Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tumhalad
Regardless, my point was to enquire as to whether the text does, or does not, enshrine the values Mieville says it does.
|
I've already said, I don't think it does.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tumhalad
I was inferring that Mieville is indirectly accusing readers of "complicity" with the values enshrined in the text as he perceives them; I don't think this is an illogical inference; when one reads a book, and regards it favourably, one does, to some extent, comply with its worldview. This is not to say one may disagree with it in certain respects, but taken wholistically one finds no trouble in it to the extent that one is driven to be heavily critical of it. Mieville makes certain assertions about the values of the text; assertions that I do not agree with. Nonetheless, in Mieville's view, I must in some sense be morally complicit, because I do not criticise the values that he says are there.
|
But
tumhalad, I think you're the one making the equation between reading and wrongdoing here. Or at least you're making a lot of assumptions. Just being highly critical of a book's values does not, to my mind, automatically imply that you're accusing its readers of committing an ethical violation.