His writing is incredibly smug. I can feel him leering at me through his typewriter, shoulders up, breathing hard. That’s when I stand up, walk over to the bookshelf, and place it with the others. No way. We have no shared history; I’m not going to bore through one of these things out of deference to some prior affection. I don’t owe him shit.
Oh for fuck’s sake. Read read them or don’t. I happen to enjoy reading both, especially Miéville, and I don’t care if anyone else does or not. If you feel you’re supposed to like something, then you worry too much about I don’t even know what. It’s fun being overtly contrarian though.I hate this in writers. I hate it, hate it, hate it, hate it. (I haven’t actually read any of Mieville’s novels, so I don’t know if I’d agree that this is characteristic of him or not.)
The books are fun, and different, and interesting. I don’t bother characterizing the author.(via jackbaty)
I think a lot of folks have an unnecessarily high tolerance for a certain flavor of pretension in speculative fiction. So I’m glad when someone raises it as a question, even in cases where I don’t agree that it applies or when (as in this case) it’s an author I haven’t gotten around to reading yet.
I’m not saying Penny Arcade's read of Mieville is the correct one (I wouldn't know) — I'm saying I'm happy to see this kind of read, of anything, being displayed prominently (and amusingly).
It’s not just about contrarianism. Sometimes a cultural expectation builds up around certain writers (and it happens in other media, too, of course), that what they’re doing is what’s interesting or current or important. It’s healthy to call that kind of expectation into question if what you’re seeing in their output doesn’t match up to it.