Braiiiins: Murderbot vs. the Murderbot Diaries

I’ve been watching Murderbot as it comes out  on Apple, and… it’s ok.

I don’t hate it, but I also don’t love it the way I hoped to, and I’ve been trying to figure out why. Here’s the thing: I share with the SecUnit-of-the-book a dislike of watching helpless people, and a preference for watching the smart ones solve problems. In making Murderbot a comedy show, the Apple team has gone for slapstick and this has had an overall flattening effect on everything.

The book PresAux are a group of researchers who are used to thinking their way through situations. When they’re overwhelmed, they think about the situation. The book SecUnit is a very, very smart unit who has kept itself hidden through stealth and cunning. It wins many of its battles the same way—by not charging in firing. The TV team and unit are stumbling and fumbling their way through everything, whining when they are rescued the “wrong way” and attempting to head-butt attacking Security Units. Both teams are overwhelmed when they find themselves under attack by unknown Corporate entities, but one reacts intelligently and makes plans; the other just reacts.

The one time I’ve felt like I was watching a group of researchers was during Complementary Species when Arada marvels at the two alien animals and the team speculates about the shuttle’s probable resemblance to a warm rock; that, sadly, was buried in horrible CGI monsters, a lot of random reactivity, and followed up by the team being spectacularly lucky when attacked by a rival SecUnit – and to To quote the book SecUnit, “I hate luck.” 

This leads to another, less important but still notable change: at no point to I feel like the Murderbot of the show is “a horrifying murderbot” or that SecUnits in general are “terrifying killing machines.” The fights shown so far have been short, slow, and unimpressive. No one human should be able to charge, unarmed, up to a SecUnit and live (see Complementary Species). I don’t object to the TV team being shocked and horrified when MurderBot shoots LeeBeebee; I object to Murderbot’s abilities being so deeply downplayed. Look, even LeeBeebee, the Corporate person, made sexual comments about it and gave it an awkward kiss which—SecUnits are terrifying. No one flirts with them, even while pretending to be an idiot. They all know the Unit could kill them in seconds.

Character changes are inevitable when a book is made into a TV show, and they are not always bad. I initially thought I would like the work being done to parallel Gurathin and Murderbot more explicitly. I mean, both characters are augmented, both (in the show) come from the Corporate section, both have seen how low and murder-y the Rim gets. The TV show did also just (clumsily) establish that Gurathin was controlled by drugs—a semi-parallel to MurderBot’s governor module. That could be fertile territory for mutual suspicion based on misunderstanding. However, all we’ve seen is Gurathin having a sort of creepy crush on Mensah which is leading to sexual jealousy, and –why? Sexual jealousy is boring and overused as a motive. Intelligent suspicion based on knowing just how dangerous a SecUnit could be, and/or intelligent suspicion based on Gurathin knowing just how dangerous he, himself, could be would be interesting. This—is not.

Similarly, we haven’t seen anything of the competent lawyer in Pin Lee, the impressive leader in Mensah, or the analyst in Gurathin. We’ve seen a little of the compassionate side of Ratthi, but he’s also being a doofus most of the time, so that’s pretty much a wash as far as I’m concerned.

It's not really that Murderbot is a bad show, exactly; it’s just it’s not living up to what it could be. I also wonder if people who haven't read the books will have any idea what is going on. Everyone has been so busy emoting that the mystery of what is happening on the planet and why is being left by the wayside.

--

1) The Murderbot Diaries are, actually, often funny; it’s that SecUnit’s style is much more of a dry, ironic humor.

2) And don’t get me started on the three-way marriage that the writers shoved in only to have two of the three over it almost immediately. **Yes, they do have a number of multi-partner marriages in the books, but the on-screen one is created for the show, and no one seems to know what to do with it now that it’s there; the last episode had it “hilariously” (I think it was meant to be funny?) turn into a tiresome triangle.

A Haunting in the Arctic by C. J. Cooke

I have no idea why I finished this.

I know authors don't owe me anything, but I would really have liked a trigger warning or ten. This book is really, really full of rape scenes. About half the book, maybe more, is dedicated to the details of sexual abuse plus some random other abuse.

I respect that C. J. Cooke is trying something with memory and trauma. I don’t think it works, but she is making an effort and see the outline of what might be—though I also only see it in retrospect from reading her note at the end, so there we are. It’s a big attempt, so credit to her for trying something this complex

However; I have problems. The first part comes from the marketing. I was aware that the description indicated the possibility of rape, or rape threats, but I was hoping for none and definitely not expecting the amount. Also, I was expecting that there would be something else, something interesting involved. The description says that in 1901 Nicky finds herself on the Orman with "the crew – and they’re all owed something only she can give them..." This implies that she has some skill or gift, supernatural or otherwise, that would be of use to them.

This is not true. They want her for sex. And abuse, and abusive sex.

The amount of rape does not improve the novel: the events that follow could have followed without the detail. In fact, leaving out the descriptions would have left room for some meaningful character development.

The other half of the story takes place over a hundred years later. Dom arrived in the Arctic to explore the wreck of the Orman before it is destroyed. She’s something of a ruin-lover and is hoping to gain followers online from her films and photos. Shortly after arriving, she is surprised by the additional arrival of three other explorers who enthusiastically join in her online plans and work to extend it further. But: The land is harsh and dark, and there are a mysterious appearing and disappearing woman, sleepwalking, and bad dreams to confront.

And then, the explanation is given—and it is clever--everything is solved, and it ends.

The book was also marketed as Gothic, and I’m not sure it really is—I don’t have a firm definition, so I’m not going to argue too hard, but it didn’t give the subtle, creepy vibe that I associate with gothics, and it doesn't pick up on any of the complex place-and-family type themes I think belong there.

I have serious problems with overall plot points as well. This is spoiler territory.

Twist one: Nicky learns she is on the ship because her father gave her to the crew in lieu of monetary payment.

I don’t believe it. If the crew was willing to quit over not having money, the offer of a sex slave would not resolve the issue. A sex slave does not feed the family, buy clothes, or pay the rent. One or two of them might have taken the deal out of a desire for revenge, but the rest? Nope. Also, they mention with some degree of frequency that it is bad luck to have a woman on board. So—no money, some sex, bad luck? It doesn’t add up.

Twist two: The present day, haunted poeple are all ghosts! Dom is Nicky! This is clever, but—BUT. Dominique/Dom/Nicky is from 1901. She’s spent the intervening years being a vengeful spirit running on impulse and/or enacting strange camping scenes with her three ghostly companions. Where, when, and how does she learn all about the internet, likes, follows, solar batteries, cameras, drones and all the other paraphernalia necessary for the “urban explorer/camping” scenarios? The scenes are from her POV, and it's not presented as the oddly-glossed scenario created by someone who hasn't lived with these things. Also, Dom as a character makes no sense. Nothing, and I mean nothing, about Nicky indicates that the Dom persona is something she would create/become. The teeny bit of personality we see before she becomes a traumatized victim is that of a home-maker, someone grieving her daughter and missing her husband, not an adventurer in any sense.

Her three other companions are ghosts she has trapped into a recurring loop with her. Why? How? Why those three? One turns out to be the ghost of a sailor who was mildly nice to/at least didn’t rape her, and was not killed by her. The other two are from the Orman’s brief stint as a research vessel, well after Nicky’s death, killed in one of her vengeful phases. They were not anything to her in life. There is nothing to indicate that their personalities (such as they are), professions, or anything else actually links them to Dominique any more than anyone else she’s killed would be linked to her. So—why them?

They are aware of their plight and aware that they have lived through two hundred some iterations of meeting and spending time with her doing—something? Camping, apparently, most of the time. This time around, they manage to convince her that she is the one causing the scenario, she apologizes for killing the two innocent bystanders plus, the story ends and everyone heads off to the afterlife escorted by their best beloveds.

Ok—so they’ve been through this two hundred plus times. What makes this time different? Dom doesn’t get particularly close to any of them, doesn’t really seem to have more than a cautiously friendly feeling toward them. While they do work at being nice, they also display an underlying tension and hostility toward her (they blame her for their inability to die properly). Also, I suppose camping in the Arctic might get dull after a bit, even if the food is good

No dramatic development of character, friendship, or event seems to warrant Dominique’s sudden awareness of the situation, willingness to unite with her Nicky-half (who is the ghost she’s been seeing--and are the Nicky half and the Dom half regularly divided? I don't know. The plot is vague.) and ability to end it all graciously. Things just—end.

"A Secret Guide to Fighting Elder Gods"

A Secret Guide to Fighting Elder Gods by Jennifer Brozek
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This has Away Game by Seanan Mcguire, and I will never not love her cheerleader stories. "The Art of Dreaming" by Josh Vogt is the best kind of creepy. "Being Emily Clare" by Jonathan Mayberry made me go look at his other books; sadly, none of them seem to be at all similar (possibly interesting, but not like this); the story is a strange mix of cute and creepy. "The Art of Dreams" by Wendy N. Wagner was solid and made me wish there were more to the story.

The others were a mixed bag--none terrible, but none that particularly stood out for me.

The book as a whole is entertaining, but not earthshaking.

View all my reviews

Random Blake's 7 Thought: Vila

Just started re-watching Blake's 7 thanks to it being available for through BBC-something, which one can add to Amazon Prime Viewing for an extra fee (I find the extra fees annoying, but I am glad it is possible now to choose channels individually. One reason I never liked cable was that I'd want shows on three different channels that were in three entirely different packages). I had totally forgotten that Vila-the-coward chose to join Blake in the attempt to escape Cygnus Alpha, and there were actually quite a few people who didn't join but chose to stay in the prison/with the cult out of fear. I'd also forgotten his role in the ship rebellion earlier--that he'd been doing magic tricks for the guards all along & willingly acted as a distraction for the team (though he quite sensibly refused to go wandering through the ship's walls & thus avoided death-by-foam). I'm not sure what the point of this is: That Vila really isn't quite as cowardly as he thinks? That he really is useful? That Avon should shut up about him already? (Not that Avon is likely to shut up about anyone, ever!).

"Amethyst Dreams" is better described as beige

Three parts to this review: 1) The introduction is entirely charming and I could listen to Whitney reminisce for much longer. 2) The narrator, Susan Ericksen, is superb and provides the protagonist with far more personality than the text. 3) The book itself, which is disappointing.

This is supposed to be a Gothic & a mystery. It's neither. Hallie enters a world of lost people and long buried secrets and...does nothing and has nothing done to her. She's confused, people decide to spill their secrets, the book ends.

I can almost believe people opening up about long-hidden secrets--there is something to be said for throwing a stone into a pond, and Hallie serves that role. The trouble is, she has about that level of personality as well, and one wants rather more in a protagonist.

Her "detecting" consists of saying "I can't do this" alternating with asking people "What do you think happened?" and ignoring people who said things about her friend "liking to cause trouble."

There's also a lot of telling rather than showing: We are told Hallie is practical and stable and that her more flighty friend, Susan, listened to her advice. There's no point in the novel where Hallie comes across as particularly practical, stable, or useful. There are also no stories or memories of incidents in which Susan needed her help--just statements that she had.

And I love happy endings, but Amethyst Dreams consists of a sudden "Bam! Everyone is happy now!" Even someone who has spent the entire book dying of cancer is suddenly chipper and apparently well because he's regained the will to live.

I was so glad to visit Goodreads and see others saying Amethyst Dreams isn't Whitney's best because I have fond memories of her from high school and would hate to think that they were entirely based on fals premises.

Embroidering My Little Mermaid

I'm embroidering and doll making more again. I just finished one of 3 mermaids I currently plan on making. My main concern about her now is that I made it for a little girl (6ish) and now I'm afraid I may have fancied it up too much for her to enjoy it. I was having so much fun putting beads on!

Facebook. Meet Friends or Manage Your Feed?

This used to be true.

I am fed up with Facebook.

I have had a profile for years (more than a decade!) now, and somewhere along the line, the platform has gone from "Meet your friends!" to "Manage your feed!" The first was fun, the last—not so much.

I know it's common to complain about "The good old days," but Facebook, when I first got my profile, was fun. I played silly games with friends, I got to see pictures of their kids, their pets, their houses, and to be a part of their lives. I reconnected with people I hadn't seen in years, and stayed in touch with people who probably wouldn't have kept up with letter or email exchanges. We goofed off, we chatted, and we got to know one another better.

I quickly learned that the silly games were a bad idea—Facebook wasn't careful about making sure the apps didn't share data I wanted shared—but that was a simple fix. I stopped playing Farmville or trading zoo animals with people, and Facebook went on being fun.

Somewhere in there, though, it changed, slowly enough at first that I didn't really notice, or mind—much. Ads gained more prominence, the newsfeed started to be organized by an unexplained algorithm, I started to miss more and more posts by friends. Things got increasingly political and stressful, egged on by the mystery algorithm which, whatever else it was doing, promoted controversial posts over quiet ones. 

I kept adapting. I read articles. I learned how to best manage my feed. I blocked this and tweaked that. I held onto the idea that Facebook was about staying connected to my friends, and I wanted to stay connected to my friends. This all started because I like these people and I want to hear about their lives.

And it wasn't hopeless: There are still flares of people meeting. I get to share pictures of my adorable dog, people still enjoy word play, and the amount of love and support people gave when my mother died helped through a very dark time—and still helps.

But that was almost two years ago. I'm not sure the same thing would happen today. Not because the people have grown any worse--They remain the same wonderful friends I have had for years—but because the mystery algorithm has continued to evolve and feed management has become ever more complex. These days, I don't know if my friends would see my post to respond to it. I don't know what triumphs or tragedies I've missed in their lives.  The last time I logged on as a casual user, I could barely find my friends amidst all the noise.

There were suggestions that I "promote" posts from pages I manage, posts from publications one friend or another had liked at some point or another. Posts from publications whose articles I had liked, sponsored articles from various publications I might like, and a new set of "popular on Facebook" posts that had nothing to do with anything. It was almost impossible to find anything actually written by a friend amidst all this. I gave up on counting, but I think less than one in four items in that day's feed was an actual, real update by an actual, real friend.

And I realized: This has stopped being fun. It hasn't been fun for a long time now, no matter how I've tried to keep it about friends, how I've juggled timing or rearranged my "likes." And—it really doesn’t matter how much work I put into this business of managing my feed, it's never going t be enough. The algorithms are going to change again. The clutter is going to increase, and the stress is going to go up.

Yes, I still have an account—I need one for work—but the initial reason I signed on? That got lost somewhere in the shuffle. It's not coming back. 

I might not either, not to my personal page.

How will I replace Facebook? I don't know. Maybe I'll try emailing again, or letter writing. Maybe I'll try carrier pigeons. I haven't decided. I'm away for the month, that's all I know for now.

PS: Yes, I am aware of the irony of sharing this on Facebook.  But I do want my friends—the ones who can find me amidst that thicket of ads—to know that I haven't abandoned them. I still care for them. I just can't handle all that clutter.

Good Writers Should Never Die: Sue Hubbell

Writers should live forever.

That's all there is to it.

I just found out today that Sue Hubbell died on October 17, 2018. As with other cases where authors have died, this is a selfish grief: I didn't know Sue Hubbell, I knew her work, and I wanted more of it.

She, or at least her writing self, is what I want to be when I grow up: Observant, endlessly curious, forever asking questions, getting people to show her behind the scenes and sharing what she found. She has a persistent and quiet sense of wonder about the natural world, and she shares it with everyone.

A Country Year: Living the Questions, Broadsides from the Other Orders: A Book of Bugsm Waiting for Aphrodite: Journeys into the Time Before Bones and especially Shrinking the Cat: Genetic Engineering Before We Knew About Genes are some of my favorite books.

And, yes, in some ways she is living forever, thus the present-tense when I talk of her as a writer--her books are available and will, hopefully, remain so. But, I've been looking forward to her next set of questions, her next exploration, and now...there won't be any more.

I LOVE This! Flip-Flops become Art

I'm in love with people who can make things out of trash anyway, and these are unexpected and beautiful:

Your Day Just Got 100% Better because Patrick Stewart read 1-Star Reviews of Famous Monuments

I have no idea what prompted GQ decide to ask Patrick Stewart to sit down and read 1-star reviews of famous monuments, but whoever thought of the idea deserves our gratitude.

And, now that I think of it, Mt. Rushmore is rather inconveniently located. Let's move it closer to some other landmark--Disneyland, perhaps?