Yeah, there's three books by Richard K. Morgan set in this world with a focus on Takeshi Kovacs. I actually enjoyed the latter two books a bit more than Altered Carbon; the first book is a bit too much like a detective novel, while the other two delve a bit more into the world he created. They're not particularly good, though - kinda pulp-y IMO. Lots of violence and sex and most of the 'deep' thinking isn't all that deep. He's shooting for a half cyberpunk half noir kind of feel and it doesn't quite make it.
Very mild spoilers to follow:
Spoiler:
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
I thought the books were a lot of fun. I don't believe that the mind is a thing separate from the physical properties of the brain, so I'm not buying the whole sleeve concept all that much. I've only completed episode 1, but I'm not liking the changes they've made at all. Some things I hate:
Spoiler:
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Saw Altered Altered Carbon this weekend. Clunky script with the longest and most painfully lame ending ever, main cast kinda rubbish, overdone generic scifi dystopia esthetic, gratuitous and extremely sloppily executed soft-porn everywhere that just makes it feel like a show made by tryhards. Every single scifi dystopia seems to focus on showing tits and strangling women to death, extremely tired of this. Nevertheless, I enjoyed seeing a new reasonably well-produced scifi show on Netflix and hope they're keen on making more. Don't expect to see the fantasy sequel anytime soon
Poe was awesome.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Interestingly the hotel wasn't a character in the book. It was the Hendrix hotel with Jimi Hendrix in holo on the facade. Kovacs interacted with it quite a bit, but it did not have a character and no other AIs were involved.
I agree with your analysis - I finished most of episode 2 last night. I'm re-reading the book right now too so it's painful to see the plot and detail changes. The re-read was a mistake, I guess.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I assume they couldn't use Hendrix because of some sort of licensing issue, but Poe was fair game. Making him more central to the story was a bit much but I was sorta okay with that. The aforementioned bit where they screwed up the backstory is 100% the biggest problem. Another issue is the pacing of the climax and ending - not quite Return of the King, but they definitely didn't do a good job with that. The last big problem is what they did with Reileen, which exacerbates the problem where they're turning an antihero into something more like a hero.
Meh. A flawed adaptation of a mediocre book.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Wish I'd read this thread before binging on the show. I didn't read the books, but agreed with Minx that there was too much soft porn, and killing women, that's become a tired trope for dystopian sci-fi movies. They never really explained the off-planet stuff, or the songspire tree, or the 250 yr gap, so maybe the books are better? Can't really complain tho, it was free on Netflix without commercials
I don't think mediocre is fair. The book didn't try to be anything more than it was, and it did what it was very well. I really enjoyed all three of them. I think this adaptation could have been really good if it remained truer to the books - but who doesn't say that about a film adaptation of a book they liked? (Take the Hobbit film trilogy, for instance. What a fucking nightmare (IMO)). I'm having a very hard time judging this series on its own merits because of having read the books.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
The songspire tree wasn't well explained in the book either -- not until you read the second do you get a sense of what the Martians are. Same for all the off-world universe, really. The 250 year gap is not in the books at all - it was only a couple years in the book. IMHO, it was completely unnecessary in the Netflix version - no idea why they did that.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I just reread Altered Carbon. I stand by mediocre. This isn't to say I didn't enjoy it - it was good pulpy fun. But I also enjoyed Peter F. Hamilton's books, and those are, objectively, pretty awful. It's okay to like a book because it's fun without thinking it's actually any good. A lot of my childhood was spent reading those kinds of books - stuff like the Stainless Steel Rat series, or some of the lower quality Heinlein. It's okay to enjoy it, but it's less okay to think just because you enjoyed it it must be any good.
Oddly, I'm way less forgiving when it comes to fantasy novels. While I really don't mind pulpy SF even if it's derivative and poorly written, I have always been allergic to the same in fantasy: I couldn't stand Brooks, Modesitt Jr., Goodkind (ugh), Donaldson, or Feist. I'm not sure while I'm more tolerant of iffy quality SF, but there it is.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
I understand what you mean and I used to make the distinctions you are talking about. But somewhere in the last 5 years I've decided with more and more things that what I like is good. And that's it. If you ask my opinion of something, and I like it, my opinion is it's good (more or less - I'll use a star system if I'm feeling up to it). I know there are virtually infinite measures of quality of a virtually infinite number of things, and the pleasure I get from something is a measure used literally only by me (as far as I know), but.... I don't care anymore what the experts in the field say. I'm tired of saying Jazz and Mozart and Picasso are awesome because, you know what, I've never really liked them. I've tried to get whatever it is that the pros get, but I don't, and I'm mostly done trying to work it out. Life is too big, complicated, and short for that.
Which is not to say I'm not influenced by others' opinions on things or that I don't recognize when something I like really is shit. Or something I don't like isn't shit. I know Jazz is this really great thing, and I've enjoyed some of it in the past, but 97% of the time when I hear real American Jazz on the radio I turn it off. It just doesn't do anything for me. However, with books like this one I don't try to make any real fine adjustment in my head like "...yes, Altered Carbon is a good read, but the main character or story is derivative and relies too heavily on that tired old blah blah blah trope...." Nah. The plot is complex and consistent and the characters and their decisions believable, the writing is pretty tight, it took me along for a fun ride... it's good. (Except that I'm certain consciousness can't be transferred from brain to brain unless you physically rewire the destination brain to exactly match the origin, which HAS to be impossible.)
It didn't blow my mind. If it blew my mind, I'd say so. That's different.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I finished End of the F**king World a few days ago and it was good. I almost threw it away after episode 2, but I'm glad I didn't. I could tell you why, but it would probably spoil something or other. Let's just say that in the early plot development, a key point I had thought was an error, I learned with later events was not.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Ugh. This statement is so offensive. The purpose of fiction is enjoyment, if you enjoyed it, it was good. It is inherently subjective, now you can say a book was 'good' because most readers who read it will have enjoyed themselves or not, or even further sub divide it by groups (sci-fi fans, mystery fans etc) but ultimately the value of a book is in weather it was enjoyed or not.
I don't know. Though I get what you're saying, there is mileage to wig's statement.
My other half watches utter crap on tv sometimes - it's her switch-off from a very busy work-schedule, she wants to disengage her brain and crap tv is her way of doing it. Think the most awful of soap operas and badly-acted cheap dramas. Now she enjoys these, but she will readily admit that it is complete tripe. There are elements of subjectivity to what is 'crap', yes, but there are boundaries too. Things like quality of acting, quality of writing, quality of direction and production; these are much more objective.
Sooo, you're saying that people have simple needs for their entertainment, and can distinguish fact from fantasy, because your girlfriend does? Sorry but that doesn't wash. The women I know that watch soap operas or reality tv or crap tv aren't looking to switch-off from reality, as an escape; they're looking to validate their existing challenges. Even if it means petty things like manicured nails or certain hairstyles or waist size or ways of dressing, they can be convinced that a persona is more important than their person. These women will wear a girdle to their job interview, and this is why Spanx became a global phenomenon.
There is really no excuse for watching poorly written, poorly acted, and/or poorly directed television these days. There is SO much excellent television out there you could literally not watch it all - there isn't enough time. Rewind to 35 years ago and the exact opposite, in every way, was the rule. We live in a television Platinum Age.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
You missed the point. It's not to watch good television. It's to switch off. She will actively avoid 'good television' at these times because that requires mental investment, concentration, exactly the things she wants to switch off from after a hard day's work. Crap tv provides that switch off precisely because it is crap - it requires zero mental thought. Some people work out. Others go for a drink to unwind or find some other way to switch off the brain and relax after the stresses of a work day.
Agreed that this is currently an excellent time for TV. And when it's time for 'good tv' we normally sit together and watch something quality that we both enjoy, and we will both invest the mental energy said tv requires.
Bones is the first show I've enjoyed as an adult where I didn't feel a need to focus the whole time.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I did like Altered Carbon quite a bit, but I liked Damnation a lot better. I'm a bit upset that it won't be back for a second season. At least not unless Netflix saves it from the lack of love at USA.
Congratulations America
Everything sucks really is kind of cute. I really went on an all out binge and watched the entire season tonight.
Congratulations America
Not to belabor the point (or sound like a jerk) but I don't get why watching crap tv is your girl friend's switch off. If she's watching the most awful soap operas, those are serials that DO require some mental thought, just to keep up with the plot line and character changes. Even crappy reality tv shows operate on the serial concept (just ask the Kardashians).
My hunch is that she tells you that because it's easier than explaining how/why women use crap tv as a social device, something to talk about with co-workers or friends in the periphery of life that connects people. Rather like how men sometimes watch sports, just so they can banter about team X or the big play-offs or whatever around the water cooler, to feel part of the gang.
I'm asking why we *think* of tv (or movies) as entertainment or escapism, when there are so many other underlying cultural reasons that are neither.
I recently started watching "Black Mirror" on Netflix. It's entertaining but also disturbing. Very disturbing, because the technology capability already exists. I can only watch one or two episodes at a time; any more than that makes it untenable as "entertainment" and makes for some very bad dreams or sleepless nights. It's the kind of show that I love to hate....and they use that to great advantage.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I've been crazy busy but I wanted to give this thread a somewhat more detailed treatment than my rather offhand remarks above.
Hmm, perhaps this is an issue of definitions. To me a book that isn't 'good' isn't necessarily 'bad'. It just isn't good. There are a lot of books out there that are engaging and interesting and entertaining but still aren't good. I'm not saying that every book needs to be a critical masterpiece to qualify as 'good', but it does need to be more than merely entertaining.
Probably the best example I can think of is the Harry Potter series. I started reading them when I was still relatively young (early teens?) and I enjoyed the world Rowling created - I thought it was a fun idea with all sorts of clever gags. But even in the early books I was well aware that the books were written, well, poorly. The quality of the writing was at best mediocre, the characters were caricatures, the plotting was transparent. And that's okay - the books aren't meant for a critical adult eye, they're meant for kids. I still read them all, and enjoyed them, after a fashion. I wouldn't say they even reach the level of the best children's fantasy series (at the very least Susan Cooper is better, I'm sure there are more - does Earthsea count as a kids series?). But they're still entertaining. They just aren't good, and it drives me nuts when grown-ass adults are obsessed with the series.
Perhaps I define good as whether a book is the best version of itself. Or perhaps it just needs to be 'good enough' on every major metric with some areas of brilliance that push it above average. But I don't equate entertainment with quality - they can be synonymous, but don't need to be. I'm not the kind of person who is opposed to enjoying or praising popular things - I like Radiohead, goddammit! And I read far more genre fiction than 'literature', and don't feel remotely bad about it - some of the best books I've ever read have been genre fiction. But there's also a lot of garbage. Most of the garbage is intolerable to me and I refuse to consume it. Some of it is still entertaining, but it's the difference between junk food and a beautifully prepared steak: the junk food might be tasty, but it isn't good.
A book not being 'good' (in the way I describe above) doesn't mean it has no value. I personally think that there's a lot more to get out of fiction than pure entertainment, but even on that simple rubric, I enjoy a 'good' book far more than I enjoy a merely mediocre one. The latter might be fun, but I won't walk away with anything like the same satisfaction/utility I'd get with a good book.
I completely agree, Tim. The vast majority of my TV/movie watching is confined to half-watching while I'm washing dishes or folding laundry or whatever. I simply don't have the attention (or, at times, emotional reserves) to watch something really great. I'm seasons behind on The Walking Dead because each episode takes a lot out of me, and I have to really sit down and watch it, rather than seeing a rerun of Chuck (a guilty pleasure that is definitely not 'good').
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
I get a kick out of these Good vs Bad comparisons. It's interesting to see tv compared to movies, then compared to books, and then connected to food. As if all consumption is the same, and what is "good" is easily defined, because it's all just entertainment anyway.
I suppose that's why theme parks like Disney and Universal Studios make the big bucks.