Altered Carbon

I just started reading Altered Carbon by Richard K. Morgan. I am totally in awe over how good it is. I don't ever want to put it down. Anyone read it or currently reading it?

Read it, liked it, and liked the sequels Broken Angels and Woken Furies. All three books are just about equally good, but all three take very different directions. Don't expect the next two to be detective stories.

ETA: Oh, and I avoided reading it for a while. I actually thought the premise of the "stacks" and "sleeves" was a little too unbelievable (as in, what really represents "me"). But I was wrong and it turned out it actually made me think a lot about the subject.

I have it on my wishlist but not got around to picking it up as yet. I have another his books, The Steel Remains, on my tbr pile so was going to see if I enjoyed his writing style from that before looking into more of his work.

I've read the first, and thought it good. I have the second, but haven't read it yet. I've also read Black Man, which I thought very good indeed - I reviewed it here.

I have (and have read) all of his SF books but don't have The Steel Remains which is fantasy.

All three books in the Takeshi Kovacs series are very different. Of the three I liked Altered Carbon the most. As Ian said Black Man (which is published as Thirteen in the US) is good too.

The other SF book he has written is Market Forces which some people hate with a passion, whilst others enjoy.

All of the SF books depict fairly grim worlds, and all of them share a similar philosophical stance regarding corporate power.

I've read The Steel Remains. It was pretty good, better than The Blade Itself certainly, but it was over-hyped.

There appears to be no way of seeing who is currently reading the work.

the workaround I thought I knew about, deosn't seem to actually get you any useful results.

3> I wouldn't judge whether you'll like Altered Carbon based on liking The Steel Remains. All you have to do is look at the ratings for the two books to know there's a decent chunk of people who like the former but not the latter. I know you're focused on writing style, but if you really don't like the book it could be a bit hard to judge.

I read Altered Carbon and was very unimpressed with the characterization. I think. I don't remember it very clearly. Too many other things wanting my attention for me to go back to it.

9> That's the complaint I hear about 99% of science fiction, anytime someone didn't like a particular book. I sometimes wonder why these people even read science fiction. That's not a put-down, it's simply an observation about the genre. It's like people complaining because the romance novels they've read don't have enough suspense.

#10 Not quite the same that, though, is it. All novels have characters and they should be well-drawn. If characterisation is poor, that's a failing. Sf has been given a free pass because in its early days its writers weren't very good and its readers weren't very sophisticated. It amazes me that the same excuse still seems to be used today...

Strong agreement with Ian. Some SF writers take the trouble to create strong characters. Others don't. Seeing a story through an interesting character makes the plot, science, and whatever else the author is up to much more interesting to me. I find it hard to get excited about a story happening to flat characters, regardless of the genre.

11> Actually, yes, I do believe it is quite the same. SF stories (generally) have to commit a lot of time to fleshing out the universe of the story. Much more so than just about any other genre. That's one of the things I, and plenty of other fans, like about the genre. I know it's not "great literature", and that's A-OK by me. No skin off my nose if that means you don't consider me sophisticated, simply because your opinions and wishes for the genre differ from the majority of its readers.

But then you might as well read role-playing game supplements. Sf shouldn't get special treatment -- ooh, look! it's got ideas in it; that means it doesn't matter if the writing is crap. Badly-written books are badly-written books, even if they're sf.

Edit: It's not that I object to people reading badly-written books, nor do I think sf readers are unsophisticated... it's just that I don't think sf readers should claim the genre is immune to the rules of good writing. If they find what they need in sf books, fine. But don't go saying it's good because it doesn't have to have good characterisation or good writing....

14> Except I don't feel they are badly written books, nor do the majority of the readers. They just don't fit your ideas of a well written book. That's hardly my fault or the fault of the author. I'm sorry you can't enjoy what 80%* of the population enjoys, but I'm glad that at least you seem to enjoy not enjoying it. ;)

Note that I'm not saying characterization isn't important. That'd be about as dumb as saying plot isn't important or even spelling isn't important. I'm just saying that it's one ingredient of writing, along with a whole lot of others, that goes into the soup in varying amounts. You can have a good soup with all sorts of ratios of the ingredients, just as you can have a bad soup with all sorts of ratios of the ingredients. It's not that SF gets special treatment, per se, it's just that it tends to have a different ingredient list than some mainstream fiction. Other genres also have different ingredient lists. That's what tends to make them genres.

* 80% being derived here from the amazon reviews of Altered Carbon giving it 4 and 5 stars.

Actually, it's not my idea. It's generally well accepted that good characterisation is one aspect of a well-written book. Enjoyment has nothing to do with it. People clearly enjoy Dan Brown's books. What I object to is the claim that sf novels are good despite their lack of, for example, good characterisation - as if good characterisation doesn't count. Such books might well be popular or enjoyable. But if they don't meet the criteria fiction in general insists are needed to be deemed "good", then they're not good.

Why do people always mix up "enjoy" and "think is good"? There are a great many books I enjoy, but don't think are especially good - The Undercover Aliens by AE van Vogt, for example, is complete tosh, but it's one of my favourite sf novels. There are also books I admire, that I think are good, but didn't especially enjoy reading.

16> It's generally well accepted that good characterisation is one aspect of a well-written book.

But that's not really what you are saying, is it? You're saying it's a required aspect of a well-written book, no?

If you're not saying that, then we we really have nothing to disagree on.

Well, yes, I suppose I am saying it's required. As is good prose. I don't think you can say, this one counts here, but this one doesn't; but this other one counts here and not that one... It's not multiple choice.

18> So, would you say Dune had good, deep characterization?

ETA: Bonus question - would you say that Dune had good prose?

Ha. Dune's prose is piss-poor in places. I've always maintained the later books in the series are better-written. Er, not the KJA ones, obviously. But good characterisation? Not especially. The Atreides are generally quite good, but Baron Harkonnen is pretty much a pantomime villain. Is it a good novel? No, not really. Is it one of the best sf novels? Sadly, yes.

20> Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to flesh out your thoughts. Now, how about most of the works of Vonnegut and PK Dick? Would you consider them to have good characterization, as a rule?

#17 if you'll look back at my post #12, I didn't attempt to say that anything is "required." Nor did I say anything about considering you unsophisticated--you brought that up. I simply said that characterization is a very important element of a novel for me. It doesn't matter if it's a mystery, speculative fiction, "mainstream," or whatever; without well drawn characters, I have a lot more trouble being interested.

That said, I also see no reason why we should expect less, in terms of generally accepted literary quality, including characterization, style, setting, plot, etc., from a writer simply because his books are on the SF shelf. If he chooses to emphasize one virtue at the expense of others, he is deciding not to attempt overall excellence. That is of course his choice to make. I will continue to seek out and enjoy writers, from all genres, who try to do well in all these areas, especially in the creation of interesting characters. I'm not saying anyone else should feel compelled to do the same, or to think less of themselves because they don't.

#20 I've not read enough Vonnegut to really say - only The Sirens of Titan and Slaughterhouse 5. And, to be honest, I couldn't see what all the fuss was about. As for Dick... no, his writing isn't very good at all. Most of them read as though he made it up as he went along. You can't write good characters when you've no idea what your story is doing or where it's going. I did like A Scanner Darkly - that's not bad, and it's funny too. But Do Androids Dream of electric Sheep?, Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said, Ubik... it's hack-work written by someone who was on drugs and completely bonkers at the time.

22> Err... you know there's more than just you and me on the thread, right? All of what you're talking about is from the back and forth between ian and me.

23> I've read about a half-dozen Vonnegut books, only two of which I've really enjoyed (Cat's Cradle and Player Piano). You can see the rest in my catalog. In general, I don't see what all the fuss is about, either. However, to repeat your phrase "it's generally well accepted" that Vonnegut is considered one of the "greats", and not just "sf greats." (Especially not "sf greats", considering his and others views on classifying his work as sf)

But, in general, I believe even his fans will admit that his characterization is barebones. And yet, "it's generally well accepted" that he wrote well-written books. As such, I just don't find it plausible that good characterization is a required element for a well-written book. I think that if you don't like the book, then if it doesn't have good characterization it's more likely to stick in your craw.

As such, I think it boils down to different tastes. As I said, I'm with you on Vonnegut, but you have to face that we're in the minority. And that's not just because the majority is full of the riff-raff and the minority consists of those who know what well-written books are.

8 brightcopy, if I don't like a book it doesn't mean I won't read another from that author. Just means it might be a while before I do. Thanks for the heads up though.

I thought Altered Carbon was great. I really should write a review of it, but then, I'm getting rather lazy for writing reviews of books I read.

As for the current discussion here about good science fiction, I expect SF to have all of the features of good general fiction - no inconsistencies or plot holes, well-developed characters, good prose, and so forth. I also expect science fiction to do well with the aspects unique to SF - interesting ideas, good world-building, and so forth.

26> Would you say you thought Altered Carbon had well-developed characters?

I have read all 3 of the Takeshi Kovacs books and enjoyed them immensely and am sad there won't be more.

Given the style of the books, I don't think the question about well-developed characters is really even relevant, at least for book 1. Though it is SF, dystopian and deeply part of the cyber world, they are also based on the noir-ish hardboiled mysteries of the 40s.

Many characters are supposed to be playing an attitude, and representing a type of character from those books. I think this is less evident in the later books, but the first one is deeply rooted in that tradition.

Its not that I don't think well developed characters are good or required, but when you are reading a book that offers a specific style you either go with it, or you read something else. Just as when dining you can't fault a fish for not being a chicken, when its fish you ordered.

I have also read Steel Remains and really liked it too. Can't wait for Dark Commands.

I have the other 2 (Market Forces and Thirteen) also but have not read them yet.

#27

I thought Takeshi Kovacs was an interesting and well-developed character. Laurens Bancroft and his wife were less-complex characters, but then, the story that was being told was only peripherally about the two.

29> I ask not just to make a point, but to explore the question since it is often brought up. In the negative reviews I read, I see plenty of reviewers pointing out what a poorly-developed and inconsistent character Kovacs is. It just seems to me that whether you like a book influences whether you think there was enough character development. I'm not saying that's all there is to it, because as ian points out above he (and I) have books that we've really enjoyed reading that we can realize are actually poorly written.

But it often seems to be such a subjective thing to me. So there's not only the question of how important chracterization is to every work, but also whether the characterization in a specific work is "good."

I think it's worth bearing mind that when critics and reviewers describe the characterisation in Altered Carbon as "poorly-developed2, chances are they're comparing it with either a standard (of their own making?) or the level of characterisation found in literary fiction. They're not comparing it with other sf. Because I'd say Morgan's skill at characterisation puts him in top 10 - 15 percent of contemporary sf writers (and about the top 2% of all sf writers since 1926).

Apologies for being contrarian here but I cannot see what the fuss is about with Altered Carbon. I gave him a second chance with Black Man but found it a clone of the earlier book with all its faults: standard thriller plot, lots of sex and violence and not much else. Sorry :-(

Apologies for being contrarian here but I cannot see what the fuss is about with Altered Carbon. I gave him a second chance with Black Man but found it a clone of the earlier book with all its faults: standard thriller plot, lots of sex and violence and not much else. Sorry :-(

32> Nothing to apologize for. I think the it's amazing that you pretty much never get a piece of art that is liked by 100% of people. Can anyone name such a thing?

This is what bothers me a bit about people defining "good" writing and making requirements of this and that. There is no objective "good" writing, only subjective. If the word has any meaning at all, it's simply the consensus of a number of human minds. Much like whether or not something is "funny." Even in the English speaking world, that can vary a bit from country to country or region to region.

It's far easier for us to come to a consensus on something being utterly bad, but even then you'll get the same kind of effect.

I don't think "good" is subjective. Whether you enjoy a novel is subjective, but the quality of the work is objective. There are well established criteria used to determine it. There may be some disagreement over the importance of those criteria, or where the threshold between good and ordinary lie, but it's a fairly objective process. To claim it's subjective would mean every reader is an expert on literature and writing...

And to claim it's objective would mean that every critic and reviewer is an expert on literature and writing...?

35> And that, I think, is where the crux of our disagreement lies. Who made up these "well established criteria"? What were they based on? Why have they changed with time and with culture? Why are they often applied inconsistently from one group of people to another?

Mathematics is objective. Art is hardly so.

At least, that's my subjective opinion. ;)

#36 No, but some people know more about it than others. They study it, teach it, write about it. We call them "experts". :-)

#37 The criteria are like common law, drawn up over a period of time by many expert people - and, yes, subject to change according to fad or applied influence. But that doesn't invalidate them. They are like any body of knowledge - the more it is studied and documented, the closer to a universal truth (or truths) it gets.

We all know of writers who are deemed good, who are studied at university, who win prizes. We may not like their fiction, we may not have read their fiction. That doesn't mean they're not good, that the prizes were undeserved. If you can accept that a novel you have not read is good, then how can the quality of a piece of fiction be subjective?

#38"If you can accept that a novel you have not read is good"

I'd never accept a novel I haven't read as good. It might be popular, or well regarded or many other things. But to me "good" is only awarded on things I like.

Many people think red wine is good. But it isn't, it's a barely acceptable drink when there's no decent beer around. Some are better than others, but it isn't good. YMMV And so with books.

"good" = "of high quality; excellent." It doesn't mean "was enjoyed, has great appeal to a person". Something that is good doesn't care if you like it or not. Its quality is unaffected by your approval or enjoyment of it.

38> If you can accept that a novel you have not read is good, then how can the quality of a piece of fiction be subjective?

Because it was determined to be good by a consensus of subjective opinions. The better question to your way of thinking would be - can you accept that a novel that no one has ever read can be "good"?

You may very well answer "yes." Again, this just highlights the differences in our approaches.

ETA: Also, I just want to acknowledge that this is something that has been debated for about as long as we have people debating things. The question of whether art has any intrinsic value apart from the subjective judgment of the viewer is probably about as old as the discussion on whether a thing is "art" or not.

I liked Altered Carbon, but it definitely isn't on my top 10 list (or even top 20). Most of the reasons are personal preference - the milieu was too dark and gritty, and the author made the mystery at the center of the story so complex and meandering that I kind of lost track of everything, which took a lot of the impact out of the climax.

Nevertheless, the writing was good, the world was very well-constructed (as depressing as it was) and the action scenes were well-produced. To comment on the earlier discussion, I thought the characters well fairly well-drawn, especially for SF.

I just finished the book. It was kind of confusing with all the different characters but all around I enjoyed it tremendously. I like the concept of sleeving but I hope that they happens to the human race.

I agree with 43 in that it took a few chapters to get my head around the characters and world building but all three of the "Carbon" series were real page turners for me and immensely enjoyed.

Are terms like quality, slick & pulp fiction still viable or used? I think the Carbon books fall into the slick category and Vonnegut kind of transcended the SF genre and is also in the quality territory -would be my remarks along the finding a niche for the works discussion above. I think the "Carbon" series falls into the "real good" sf category. ;-) Some escapism that caught me at the right time and tickled my preferred peculiarities of the moment.

Yep, great book.

I acquired this when I binged on the Millennium Future Classics series about a year and a half ago, as I loved the bindings. I've had Altered Carbon on my nightstand for about six months and have read it in 50 or so page chunks.

It's a strange thing, but whilst I find it engaging enough whilst reading it, I don't appear to have been gripped by it to the point that the next night it's absolutely the only thing I must read... hence another month or so of neglect.

I will finish it off at some point, but am trying to get a few reviews up on my much-neglected SF and Fantasy Masterworks review site.

Thus far: conceptually, I think AC is terrific. However, the 'film noir cyberpunk' theme tastes stale to me.

I can't help wondering whether some of you realize your own characters are "inconsistent and poorly developed" by virtue of being human beings.

47> I make up for it by imagining a diverse array of villains who are out to get me. Just wait until Ian realizes I escaped from that certain-death rhetorical trap he left me in.

I've just finished reading all three of the Takeshi Kovacs series and I really enjoyed them all. I liked the fact that they were all slightly different from each other and each one added a little bit, but not everything, to the world in which he is writing. I didn't find the characters as poorly developed, you just don't get all the details about them but that's because the story is written from the protagonist's point of view and he doesn't know everything that the other characters are doing or why.

RE #47: Well, yes, that's true. That's why we wouldn't make good characters in novels.

I also enjoyed all three in the series. But I admit I was most blown away by this first, Altered Carbon. I liked the gritty dark tone. The concept of an envoy, and what makes them special in a future of "sleeves" was a good concept. The combination felt fresh and unique, despite the book touching on most cyberpunk tropes.

I enjoyed it as I recall. I've been meaning to check-out other works from the same author.

I have read every novel from Morgan except Market Forces and I think Altered Carbon is the best, with The Steel Remains and Woken Furies being the next best books, though not necessarily in that order. I am looking forward to seeing what Morgan does with his Steel Remains universe as he's left himself a lot of territory to explore.

I have not read Altered Carbon, it is on my 'to read' list. I have to make it through Terminal State and A Study In Scarlet, first.

I have high hopes for Altered Carbon, though... I like violent fast-paced novels. I've also come to the conclusion that I like shallow characters. :)

The reason I say that: When I was reading almost exclusively forgotten realms fantasy novels, I would read a review for books that looked interesting. Almost eerily, if it was labeled with poor, not well fleshed out characterization... I would love it. If it was billed as great world building and characterization, I couldn't get myself to sit through the book. (Mind you, there was a bit more to the like / dislike... writing style was key, as well as action... I prefer a high action novel)

This leads me to a question, though: what is meant by 'good characterization'? From my experience, with those few novels I could not get through, it meant: long, drawn out, boring, excessively detailed characters. I personally want just enough to know the premise / what they are about. If they are angry because of a long drawn out childhood, I want this stated, not defined in details. Thus, am I on target... do I really tend toward 'shallow' novels?

Of course, that is very much a narrow sample from one man's experience, and the reviews Ive read could very well have been done by people who like me, never understood the term 'good characterization'.

What are some examples of novels you didn't like due to excessive characterization?

I haven't read a FR novel in 3+ years... Thus, I have a fuzzy time remembering which ones they were. I generally don't read a book if I cant get into it in the first 50 pages.

Honestly, a lot of them I didn't read for more reason than being too long winded and boring. That said, perhaps I am being a little exaggerating in my claim.

Still, if I am to find an example, I think the works of Elaine Cunningham may have been examples of one of the more 'drawn out' characterizations. I really didn't like her stuff much. However, it has been so long since I read such, I may not even have that right.

I'm into Broken Angles (touchstone problems) and digging it even more the Altered Carbon. I hope Richard Morgan writes more Takeshi Kovacs books. Good hard SF.

As for overdeveloped characterizations: Well I'm just too immature for distended verse. Each to his/her own ;-)

I'm more of a story guy myself as well. If Betty is just sitting around drinking chai and reflecting on Bob's excessive possessiveness of late, I get a bit...restless.

I believe Morgan stated he had said all he needed to say in the three Kovacs books. I think it's for the best, as they really were a strong trilogy.

#57 You might find the touchstone working if you spell "Angels" correctly :-)

I might have to shelf one of the two books I'm reading now to speed things up. There appears to be the possibility for a book discussion for me... if I get a move on.

Besides, it is getting quite a good review here. :)

Oh, so Aquinas didn't want to know how many angles could dance on the head of a pin?

#62 + #60 Okay. I got my geometry and theology mixed up. I sometimes think the part of my brain holding spelling & grammar uses "lossy" file compression. My school actually made me get a grammar tutor so I could correct all the errors in my dissertation before they would accept it! ;-)

So Thomas Aquinas was the one who contemplated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?

I don't think St Thomas was the only one. And I suspect that if he did he came late to the discussion. As I understand it the question of whether angels were purely spiritual or more conventional physical beings.of which that question is a rather poetic form was the subject of debate more or less from its birth.

I liked Altered Carbon, but didn't love it. Felt like Morgan was trying too hard to make it "gritty". Didn't care that much for Broken Angels. I realize he tried to do something a little different with Kovacs, but it didn't quite work. I still haven't decided if I'll read the third book or not.

65> Question to satisfy my curiosity - did you go into the book cold, or had you already been hyped a bit about how great it was?

Hi brightcopy,

No I'm not #65, but felt I would still give my "2 bob's worth".
I was suggested "Altered Carbon" on LT somewhere. No hype.
I bought it and it sat on my TBR pile for several months.
I read and liked it. I then read the next 2, and since I had been forewarned
they were not clones, I accepted that and also liked them.

Since I started my SF reading in the late '50's I was impressed how the writing
skills etc. were some much better than in the "Golden Era".

Is it "great", hey I'll let history decide.
But I did enjoy them and am reading more of the "younger" authors than before.

Guido.

Edited to remove a "concurrent sleeve, that's illegal you know"

> #66

I had heard a little bit about it, but I pretty much never pay attention to hype as I know how subjective it can be. I actually picked up Altered Carbon because I had read Black Man/Thirteen and enjoyed it a fair bit. Though Thirteen does have it's own flaws. I guess Richard Morgan just doesn't do it for me personally.

Just read the whole Takeshi Kovacs series and was a little disappointed. I was ramped to read it after reading this discussion, but couldn't get into it. It made me wonder what other authors on my tbr pile I should be more wary of. In particular I don't enjoy books with hardcore themes that include violence, sex, language etc. So, if I didn't like Richard Morgan, who else should I avoid?

#69 Most sf and fantasy coming out of the UK at the moment by male writers, probably. Having said that, I don't recall any graphic violence or swearing in The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rajaniemi.

#54: I'd agree that a book that is merely buried under characterization doesn't have "good characterization" :) I consider Timescape to be the worst example of that in the genre.

For me, it means that the characters come alive and that they make the reader care about them.

As a litmus test, I'd suggest Curse of Chalion. That book I unreservedly recommend for its characters. It's fantasy, though. But see if you like it :)

I have read most of the books so far by Richard Morgan..i.e. Altered Carbon, Broken Angels, Thirteen, Woken Furies, The Steel Remains etc. and enjoyed them not so much for the great characterization but for the interesting and fairly new idea of resleeving or downloading a personality and how to keep a personality intact during that process. As a writer, though, I am intrigued by what makes a reader care about a character. I cared about Robin Hobb's bastard in Assassin's Apprentice, but cast aside the protagonist in A Hundred Thousand Kingdoms. I didn't care what happened to her, even though the book is up for a Hugo & a Nebula award. Why? What had the writer done to make me sit up so late reading the book because I cared about what happened to the character. That's what I want to do to my readers. I want them bleary eyed the next morning and sleep-deprived.

I have read most of the books so far by Richard Morgan..i.e. Altered Carbon, Broken Angels, Thirteen, Woken Furies, The Steel Remains etc. and enjoyed them not so much for the great characterization but for the interesting and fairly new idea of resleeving or downloading a personality and how to keep a personality intact during that process. As a writer, though, I am intrigued by what makes a reader care about a character. I cared about Robin Hobb's bastard in Assassin's Apprentice, but cast aside the protagonist in A Hundred Thousand Kingdoms. I didn't care what happened to her, even though the book is up for a Hugo & a Nebula award. Why? What had the writer done to make me sit up so late reading the book because I cared about what happened to the character. That's what I want to do to my readers. I want them bleary eyed the next morning and sleep-deprived.