Tried to get through this one years ago and couldn't muscle through, which is a shame because the red author is supremely talented. I often think of the slake moths from the first book, as they're my go to example of a genuinely horrifying scifi monster. Also, the Malarial Queendom is such a rad phrase and idea that it deserves its own book. My least favorite part of the first two books was the remade, so an entire book devoted to them was incredibly unappealing. As an aside if you want an example of a Mieville novel with social commentary that works, The City in the City is pretty good, though as with his other works, I remember much of the concept and setting and practically none of the plot
Same, and in earlier books (like Perdido) his portrayal of the Capitalists/Militia/State etc is much more interesting. Rudgutter and his coterie of weird but very talented allies are really trying to solve the problem and taking it seriously, whereas the bohemian protagonists frequently make things worse and then get bailed out by the Weaver!
So it almost felt like a bit of a cartoon Mieville when we got to Iron Council, but I think it's too generous to say he's satirizing himself and his commie friends. But then freezing the revolution in time is surely too on the nose to be accidental...
I typically don't read novels anymore and have little interest in gambling my time on something that would possibly be a dumpster fire, as you describe this to be.
But I truly enjoyed your description of it! Not as much of a waste of time perhaps as it could have been.
I read this one years ago, and liked it at the time. I still think about it now and then.
It occurs to me, in retrospect, that the government of New Crobuzon was quite powerful and innovative, and so there's no real reason to suppose that they couldn't figure out some way to deal with the frozen train. You could just build a bunker around it and fill it with poisonous sand or ghosts or something.
Did you ever get a copy of Camp of the Saints like we chatted about on Twitter? I'd really love to hear your thoughts on the book. You can use it to balance out having to read through communist propaganda.
Good to know this book sucks. For the record, I give a book three pages to make a case for itself, or into the hopper it goes. That's the great thing about using the public library: there's no sunk cost.
"How does magically disfiguring someone lower the crime rate?"
How does cutting off a thiefs hand lower the crime rate?
Both are extremem punishments intended to ruin someone's life and thereby serve as an 'incentive', if you will, against crime, a scare-off tactic.
We also have modern evidence that desire for heavy scare-off punishments persists even after it's been shown to not lower the relevant crime rates.
.
"Why are the militia so insistent on pursuing the train?"
Maintaining the rule of law? Likely not out of moral conviction, of course, but because if they let one group get away with something like this, others might be encouraged to pull other mischief, and other wealthy business-people might be upset about the idea that they aren't being protected and people stealing their stuff aren't being punished. Also, the thiefs being the literal lowest of this society probably ratches up the vindictiveness, due to the perceived violation of social order.
The fact that them getting away is a problem for the government is substantiated within the book by the popular image the runaways develop. You can think it's too exaggerated, but the internal logic for why characters do what they do holds.
.
Tbh it's hard to know which parts of this review I can take as more generally valid and which are a matter of metasticized dislike for specific parts or the author's politics.
(For comparison, the book going too heavy and repetitive on anouncing its themes/meaning seems like a generally valid critique, and something I also find a frequent problem in openly political texts.)
Tried to get through this one years ago and couldn't muscle through, which is a shame because the red author is supremely talented. I often think of the slake moths from the first book, as they're my go to example of a genuinely horrifying scifi monster. Also, the Malarial Queendom is such a rad phrase and idea that it deserves its own book. My least favorite part of the first two books was the remade, so an entire book devoted to them was incredibly unappealing. As an aside if you want an example of a Mieville novel with social commentary that works, The City in the City is pretty good, though as with his other works, I remember much of the concept and setting and practically none of the plot
Loved The City And The City.
I've quite enjoyed all this books, except this one.
Same, and in earlier books (like Perdido) his portrayal of the Capitalists/Militia/State etc is much more interesting. Rudgutter and his coterie of weird but very talented allies are really trying to solve the problem and taking it seriously, whereas the bohemian protagonists frequently make things worse and then get bailed out by the Weaver!
So it almost felt like a bit of a cartoon Mieville when we got to Iron Council, but I think it's too generous to say he's satirizing himself and his commie friends. But then freezing the revolution in time is surely too on the nose to be accidental...
I agree. I loved the first two and pre-ordered this months in advance. It was dogshit
I also had to quit his Russian Revolution book
This is what I am picturing-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwJHNw9jU_U&ab_channel=20fadhil%3ARevolution
Accurate
I typically don't read novels anymore and have little interest in gambling my time on something that would possibly be a dumpster fire, as you describe this to be.
But I truly enjoyed your description of it! Not as much of a waste of time perhaps as it could have been.
Bless you
I read this one years ago, and liked it at the time. I still think about it now and then.
It occurs to me, in retrospect, that the government of New Crobuzon was quite powerful and innovative, and so there's no real reason to suppose that they couldn't figure out some way to deal with the frozen train. You could just build a bunker around it and fill it with poisonous sand or ghosts or something.
Thank you for saving me from this rotten book
Did you ever get a copy of Camp of the Saints like we chatted about on Twitter? I'd really love to hear your thoughts on the book. You can use it to balance out having to read through communist propaganda.
I did, haven't gotten around to reviewing it yet.
Good to know this book sucks. For the record, I give a book three pages to make a case for itself, or into the hopper it goes. That's the great thing about using the public library: there's no sunk cost.
"How does magically disfiguring someone lower the crime rate?"
How does cutting off a thiefs hand lower the crime rate?
Both are extremem punishments intended to ruin someone's life and thereby serve as an 'incentive', if you will, against crime, a scare-off tactic.
We also have modern evidence that desire for heavy scare-off punishments persists even after it's been shown to not lower the relevant crime rates.
.
"Why are the militia so insistent on pursuing the train?"
Maintaining the rule of law? Likely not out of moral conviction, of course, but because if they let one group get away with something like this, others might be encouraged to pull other mischief, and other wealthy business-people might be upset about the idea that they aren't being protected and people stealing their stuff aren't being punished. Also, the thiefs being the literal lowest of this society probably ratches up the vindictiveness, due to the perceived violation of social order.
The fact that them getting away is a problem for the government is substantiated within the book by the popular image the runaways develop. You can think it's too exaggerated, but the internal logic for why characters do what they do holds.
.
Tbh it's hard to know which parts of this review I can take as more generally valid and which are a matter of metasticized dislike for specific parts or the author's politics.
(For comparison, the book going too heavy and repetitive on anouncing its themes/meaning seems like a generally valid critique, and something I also find a frequent problem in openly political texts.)