Sam-Who-Likes-Some-Things - The City and the City
Another book that could have fallen on either side of the ledger. I am not a Mieville fan, and the only reason I read this was because a lot of fellow travelers said it wasn’t a typical Mieville book. They’re right. It isn’t. It’s far more disciplined. By Mieville standards, there’s very little showing off.
Except for the premise, I really enjoyed it. A good detective story, well told. The ending surprised me, but only because it was the very pat ending that I’d already guessed Mieville would avoid. I was surprised when he didn’t.
But don’t get me wrong, I really hated the premise of this book. It’s the sort of premise that only a Marxist could think up. There is no humanity in it at all. The City and the City only works if you think humans can be conditioned into anything - a very Marxist belief, which devalues the individual for the sake of society as horribly as our own American society goes the other way. The whole idea that people can be conditioned into not noticing their neighbors is patently absurd. What about children? What about Alzheimer’s patients? What about dogs? What about communicable diseases? The whole idea would work wonderfully if the novel was about paranoia, but it’s not. It’s a detective story, whch assumes a certain amount of logical behavior from its characters. Yes, the characters in The City and the City behave logically within the world designed for them, but the whole things falls apart when you consider the fact that the world itself has no logic. It’s an artist’s fiat. If people can complain about the lack of logic in fantasy world-building, ie the economics don’t work, then surely the same argument can be used for SF.
Anyway, that’s my rant, and I’m sticking to it.