page 156 (in the Penguin edition) to read his most sympathetic character, the one who represents everything decent and "normal", voicing the opinion that the British should rule the world.

And in the "book within the book" the man in the high castle (ie Philip K Dick himself) predicts a world in which the British attain world hegemony, even over the Americans.

As I said, it's a complex book.

Which makes me wonder, were the opportunity to present itself, whether we would want world hegemony again. No-one would thank us for it. Wouldn't it be more comfortable to jettison even those foreign commitments we currently have (EU, NATO, Commonwealth) and turn our back on the world and become like Switzerland.

Controversial historical theme: there is a developing trend among some historians who are starting to look at British-American relations post-1945 from a very critical standpoint. "No foreign government has harmed British interests more than the Americans in the post-war period" is the thesis (America is supposed to have financially bled Britain dry in the years 1939-41; callously abandoned the British people to near-starvation in the years 1945-47; refused us support during the Suez Crisis; insisted on decolonisation during the 1950s and 60s; interfered in Northern Ireland during the 1970s; and dragged us into two pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). It's an interesting perspective, but one I would like to see more expanded before I give it serious consideration.