Mieville's thoughts...

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

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.

I don't say he wouldn't, but I also don't say it follows. If I say, "such-and-such a novel has a backward political and social outlook", I'm not trying to imply that anyone who reads it for enjoyment, without critiquing its politics, is doing something wrong. Furthermore, I also wouldn't think for a moment that someone who outright agreed with the author's politics was doing something morally wrong, just that such a person, like the author, was misguided. (The exception would be if those politics were of a very extreme nature, and supported actions that I do consider immoral, like killing everyone who disagrees with you or something.)

So, maybe Miéville does, or did, think that way, but you haven't shown it; you're the one who brought morality into the equation.