Customer Reviews
A man who is late is a man who is not there... - By: Deanne Dixon, 27 Aug 2007 
Never has a book had so much of an impact on me than the prequel to this one. I remember sittingin the pub on a wet Wednesday afternoon a couple of months ago with one of my more impressionable friends. Placing his pintin front of him, I began to tell him about Luke Rhinehart & his theory of dice-living: of the apparent virtues of letting chance decide; of the benefits of allowing the ego to be free of societal restraints; of the apparatus that allow us to embark upon the actions that the 'Id' has always desired.
"There are only two rules to dice-living", I continued, having spoken solidly for the past hour, "Number one, you can only give the dice options that you would be prepared to follow through - that way things don't get too out of hand. And, number two, you have to give the dice a get-out clause - one of the options that you give the dice is that you stop playing".
Having thus far only contributed a glazed facial expression & agreeing nods to the conversation, my friend eventually enigmatically & wordlessly stood up & walked out of the pub. In a state of bewilderment, thinking that he was so disgusted with the theory that he couldn't bear to speak to me, I picked up my mobile & called to see where he had gone. "The flea market, it's second-hand day today, I won't be long", was all that he said before he hung up. A few minutes later, he arrived back with a battered-looking, piece-missing box of Cluedo. Placing it on the table, noisely scrapping around inside it, he eventually looked up & smiled at me. Rolling the dice that he found at the bottom of the box, my friend proclaimed if he rolled a "six", he wouldn't play with the dice again. A "two" came out.
"Superb" he proclaimed, "It's your round".
I stared at him accusingly, "How do you work that out? I bought the last drink".
Eyebrows raised as if I was missing the obvious, he merely fired back "Yes, but options one to five were that you buy the drinks for the rest of the day!".
Clearly when I said that never has a book had so much of an impact on me, I didn't just mean theoretically, I also meant financially too!
Briefly, "Luke Rhinehart is the son of an infamous father - the renegade psychiatrist Luke Rhinehart, otherwise known as the Dice Man. Luke became a cultin the seventies, inspiring thousands to follow himin the anarchic world of Dice Living, where every decision is made not by the self, but the roll of a dice. Larry, however, is emphatically not a follower. He has grown up to have a great respect for order & control. A wealthy Wall Street analyst, all set to marry the boss' daughter, Larry has got life where he wants it. Until rumours begin to circulate about the reappearance of his long-vanished father - & Larry's carefully organised world begins to look a lot less certain".
It would seem that many of the people who have come before me have criticised this book for not having the same level of humour as the first. Whilst there is no doubting that is true, being different doesn't necessarily mean being worse. Whilst the semi-autobiographical account of Luke's life was comedic because it was a story that centred around one man, Larry's account of life twenty years later is much more intellectual primarily because of his initial rationality, & most importantly, because of it's focus upon the "community" as opposed to the "individual". Due to the shiftin focus, the second book raises questions that the first one never had the opportunity to do - and,in the process, cleverly challenges the very foundation of dice-living: Isn't dice-living fundamentally contradictory? Doesn't it encourage you to move away from the oppression of societal boundaries but then make you a slave to chance? To what extent can institutionalised spontaneity ever be spontaneous? Where can you find that warmth & communication that is supposed to bind a community, if everyone is constantly playing a role? These are criticisms levied towards Lukedom as a whole, which are frustratingly never answered. I also want to raise the point that although the second book is not AS funny as the first, that it not to say that it is not humorousin it's own right. Honoria (Larry's fiance) is particularly biting as a result of her derogatory sarcasm & fundamental boredom: look out for the brilliant tricolonic one-liner delivered at the height of her frustration with Larry: "We've just driven eight-hundred miles to be interviewed by an idiot, from a book written by an idiot,in order to get permission to enter a place undoubtedly populated by idiots. I wonder what that makes us..."
What lets the story down, therefore, is not the lack of humour or intellect, it's the level of predictability & it's inability to fully explain certain threads to the story. There is a famous quote from Nietzsche that reminds us that when we fight monsters, we should see to itin the process that we don't become a monster: when you look into the abyss, it also looks into you. I mention this because, anyone with any basic concept of psychology will realise that Larry has only become the anti-thesis of his father precisely because he recognises how similar he is to him. Throughout the course of the book, the surface values that Larry clings to so desperately, the values of predictability, stability & order, begin to fall apart & he is left with the inevitable need to beat his father at his own game: he is repulsed by, yet somewhat seduced into, playing with the die. Anyone who has read the blurb will realise this would have to happen & it is for this reason that the book is a little too predictable.
Whether you see Rhinehart's unwillingness to explain all aspects of the story as a positive or a negative point will largely depend on you as an individual. Whilst I don't like to be spoon-fed to the point that the author assumes I am a moron, I do believe that if you are going to introduce a heavily suggestive sub-plot, that you at least have the decency to confirm the reader's suspicions at the end. I am, of course, referring to the identity of the secret source that provides Jeff with his market-information. Given that you never find out who it is, I don't think that I would be spoiling the plot (apologies if I inadvertently achieve this anyway) to question whether it is indeed Luke. Perhaps this is his way of (indirectly) stayingin touch with his son? Although Jeff seems genuinely intrigued by Larry's fascination with the die & claims to believe his earlier losses were dictated by the "gods", who really knows whether his source uses the die before feeding the information to Jeff. Frustratingly, these questions are never answered - if anyone has any ideas, answers on a post-card please.
Overall, a very enjoyable book - just don't expect too many answers to the questions it poses.
If you roll evens then read it. - By: , 13 Feb 2003 
This is an entertaining & funny book but I got the impression that Rhinehart wrote it as a money-making spin off following the success of 'The Dice Man' & the novel fails to address any new issues. It is an extension of the original novel rather than something new but if you enjoyed 'The Dice Man' then its worth a read.
An excellent book IN ITSELF. - By: Paul Wren, 30 Jul 2002 It is a shame that this book follows such a masterpiece as the Dice Man, as the standards by which it is judged are obviously going to be high. Don't get me wrong, I fell into the same trap, & read the book initially with such enthusiasm & high hopes that it was bound to disappoint. The first book is better, I believe very few will disagree. But that does not mean that the book is not a worthwhile read.
To those that haven't read it, & that enjoyed the first, I say that it is definitely worth reading. The compelling style of writing & the atmosphere Luke Rhinehart creates is very much the same asin the prequel, & I for one was fascinated by the idea of a "dice town", whereby a community of dice followers live together. Seeing this town through the eyes of a level headed guy like Larry Rhinehart was hugely funny & entertaining. I also suggest that you try to see it as a bookin itself, as well as a sequel.
To those that have read this book already, & perhaps let it alone after being slightly disappointed with it, I would suggest perhaps reading it again. I certainly found it more enjoyable the second time round.
Time to reconsider "The Dice Man" - By: David Rolfe, 09 Dec 1999 I feel about "Dice Man" a bit like I feel about Ayn Rand's novels: Both beginin our real world & proceed to carry us towards an alternate (superior?) life structure envisioned by the author. I can't see either vision as a complete blueprint for re-forming my life, & yet the ideas are extremely thought-provoking & powerfully expressed. The orginal "Dice Man" is a great fantasy. This follow-on, set 20 years later, is a (somewhat) more realistic examination of the implications of dice living. True, it's a bit less fantastic than the original, but if you really found the dice notion interesting, you should read this as well. I enjoyed it, both for its ideas & as a novel.
Not as good as the first one....... - By: , 20 Sep 1999 Well, it couldn't be, could it?! A good readin places, & at times I really did rush through it. But all too often there was not enough life. A shame - buy The Dice Man & enjoy it MORE!!!
