Kraken, by China Mieville, is another “city-within-a-city” novel, like Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere and Mieville’s previous (rather lacklustre) effort, UnLunDun. In this case the city-wthin-the-city is a supernatural world of grafters, shonksters and magicians, all oriented around a plethora of cults who worship “cast-off” deities and apocalyptic visions, all residing within London. There are some parts of London that are hidden or secret but the majority of it happens in plain view, in the same London that you or I know.

Unlike Mieville’s previous effort, the elsewhere London in this novel is really apt to the real London. It’s a world of cockney arseholes, criminals, rip-off merchants and sleazebags, where people construct their magical lives from cast-off objects and ideas, working their magic in the interstices of objects and cultures. Even the magic itself is beautifully London, a type of make-do enchanting called “knacking” that depends on the resemblances between real objects and the spells constructed from them. The magic is often low-key, cobbled together, not-quite-right, and a bit dirty. Just like London. The elsewhere world perfectly reflects the realities of London’s fragmented, higgledy-piggledy reality, its dirt, the way everyone in the city has to make the best they can of what they’ve got. It also cleverly reflects that sense in London of ideas and cultures all packed together, confused, borrowing from each other and overcrowded in the same supposedly English space. London is a broken, nowhere town, full of transient people, transient plans and transient cultures. Mieville seems to have finally put all this together into a science-fantasy of quite stunning brilliance.

He’s also managed to merge the modern and the arcane in quite clever ways, just like Jim Butcher has in the Dresden Files. A few small examples:

  • a character uses the internet to search out her lover, and discovers a whole hidden world of “knackers” and cultists working online
  • a character is paid for his work in Star Trek memorabilia that has been “knacked” so that it works
  • cultists and believers steal ideas for their “knacks,” their style and manner from science fiction and fantasy, so that their work is self-referential, and sometimes their magic is intended to mimic the magic or tech of their favourite shows
  • a chameleon character uses his magic to infiltrate organizations by appearing to be one of their members; but the way he does it is perfectly and completely dependent upon mimicking and exploiting modern corporate culture

My absolute favourite so far has been the chapter devoted to describing the background of the guy who runs the Familiar’s Union. He used to beΒ  a statue that served Egyptian souls in their afterlife, but he ran a strike there, then left the afterlife and swam back up through the netherworld to the world of the living, to become an organizer. This story is uniquely brilliant to me because it merges cultures rather than technologies from two different times. Instead of him being simply an Egyptian magician who wears an ankh necklace and hangs out in a club, he’s an Egyptian magical slave from a slave-owning time, who has transcended the netherworld to become that quintessential element of the modern Industrial age – a union organizer. But the things he’s organizing don’t always have souls, and work in an industrial landscape that is pre-modern (the cottage industries of wizards). This is Mieville at his best, blending politics, culture, and history through sci fi fantasy for the pure purpose of having fun.

The plot is also beautifully self-referential without being wanky. Essentially, it involves the theft of an embalmed giant squid from the London Natural History Museum. The squid is probably a dead god, and is worshiped by a cult of messianic krakenists, who believe that at the end of the world they will be drawn to a heaven in the Ocean’s deeps. The whole thing is full of cthulhu references (sometimes directly) even though there’s no admission that either the squid or the cult are directly cthulhu-worshipers. The theft coincides with some kind of magical change in London, and the chase is on to find the squid before something really bad happens. Of course the people doing the chasing are in conflict with a sinister, evil organization or organizations, who are really really evil and constructed from a really interesting pastiche of modern images, sub-cultures and cults. The book includes two bad guys, Goss and Subby, who are almost up to the standard of the bad guys in Neverwhere.

I thought that Mieville went off the rails a bit with Iron Council (pardon the pun) and UnLunDun, but he’s back on track with this gem. I haven’t finished yet but so far it’s brilliant, and I recommend it to anyone who needs a bit of science-fantasy entertainment. This book also cements my view of China Mieville as a great writer of, and possibly the main exponent/inventor of, some kind of new sub-genre of science-fantasy, Urban Chaos Science Fantasy, maybe, or CityPunk, or something. His three best novels that I’ve read – Perdido Street Station, The Scar, and now Kraken – are all based in a kind of city, and the vibrancy of the city itself is essential to the plot of the books. The city is almost a character on its own in his work, and his strength is in his representation of the extraordinary and ordinary lives of its denizens.

I also think that Mieville’s leftist politics is a complete furphy in analysis of his work, because although it clearly informs the creation of some of the characters, and his depiction of the different strata of the societies he creates, I think ultimately his works are surprisingly devoid of political messages (though rich in political conflict). For a man who is generally caricatured as a cardboard cutout lefty from the Politburo, his work is actually both suprisingly anarchist (not leninist at all!) and generally devoid of strong left-wing political messages. I don’t think I’ve met a single character outside of Iron Council who ever could be said to represent Mieville’s politics, nor have I read a plot that shows them clearly. Even The Scar, which is a bit of a Utopian quest, if it has any political interpretation at all, would be a guarded critique of the folly of trusting vanguardists – which would be a bit wierd coming from someone of Mieville’s supposedly Marxist-Leninist views. The key to understanding Mieville’s work is his representation of cities.

So, again: read this if you have the time and money, ’cause so far it’s great!

Posted in , , ,

17 responses to “Current reading: Kraken, China Mieville”

  1. Nick Avatar

    Dod you read The City and the City? Because this review/discussion is sort of wierd without any mention of it at all, as opposed to UnLunDun which, given it was marketed as a YA book, probably had fewer readers. Anyway, hoping to pick this up today!

  2. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    I haven’t read it yet, I got them both at once and thought I’d read them in chronological order … I’m certainly expecting that The City and The City will confirm my views about him!

  3. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    I didn’t know that – I bought them both online, and I remembered there was something somewhere about the city and the city being new, so I figured it came first. Oops. Is one the prequel to the other?

  4. Nick Avatar

    No, they’re completely unrelated although both are Real World (although the cities in TC&TC are not real cities) and both are very focused on cities and their nature. Reading Kraken first will make no difference but the themes of TC&TC are extremely relevant to what you are saying here (and make the comments about this being a return to form after the Iron Council scan a little strangely given TC&TC won the Hugo for Best Novel, the BFSA and the Arthur C Clarke Award).

    Anyway – I completely agree with you on the political thing. I’m definitely not a ISO type person but I agree that the politics are more setting than dialectic devices.

  5. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    well, it’s good to see he’s returned to form anyway. I’m certainly looking forward to TC&TC! And glad that you agree about the settings.

  6. noisms Avatar

    What?? A return to form after Iron Council? After The Scar that’s hands down my favourite of his books. In fact I may even have enjoyed it more than The Scar.

    I think the reason why you don’t notice the lefty messages in his work could be the same reason why Tory Daily Mail readers think it gives a balanced view of current events… πŸ˜‰

  7. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    this is all a bit arse-about then isn’t it? (Except for the bit where we disagree about something). I thought Iron Council was his most blatantly political work, and the clumsiest, which was part of why I didn’t like it (mostly I didn’t like it as much as the rest because it had more of a cobbled together messy feeling). It’s funny that you like his most political work…

    I certainly see elements of his leftist politics in his work, e.g. the sorts of backgrounds he gives to the characters, and the way that power works and is analysed. Even then though it’s more anarchist than communist. But mostly I just don’t think he goes much further than that. There’s none of the broad political message or preaching one might be led to believe is supposed to be happening in the work of such a man.

  8. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    “…could be the same reason why Tory Daily Mail readers think it gives a balanced view of current events…”

    What are you talking about? The Daily Mail is a socialist rag. And Obama is not a US citizen!

    Sorry, I couldn’t resist πŸ™‚

    Back on the topic of books, I haven’t read any of Mieville’s work. How blantant are the politics compared to Terry Goodkind? If it’s anything like him I think I’ll have to avoid.

  9. Nick Avatar

    noism – you know you’re in the minority there though, right? When it come to the Iron Council.

    Paul – no, it’s nothing like that. Do read!

  10. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    I think you missed the word “National” from that description of the Daily Mail…

    I read one Goodkind and it was a blatant libertarian screed. Mieville is nowhere near screed-like. Also he is very good, unlike that Goodkind I read…

    It’s my firm opinion that Mieville’s politics doesn’t really show in his books except incidentally, and when it does it can be a lot of fun (like the Egyptian union organiser I mention above[1]). A lot like Iain M. Banks, who is clearly a raving (Scottish) socialist, but whose books are nuanced and interesting and can be viewed favourably from a variety of political angles.

    fn1: thinking about that chap, I can’t really say that his presentation is any more or less political than the presentation of the union of assassins in the movie Grosse Point Blank

  11. noisms Avatar

    The thing about Iron Council was that although it was political it read like a critique and a lament more than a screed, and that appealed to me. I liked the way it mirrored the Paris Commune, which is an event leftists in the West often don’t talk about and really don’t even seem to know about, which is a shame, as it’s one of the only times in history where Marxists really practiced what they preached in a vaguely human fashion – i.e. without starving and massacring millions of people.

    It also has some of his absolute best ideas. I loved how he reworked the concept of what a golem could be, and that guy who had to trade pieces of information about himself in order to learn new things…

    For what it’s worth I loathe Iain M. Banks – he strikes me as a total sadist and very mean-spirited – and I rather liked Goodkind’s Wizard’s First Rule; it was a great page turner and nicely written as fantasy goes. Don’t know about the rest of the series, though, which is where I think the libertarian stuff really comes to the fore.

  12. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Goodkind’s stuff is readable up to Faith of the Fallen. It’s not terribly well written, but it’s at least serviceable fantasy novels. Faith of the Fallen blatantly rips of Atlas Shrugged [1] but still works if you can handle the overt political message.

    Everything after that is unreadable dross full of ridiculously blatant and disinteresting political screeds. And I say that as someone with libertarian leanings.

    [1] Based on my understanding of Atlas Shrugged at least. I’ve only read summaries of it.

  13. noisms Avatar

    Admittedly I did read Wizard’s First Rule when I was about 16, so my critical faculties weren’t at their best, but I do remember thinking it was streets ahead of most other fantasy books in terms of the mechanics of the writing. That may not be saying a great deal, of course…

  14. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Hmm, I don’t want to derail (so please discuss Mieville around me), but I dislike Goodkind, so I feel I should respond πŸ™‚

    His mechanics tend to be OK in every individual book (except the “The kingdom banned fire” part which I didn’t even notice till Faustus pointed it out to me), but across multiple books he changes his mind on how things work (largely so he can illustrate Objectivist points) and that really irritated me.

    Changing mechanics are one reason I actually quite like rpg based novels as the authors more frequently seem to aspire to a single (game defined) standard. Of course, it does make it more obvious when the characters break those rules – spell casting without an the verbal or somatic components in D&D is a particular irritation for me, probably driven by a love of how the Dragonlance novels did it.

  15. noisms Avatar

    Sorry for the confusion, by “mechanics” I meant the actual craft of the writing. I think he’s really a pretty decent writer in terms of skill.

  16. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    in my experience noisms, people whose writing you thought was good when you were 16 needs an adult review before you can be sure about any aspect of its quality.

    Your description of Iron Council as a critique/lament is a good example of how Mieville’s politics doesn’t enter into his work in the way one would expect – it tends to act in a refreshing rather than a stultifying way, I find.

    Iain M. Banks is certainly a sadist, and I don’t always enjoy authors who slaughter their main characters cruelly, but I really like the Culture novels. I think they’re a really refreshing take on space opera, the first time that I have read where someone actually tries to explore the ramifications of space opera technology (specifically, the concept of post-scarcity societies) and I really like the fundamental political/moral problem he lays out – he was light years ahead of the Eustonites! I also think his writing is very good, the descriptive passages can be very beautiful, and his ideas are often very refreshing.

    Paul: I’ve only read summaries of Marx, Kropotkin and pretty much any other leftist revolutionary you can think of. But as far as I can tell the summaries are always more informative than the real thing. Actually, I did read one whole book by Che Guevara (a diary of the war, where he executes someone in cold blood in every chapter, I think, and gives it a momentously throwaway one-line description: “we didn’t think we could release him, so we dealt with him as we had to” kind of summaries). It was interesting, and a brilliant though unintended refutation of Marx, but otherwise I’ve stuck to summaries too!

Leave a comment