Categories
TV

The Biggest Mystery of Westworld

Somehow I’ve watched 5 episodes of Westworld.

I say ‘somehow’ not because I think it’s bad – though I don’t think it’s as good as some people seem to, it’s got good production values, some great actors but only so-so writing – but because after watching a couple of episodes I realised it was a ‘Mystery Box’ show.

What’s a ‘Mystery Box’? Here’s someone talking about the concept. I remember the first time I watched that and realised, “So Abrams is in love with the idea of setting up stuff and not explaining it, whereas I want to know. I stopped watching Lost not long after.

To be clear then, I hate Mystery Box shows. I want the thing that makes me want to keep watching to be how the next bit of story turns out, what happens to my favourite characters, and not what is the secret of the thing that we glimpsed when the shadowy character said the vague thing about the possible location of the thing that will lead to…

But none of that is what this post is really about.

Because after watching five episodes there’s a bigger mystery to me that who the Man in Black is, or what’s special about Delores, who Arnold was and what he tried to do, what Dr. Ford is up to, what “the game” is, where the map leads…

No the biggest mystery is more fundamental and potentially more detrimental to my enjoyment of the show.

Let me explain: in Westworld there are very realistic human-looking robots (‘hosts’) populating a theme park where rich people can go and live out a Western-themed fantasy. Which means a lot of killing and fucking. At least in terms of their interaction with the hosts. Also there are behind-the-scenes technicians who repair, de-brief and interact with the ‘hosts’ in a more clinical manner. And since the hosts are not human the WW staff treat them in a glib manner – slicing them open and performing ‘surgery’ (repairs), abruptly switching them off, or turning off their emotions in order to analyse them. And when this occurs the hosts are naked because… well because titillation and ratings I assume.

Actually there was one attempt at an on-screen explanation for the need for nakedness. A tech had draped a cloth over one host and Dr Ford angrily removes it reminding the guy that hosts are not human. So in order to reinforce the non-human nature of the hosts they need to be naked because when we see someone naked, say sitting talking to a fully clothed person interrogating them, we immediately think cold mechanical machine not a vulnerable human being with flaws and a need for/right to dignity don’t we?

OK I’m getting side-tracked about the nakedness. But I’m supposed to be talking about mystery and the nakedness is not a mystery. It’s dumb but no mystery – see again ratings and titillation.

No the biggest mystery in Westworld is the way the real humans interact with each other. Which is normally. They have friends, colleagues, lovers, enemies and they behave toward them in perfectly ordinary ways according to the nature of the relationship and their emotional state.

Why is that a mystery? Well because they spend a lot of time treating human-looking objects as objects. They treat them callously, indifferently, cruelly. They use them for sexual pleasure. They kill and rape them for fun. And all this is justified* because they’re not human. But justified or not surely it has an effect? There must be some emotional bleed through?

Surely such behaviour towards these things that look, act, feel as human as you are would eventually degrade your attitudes toward other actual human beings? You’d start to find yourself behaving more carelessly and callously toward the people in your life. Or if not you’d at least start to feel a disconnect between the two. In the case of the techs in particular you would have to compartmentalise so much, build up such cognitive dissonance that it would have to come out in some form.

And yet, so far, five episodes in, I don’t see it. Maybe it’s coming but it seems they’re more concerned with spinning the various clue threads than showing us the emotional consequences of having proxy humans to hurt.

Why we haven’t seen it, well to me at least, that’s the mystery.

 

(*Maybe. I’m guessing the show will want to explore this idea. It’s already made it pretty clear that there’s going to be an arc of hosts becoming fully self-aware, which will lead to questions of whether or not they are ‘real’ people. And whether therefore the humans have responsibilities toward them. That’s OK, it’s been done before, a lot, but it’s OK.)

Categories
book reading reviews

So Much Blood – Simon Brett

This is the second Charles Paris story. I bought this together with the first a while back. As I said at the time I was drawn to these by the undeniable charisma of Bill Nighy in the radio adaptations.

It’s summer 1974 and Paris has taken his one-man show to Edinburgh Fringe Festival as a last minute replacement for part of an University Drama Society’s line-up. During rehearsal of one of the other plays an actor is fatally stabbed by what should have been a fake knife in a horrible accident. Or was it an accident.

I’m not sure what to say about this that I didn’t say about the last book. It definitely works as a ‘cozy’ mystery and Paris is a likeable protagonist/investigator. I felt at times that some of the other characters were only fleshed out enough to give them potential motives or a place in the plot. I also felt that the switch between Charles the actor and Charles the investigator was a bit blunt at times and you would have thought that more of his colleagues and associates would have said, “hang on why are you questioning me?” I guess that’s just a convention of the genre that once a character falls into that role we accept that they are able to quiz the other players to some extent. So an effective, if mechanical mystery structure.

The story certainly has enough twists to keep you guessing and enough of Charles, his wit and his love-life to amuse but I guess I did find it a little lacking. It is short though. At under 58,000 words even I read it in a day (~4 hours in fact). It did feel a little dated, the sexual politics more than anything, but not so much that I couldn’t relate.

With so much to read I don’t know if I’ll read any more Paris.

7/10 – a actor’s life that seems to be all about death.

Categories
6000 pages reading reviews

6000 Pages 2011, Cast, in Order of Disappearance – Simon Brett (pages 10579-10755)

Cast, in Order of Disappearance is I suppose what you’d call a mystery. That always feels like an old-fashioned term to me but this is not a crime novel in the way The Straw Men is or a thriller like Killer Move, it’s a whodunnit, a comic one. In fact it’s the first in series of Charles Paris mysteries, Paris being the amateur sleuth , professional actor protagonist.

I first encountered Charles Paris in a radio adaptation of one of the later books where he was voiced by Bill Nighy and it was Nighy’s name that drew me in. However looking for a light read I thought I’d give the original source material a go.

Marcus Steen, a theatre-owner and general show-biz tycoon is found dead in bed, apparently from natural causes, a few days after Bill Sweet a man who was blackmailing him was shot a few miles away. Paris becomes involved when he attempts to help Jacqui, Steen’s girlfriend when she tries to find out exactly what happened and why he broke it off just before he died.

I’m aware though that describing the plot doesn’t really matter because that’s something that you’ll want to discover for yourself. I suppose the questions a mystery lover asks is whether the twists and turns are satisfying, surprising without being implausible and the plot clever enough to engage. I think that’s all true. However I personally was looking for more of the wit and charm I’d seen in the radio version. Paris is a sort of loveable rogue, unreliable, a drunk, a flirt and womaniser, but ultimately a good guy. I think the book scored pretty well on that front though I think it definitely benefited from the fact that I heard Nighy’s voice whenever there was dialogue.

I should probably mention that the novel was written in 1975 and set around Christmas 1973/4. There are references to petrol shortages, power cuts and high taxes. Not that that’s a problem in terms of plot, everything you need to understand is explained.

7/10 – fun, light, quick read.

Categories
25 books reading reviews

25 Books, book 17 – The Girl on the Landing, Paul Torday

So it’s February 2010 and “25 Books” was my 2009 challenge. I’m not going to tell you (yet) how many books I read and how many points I accrued, but I will say that I’ve nearly finished book 2 of 2010. So obviously I’m a bit behind on the corresponding blog posts. My goal for 2010 is to try not to get more than one book behind (once I’ve caught up that is.)

So anyway…

The Girl on the Landing is the story of Michael and his wife Elizabeth. Whilst staying with a friend in Ireland he sees an intriguing picture of a girl on the landing of his friend’s house. On mentioning it the next day he discovers that the picture in question has no girl in it. This odd occurrence marks the beginning of changes in him, his marriage and his life in general.

I bought this book one day when I was browsing in Waterstones and liked the blurb on the back. I was in my “forget-the-list-lets-just-read-something-enjoyable” phase. It turned out to be a good choice but I wasn’t sure of that initially. I wasn’t sure I was going to be able to relate to the main characters. Michael is very rich and his life seems to be like something out of a period novel about posh folk. He’s very rich and owns a large estate in Scotland. He lives in London and his pass-the-time job is working for an exclusive club of which he’s a member. I swear the first 50 pages or so I kept looking for clues of when it was set because I was sure it was going to turn out to be the 1930s.

That was a minor concern though and faded once I got into the story. The transformation in Michael as a person and the growing effect it had on his marriage I found interesting. I was rooting for them as a couple who, having been married for some time found themselves perhaps for the first time falling really in love.

However as the pace of the story picks up there’s a kind of is-it-real supernatural element mixed with almost a crime thriller. Both of these in different ways had me intrigued as to what was going to happen next and what it meant. I found it quite exciting and intriguing and the early part of the book had made me care about the characters so that was all the more affecting.

I can see how some might see it as a strange mix of genres but that honestly never bothered me.

8/10 – an odd mix of romance, thriller and ghost story – but one that worked for me.