Miévillians discussion

Here are some possible starting points for discussion when the group read formally commences:

1. Borlu wants to contact Jaris. "Good luck, he's gone."

2. "He was into her, I think."

3. "For some reason I've been a repository for a bunch of information that I don't know what to do with."

Is there some metafictional irony behind this statement?

4. Dinner/supper with Dhatt and his wife, Yallya

5. Being spied upon

6. "Watching Yallya and Dhatt made me think of Sariska and Biszaya. I recalled the odd eagerness of Aikam Tsueh."

Is love, passion or lust just an "odd eagerness"?

7. Sends fake message to Aikiam and finds Yolanda

8. Yolanda: "Because they're here, and they're there too. They run things...I know they're real...The third place. Between the city and the city. Orciny."

9. "She told me about the conspiracy."

10. "It's perfect for them that no one thinks they're real. That's just what they want. That's how they rule."

What do you think about how the Orcinians have been introduced so far? Is it convincing? Does it matter that the only evidence so far is hearsay?

11. "Do you realise they contacted her [Mahalia]?...she got a letter...It was in the root form. Precursor stuff, old scriipt...'We are watching you. You understand. Would you like to know more?'...so they recruited her."

12. "She said she'd been going over and over her notes, and that she was figuring stuff out. Bad stuff. She said we could be thieves without even knowing."

13. Borlu suggests that "you could breach".

14. "She once said that the whole history of Beszel and Ul Qoma was the history of the war between Orciny and Breach...Maybe they work together...I think Orciny is the name Breach calls itself."

At this point (close to the end of the second "act", it seems that Yolanda's only method of escape might actually place her in the hands of the "enemy".

Chapter 18 has this quote that summarises the book in some ways:

"There's a series of random and implausible crises that make no sense other than if you believe the most dramatic possible shit. And there's a dead girl at the end of it all."

;)

Is that fair?

I think it's in the same vein as point #3, above.

Nice find.

Do you think this describes not just TC&TC, but a genre of fiction generally, e.g., crime fiction?

Is it a reader's perspective? Or does it define the novel from the author's perspective, e.g., like a pitch?

Can you imagine a film producer pitching the film this way?

Would it make a good film poster?

Point #3 is probably subject to the same query about reader's or author's perspective.

Sorry to meet a question with yet more questions.

I hope we can both lure members in here and start a debate.

Ian wrote: "...
1. Do you think this describes not just TC&TC, but a genre of fiction generally, e.g., crime fiction?

2. Is it a reader's perspective? Or does it define the novel from the author's perspective, e.g., like a pitch?

3. Can you imagine a film producer pitching the film this way?

4. Would it make a good film poster?
..."

1. Probably. I don't read (or watch) much crime fiction, but many of the stylistic tropes in this book are familiar (good cop/bad cop, the importance of caffeine, breaking the rules, hunches etc).

2, 3, 4. It's amusing, but perhaps too unflattering for an author to use in any sort of pitch or on a film poster. By putting it in chapter 18, Mieville is on safe ground, because anyone who has got that far clearly has some commitment to and fondness for the book.

Like Lawrence Oates, I'm going outside and might be some time.

Can you keep these threads moving?

I'll see what I can do, but I don't want to monopolise the discussions, and I realise I am reading faster than intended, so I may switch back to the book I was reading (but didn't finish) before I started this one.