China Mieville on D&D

[BryonD]

Saying "this book's gotta be horrible" just because one particular character in that book behaves in a certain way - and there are others that behave in the exactly opposite way! - seems a little, well, extreme to me in itself.

What does it mean when you are forced to make up quotes to assign to the person whose point you are challenging?

Not only did he not say that, he didn't say anything that could be reasonable infered to mean that.

If that character was dubbed a "slaver" or "someone who makes other people work and suffer for him, while he obviously doesn't care about them, only his profits", would that be any different? I'm wondering.

If the author openly advocated a return to slavery in real life, would that affect your tendency to read his fiction? I'm wondering.

 

[talinthas]

i tried to read Perdido Street Station about 4 times, but the book just didn't grab me. His style never really clicked with me, and kept putting me to sleep. That, more than his politics, is why i don't read him =)

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

i tried to read Perdido Street Station about 4 times, but the book just didn't grab me. His style never really clicked with me, and kept putting me to sleep. That, more than his politics, is why i don't read him =)

PSS is a bit of a slog through the first half but picks up steam mightily after that. The Scar came out a bit ahead of PSS for me, in that there was a tighter focus on the characters, the neato ideas had more to do with the plot, and the pacing was a bit better.

And really, PSS has one of the coolest Lovecraftian monsters I've ever read, and that to me trumps any personal feelings about Mieville's politics. As someone who's read Mieville and Tom Clancy I can say I never felt preached to by either in the slightest. Just gimme that Uther Doul/John Clark action!

 

[Ryltar]

Doul is just ... Wicked .

 

[Kesh]

Bought Perdido Street Station a while back, but i haven't read it yet. Guess I'll give it a whirl next.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If that character was dubbed a "slaver" or "someone who makes other people work and suffer for him, while he obviously doesn't care about them, only his profits", would that be any different? I'm wondering.

Of course it would be different.

But he didn't draw that distinction. What he did was equate "capitalist" with "bastard, murderer, and exploiter."

So basically I assume he's an , or an idiot, or both, and he doesn't need my money or my time.

 

[Ryltar]

Note that he did not equate these descriptives, he merely used them in conjunction to describe a character who is all of the above and more.

 

[Rackhir]

Note that he did not equate these descriptives, he merely used them in conjunction to describe a character who is all of the above and more.

Capitalist is essentially a neutral word, in its innate meaning. Using it in the context he is, he IS making it clear that he considers it a negative term, as it has aquired a negative connotation with some people/groups. If someone said that a character was a murderer, a thief and a Greengrocer, you'd be puzzled that "greengrocer" was used because it has no negative connotations.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Note that he did not equate these descriptives, he merely used them in conjunction to describe a character who is all of the above and more.

Don't be naive.

Take out "capitalist" and put in "Jew," "Muslim," or even "Irishman" and see how it reads.

And then ask yourself if a reasonable person could say, "This doesn't sound like someone I'd want to read."

 

[ajanders]

The invisible hand at work.

The invisible hand can provide cover, push someone back, punch, or squeeze. There's nothing in the RAW that says it can control purchasing decisions.
But it's a nice idea for house rules.

Other than that minor quibble, Wulf, I understand your point.