Fantasy / Jan '11 Reading: The City and The City by Mieville

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

This is like Sartre's keyhole theory where a voyeur does not realise his voyeuristic nature when he is looking through a keyhole at something until he himself realises he is being observed doing it.

---

I didn't want to get into too much of a post-modernist reading.

Foucault's conception of the panoptical prison, which is an idea that was conceived by Bentham in the 19th century, sort of extends to how social behavior is policed at large in our society. Social taboos get policed often not by law, but from a fear of being seen by some unknown disapproving gaze.

In the novel Breach seems like something corporeal, but at the same time the fear of being observed breaking the conventions of the world they live in draws parallels to the way many people fear being unconventional or breaking social taboos for fear of what unknown strangers will think.

At the same time I thought of how in the History of Sexuality, Foucault discusses what he terms the "repressive hypothesis" of policing sexual behavior. He argues that instead of legal institutions being the source of repression, it is rather the dialogue and discourse around sexual deviance that creates the categories that need to be policed. So, he says people talking about taboos, or engaging in them in secret, are not really being subversive but are contributing to the construction of the conceptions of those taboos. Much like the way the unificationist seem to reinforce the split merely by their focus on it, and how the detectives constant self-assurances that everyone breaks the unseeing rules occasionally help to contribute to his constant tendency to reinforce the rules by repeating them to himself.

This is definately there in the book. He's geographised - I know, I made it up - these ideas in the two nations.

I find the topic of voyeurism to be quite a fascinating one, especially in today's culture of the Internet and reality TV which is set up upon a voyeuristic principle. People who find some sort of thrill in inviting random strangers to peeper into their personal private lives through blogs, facebook, social networks, and so forth, or those who allow themselves to be watched and followed by cameras and have nearly there every movement recorded. And those who feel compelled to look into the mundane and daily lives of others.

I think both of you bring up some rather interesting points upon the subject, and by the way I love word geographised. It is right up there with grosstopically and topolganger.

The idea of this sort of reverse voyeurism in the constant need to unsee behind the veil into this other world is quite an interesting one, and I think in some ways the knowledge that there are these other people who actually have to make a conscious effort on a day to day basis to not see you, and knowing that you yourself are aware of the existence of them and yet at the same time cannot allow yourself to become aware of them puts you in a more vulnerable state than living under a sort of Big Brother rule in which you are being actively watched.

Because in the position of knowing you are being watched on a daily basis while uncomfortable and not desirable, you can come to adapt to it, and you are aware of the fact that it is happening, and thus you can in fact control what the watchers see your own choice of actions and in time you may become desensitized to it.

But in the situation of Beszel/Ul Qoma and the concept of unseeing, as demonstrated through Borlu, we know that it is impossible to achieve complete unseeing and that at moments even the most trained slip now and than and catch something of that other world. I think that awareness that you never know when in fact someone from behind the screen might suddenly catch a glimpse of you in an unexpected moment could make you even more self-conscious. In addition to the fact in those moments in which you may suddenly see what you are not meant to see, in that moment before you unsee it, it would be all the more savory and even as they "ignore" what they saw, it is never truly forgotten. It leaves a more lasting impression than that which is brought to our awareness on a daily basis.

It reminded me of the Don't ask, Don't tell policy on US gay servicemen, and phrases like the elephant in the room etc.

It's a conspiracy of unseeing which has resonances in our society. I briefly read, and Orphan has noted elsewhere, that Mieville is a political writier. I think in our current economic climate we'll get a lot more unseeing of the social deprivation. Of course the disenfranchised and virtually invisible people in society are the most vulnerable - disabled, unemployed, uneducated etc etc.

I think that Don't' Ask Don't Tell is a good example of how unseeing does apply to our every day world. It is a known and acknowledged fact that there are gays within the military and yet it is accepted to ignore that fact and not actually "see" it even if everyone knows it is there.

This can also be applied to the homosexual community in general, particularly in areas where they may more pressured to keep their identity concealed. Often times when someone does "come out of the closet" as they say, there are few people who are honestly surprised, it is something that everyone already knew upon some level, but were happy to go along with the delusion that it was not true and let there minds trick themselves into seeing or not seeing what they wanted.

Of course this concept also works in many other areas of our society as well. I think particularly in the case of the homeless there is a good deal of unseeing which goes on. It makes me think of that scene mentioned by Borlu, about the couple who were making out in the park in Beszel, and the Ul Qoma man steps over them while consciously refusing to actually notice their presence.

In some ways I think it is also reflective of life in the city in general, where most people are just so detached from each other and so wrapped up in their own thoughts, own concerns, their own busy schedules, and cell phones and ipods, that they do not really notice or acknowledge other people around them. I am reading Invisible Man right now and the narrator is talking about his first experiences in New York and the way in which while the people are polite, it gives him the feeling as if they don't really see him, like when people accidentally bump into him they say "Pardon Me" and yet leave him with the feeling as if they don't actually notice him at all.

I think the concept of Unseeing can be applied to the attitude to crime today, especially within the city, where it does seem as if people do make that conscious effort not to notice what is happening around them, because it is more convenient for them to just not see it, than to have to do anything about it. One of the things I found quite interesting in the book is the way in which people were so use to unseeing, that Dhatt makes the remark that no witness's would admit to having seen a Beszel van even if it did have a permit, and how some of the Ul Qoman people would actually unsee Borlu.

Mieville cetainly understands the city and city life relationships. It reminds me of Harvey Cox who was writing about religion in cities before the 1980s. His sociological descriptions of city relationships introduced me to the idea that you avoid most relationships in a city for practical reasons. You can't say good morning to the thousands of commuters in a capital like London - or any capital. It's not bad - just practical, and I suppose if we live in a large city we unsee most of the populace.

On an unrelated note - do you think examining more recent titles is more difficult, or more offputting, as there has been no lit crit published about them? I rather like the idea of discussing "in the dark" so to speak. One advantage I can see is that you don't get pages and pages of synthesised regurgitation of lit theory by posters. I think it's perhaps harder to come to conclusions, and then frame them in a public post - as there hasn't already been a "jargon" created- but it is a more visceral exercise. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

On an unrelated note - do you think examining more recent titles is more difficult, or more offputting, as there has been no lit crit published about them? I rather like the idea of discussing "in the dark" so to speak. One advantage I can see is that you don't get pages and pages of synthesised regurgitation of lit theory by posters. I think it's perhaps harder to come to conclusions, and then frame them in a public post - as there hasn't already been a "jargon" created- but it is a more visceral exercise. What do you think?

---

That is an interesting question. Speaking for myself I cannot say that I find it any more difficult or offputting because honestly I really don't read literary criticism. I have always preferred to come to my own conclusions about the books I read and not have someone else tell me how I should think, or what I should read into it. Not that I am saying as a whole there is anything wrong with lit crit or that it does not have some merit. I just do not personally pursue, or not very often.

I do think that it is good for the discussions when everyone reading it is going in fresh, being they are not coming in with predetermined opinions which have been gotten from other sources. As you mentioned there not already being a jargon for it, posters will not be able to fall back on previous literary discussion as a crutch while posting their own opinions. There is more pressure for one to have to digest and process the information wholly upon their own.

I agree Dark. I find it much better too, as I'd rather focus upon actual texts rather than read lit crit tomes, which are, after all another's opinion, albeit informed.

I find discussion illuminating, and, as you say, fresh. It seems to me that the threads where the discussion takes off away from the book into criticism and movements, it often kills the topic. That's not to say that there's not a place for it.

I just got to part three Breech. And I have to say I am really interested now in reading about what this is going to be all about, and just what/who Breach is, and what does on there, and how Orciny will fit into it all.

I have to say that in a way a connection between Breach and Orciny seems almost obvious. I mean here we have this invisible power/force, that is neither Bezel or Ul Qoma, and has no one else to hold it accountable and can do pretty much whatever it wants without being questioned, and is almost like this god-like presence above the two cities, that can just come down and make people disappear and no one will ever know what happened to them. This establish of Breach has to exist somewhere

It actually seems a bit strange to me that no one else even really considered the possibility of Breach being Orciny, at least not until Yollanda had to spell it out for them. But then that would be like the ultimate act of unseeing, to convince people that you do not exist. It is kind of like with an ice berg, people know that there is this force among them that seems to have unlimited power, and can be completely unquestioned, but they have come to accept its presence, but that is only the tip of it. And that is enough to keep their focus that the real threat of it is what remains unseen (no pun intended) lurking just beneath the surface.

But than I have not finished reading the book yet, so the whole Breach-Orincy theory could turn out to be completely bogus.

I was completely shocked at the discovery that it was the lack of belief in Orciny which led to the deaths, and I am quite curious to see just where that goes because it seems kind of paradoxal to me.

The majority of the population does not believe in Orincy, and yet if someone used to believe in it and than stops, that becomes some sort of crime which they are killed for. And if Orciny (if in fact it is Orciny and not something else) is so particular about the belief of others, why do they go through such lengths to ensure that most people have no suspicion of their existence. It sounds like some sort of secret club. Once they let you in you can never get out but at the same time you also cannot talk about it to anyone else.

I have to say that I was a bit disappointed to discover that there really is no Orciny. I suppose like Mahala and Yolanda there is that part of me that wanted to believe there could be this hidden unknown place existing between the two cities. But I have to say I never really saw the end coming and I did think it was interesting the way in which Mieville did portray a very realistic view of what the circumstances and politics might have been if in fact there were such a situation as with Ul Qoma and Beszel and how the whole thing was a sham by a cooperation.

I also thought it was interesting seeing the demystification of Breach as throughout the book they are portrayed as this untouchable force that is always watching, always looming in the background, with all this mystery around it, and this ominous presence. It was almost sad in a way than to see how in truth in the greater picture, outside of the two cities it really is this insignificant thing. Though after Buric's speech and all his cocky arrogance, it did make you really wish that something would have happened to his helicopter as he was taking off. I really wanted to see it get zapped out of the sky or just vanish or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I think he's taken the idea of seeing but ignoring - established in the verb to unsee - and applied it to two politcal systems that are connected. We do ths on a minor scale such as igoring a robbery, or on a larger scale perhaps ignoring societal injustices like political persecution.

---

Am I the only one to (un)see a connection between Mieville's The City and The City and Saramago's Blindness (and in my connection TCATC is the better book, hands down)?

I'm too new to be allowed to vote on the poll. I would say China Mieville ranks way up on my great writers list, but this one I failed to get interested in... really lost me. Almost a different man from the writer that wrote the dense, fascinating New Crobuzon series. So, immensely disappointed for it's mundane setting among other things.