Mieville's thoughts...

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

See, this is getting complicated. There's what writers say, and there's what readers think they said, and there's what readers think they should have said, and there's what readers think other readers think, or should think, about what writers say, or should have said– quite a head-ache recipe.


Again, how much of this is Miéville now, and how much are you reading into it, based (perhaps) on your own thoughts on the ethics of reading, or something?

EDIT:X'd.

This is not all based on my own thoughts on the "ethics of reading", and I'm not even sure where you came up with that. Let me set this out:

1. Mieville makes claims about the values inherent in the text
2. Mieville claims these values are retrograde, reactive and backward looking
It follows, therefore, that if a reader engages with the text without criticising the values Mieville says are there, then the reader is morally complicit with them, in Mieville's eyes. This does not mean we are necessarily conciously complicit; indeed that is the point. That we do not recognise these backward values and seek to deconstruct them is evidence of our complicity; we are ideologically blinded.

I don't actually agree with this version of reader response theory; but I deduce Mieville would, considering the thoughts he expressed in the quote I provided above.