Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobbitt_Fan
Just because he is a writer, or any other individual of some celebrity gives no added insight to the human condition, the laws of god and nature, or the questions of the universe and existence. Famous people like to think so and in so much as they use their own written word or form of artistic expression, the messages the choose to convey, or hope the reader or viewer infers is a natural by productive of the expression of their creative talent. If they choose to comment on their own work, I take them at their word but I give no special weight to their views, criticism, political or moral insight in others work or the world then I would normally extend to anyone including the mailman or my barber.
Binding fiction or literature into the political arguments du jour is self defeating as fiction is first and foremost a work intended for entertainment and a form or escapism or window into the imagination.
|
See my post at
#17. This interview was given for a very specific audience (readers of a left-wing political journal), and in it Miéville's intent is to show that SF has value in what may be the only terms that would appeal to that particular audience.
No, it's not a very good article generally– note how much he prevaricates on whether the "true" nature of SF is political or not– like he wants to have it both ways. Reading this again, I get the impression Miéville isn't nearly as committed to this "writing for the revolution" thing as he at first seems to imply he is. The point is, though, he's trying to "sell" his genre to what appears to be a pretty unreceptive audience, and one which is probably only interested in it from a certain angle. Look at the questions he was asked:
"Why is fantasy literature of interest to socialists?" "What have Marxists had to say about fantasy and science fiction?" "Why has fantasy literature so often appeared to be conservative with a small 'c'?"