Importance Score: 34 / 100 🔵
Twenty-five years ago, China Miéville entered the literary world with his groundbreaking novel, “Perdido Street Station,” a science fiction and fantasy milestone. This seminal work introduced readers to the vividly imagined metropolis of New Crobuzon, populated by extraordinary beings such as insectoid khepri, cactus-like cactacae, and nightmarish slake moths that prey on dreams. The novel’s distinctive blend of genres ignited wider interest in the literary movement known as the “new weird,” marking a significant moment in contemporary fiction and speculative literature.
A Quarter Century of New Weird: Reflecting on “Perdido Street Station” and Genre Evolution
Following the triumph of “Perdido Street Station,” now celebrating its 25th anniversary with a special collector’s edition from The Folio Society that quickly sold out, Miéville continued his exploration of genre fusion in subsequent novels including “The City and the City” and “Embassytown.” After a hiatus from publishing fiction for nearly a decade, he made a successful return with “The Book of Elsewhere,” a New York Times bestseller co-authored with Keanu Reeves, the renowned actor.
Beyond his fiction, Miéville is recognized as a sharp critic and commentator on subjects ranging from politics and urban environments to science fiction and fantasy literature. In a recent discussion, while reflecting on his breakthrough novel, Miéville shared his perspectives on the relationship between speculative fiction and the present day. The conversation explored the increasing trend among tech billionaires to interpret science fiction narratives as blueprints for future technological and societal developments.
Science Fiction as a Mirror to the Present
Miéville posits that interpreting science fiction primarily as a predictor of the future is a mischaracterization. “It’s always about now,” he asserted. “It’s always a reflection. It’s a kind of fever dream, and it’s always about its own sociological context.” He emphasizes that science fiction serves as a commentary on contemporary society rather than a literal forecast of events to come.
He further observed a “societal and personal derangement” when influential figures prioritize endeavors like “settling Mars over resolving global issues.” However, Miéville cautions against attributing this phenomenon to science fiction itself. “Let’s not blame science fiction for this,” he stated. “It’s not science fiction that’s causing this kind of sociopathy.”
This interview has been refined for brevity and enhanced clarity.
Early Success and Influences
Congratulations on the 25th anniversary of “Perdido Street Station.” Recalling its initial release, I remember being so engrossed that I skipped school to finish reading it, only to be profoundly affected by its conclusion.
“Thank you for sharing that – both your reaction to the ending and your dedicated readership.”
“It feels surreal. Like many my age, it’s hard to grasp the passage of time. The notion that something I created is already 25 years old, especially this novel, is quite astonishing.”
Challenging Fantasy Norms
In the afterword to the collector’s edition, you describe “Perdido Street Station” as a “young man’s book.” Was it also conceived with an intention to challenge the prevailing trends in commercial fantasy at the time?
“Not in a strictly programmatic sense. That interpretation suggests a more deliberate intervention than it was. It wasn’t overtly calculated.”
“However, it’s true that while I was always drawn to the fantastic, much of the commercially dominant fantasy did not appeal to me. I was never particularly drawn to J.R.R. Tolkien’s works. The numerous successful fantasy series heavily inspired by Tolkien simply didn’t resonate with me.”
“In contrast, the Dying Earth tradition, science fantasy, and the New Worlds magazine lineage—the post-Michael Moorcock sensibility—were far more appealing, alongside influences like Mervyn Peake, among others.”
“For me, it was more about affirming, ‘I love fantasy, and this is the kind of fantasy that captivates me.’ I’m not claiming originality, but publishing trends and tastes fluctuate.”
“So, yes, it was a departure from a specific tradition, though not a consciously provocative act. I always considered myself within a tradition, just one that wasn’t receiving the same spotlight as the Tolkien-esque fantasy at that moment.”
Mainstreaming of Weird Genres: Benefits and Drawbacks
The increasing acceptance of diverse weird genres into the mainstream, and the blurring boundaries between them, has elevated some of your cherished writers. But have there been any negative consequences to this broader appeal?
“Certainly. This is inherent to the trajectory of all subcultures. Increased visibility inevitably leads to the emergence of less refined creations alongside genuinely compelling work. Commercialization intensifies – not that it was ever entirely absent, but it becomes more pronounced. This can lead to a trivialization. You see Cthulhu-themed merchandise, and similar phenomena. It can be frustrating if you fixate on it.”
“It’s a pattern observed with drum and bass, surrealism, and any vibrant subculture. As it reaches a critical mass, you gain the advantage of wider access and awareness. More individuals engage with and contribute to the tradition, some introducing innovative elements. Conversely, there’s often a vulgarization. It develops its own established tropes and clichés, becoming somewhat predictable.”
“This occurred with science fiction previously. Though slightly before my time, during the initial wave of serious theoretical interest in science fiction in the late 1960s and 70s, fandom jokingly responded, ‘Keep science fiction in the gutter where it belongs.’ This encapsulates the perpetual dynamic between subculture and mainstream success—a cycle without resolution.”
Evangelism and Gatekeeping in Fandom
I remember my younger self, deeply invested in “Perdido Street Station,” Philip K. Dick, or Ursula K. Le Guin, feeling the need to evangelize, to convince others of their value. Now, witnessing similar enthusiasm for science fiction, I think, “We’ve succeeded. The advocacy isn’t as necessary.”
“And I also have a contrary reaction: Now that these authors are widely read, some readers don’t truly appreciate them. They lack the foundational understanding.”
“There’s undeniably a toxic aspect to that kind of obsessive fandom gatekeeping. That’s absolutely true. Yet, I’ve had engaging discussions about whether there was something genuinely positive about the effort required to participate in a subculture in the past. Not strenuous labor, but the active seeking, the need to travel, to inquire. I tentatively believe that something has been lost with the complete, effortless availability of everything through a simple click.”
“This isn’t to ignore the immense positives of accessibility. However, it would be simplistic to deny potential downsides. I’m inclined to agree with arguments that the ease of cultural consumption may diminish a certain intensity, particularly within specific subcultures.”
“I present this cautiously, as exploratory ideas. But perhaps this perspective contains a rational kernel within the otherwise off-putting tendency of zealous fandom policing.”
Tech Elites and Science Fiction Blueprints
This leads to another related point. Perhaps it’s always occurred, but I’ve observed more tech industry figures like Elon Musk referencing science fiction, treating Isaac Asimov or Kim Stanley Robinson almost as instructional manuals for the future, in ways that concern me. Is this something you’ve also noticed?
“Firstly, one must express profound sympathy for Kim Stanley Robinson – he doesn’t deserve this association.”
“Silicon Valley ideology has historically been an uneasy blend of libertarianism, a semblance of counterculture, and a utopian vision of technology – acknowledging the diversity within Silicon Valley, while recognizing a prevalent trend.”
“All ideologies are complex amalgams of disparate, even contradictory, elements. The emphasis at any given time shifts based on political pressures and economic realities.”
“It’s well-established that Silicon Valley has long held an interest in science fiction. To some degree, this is sociological. There’s overlap between literary enthusiasts and the tech community.”
“I concur on multiple levels. While certain science fiction writers do envision their work as either utopian ideals or dystopian warnings, I don’t believe that accurately defines the genre’s function. It’s consistently about ‘now.’ It’s always a reflection, a ‘fever dream’ contextualized by its present sociological landscape. It articulates contemporary anxieties. Treating it as solely ‘about the future’ is a fundamental error.”
“Furthermore, because it’s an inherently aestheticized cultural form, it’s prone to fetishization. This readily facilitates the blurring between utopia and dystopia, leading to a form of structural insincerity.”
“Consider ‘Neuromancer’ – and this is not to criticize a genuinely remarkable book. But when it’s cited as a grim premonition, some – particularly teenagers, which in a sense, science fiction enthusiasts remain – might perceive a perverse allure: ‘Oh, a dire warning that we might wear mirrorshades and be incredibly cool?’ Something ostensibly presented as negative can, in fact, hold a profound desirability.”
Misreading Radical Visions
“Most importantly, what aspects of science fiction capture their interest? They aren’t ‘inspired’ by visions like Ursula K. Le Guin’s ‘Always Coming Home,’ which explicitly critiques consumerism. That’s irrelevant to their objectives.”
“This doesn’t preclude their capacity to commodify even those critiques. But the fact that some of these individuals genuinely prioritize Mars colonization over addressing Earth’s problems reflects a profound societal and personal imbalance.”
“And I say this as someone who enjoys Mars-settlement narratives. I appreciate the genre. Yet, to transition from appreciating a novel’s thought-provoking ideas to declaring, ‘Yes, this is our course of action,’ while the world faces urgent crises? It would be deeply disturbing if it weren’t so absurd.”
“Let’s not fault science fiction. It’s not the catalyst for this sociopathic mindset. To be blunt, it’s capitalism.”
The Ur-Narrative and Writerly Responsibility
My reaction often involves thinking, “They are misinterpreting these works, fixating on the technology while overlooking the more compelling political or social commentary.” But also, “Are they simply embracing a pervasive science fiction trope: the allure of space colonization and endless expansion?” And this raises the question of whether science fiction writers should intentionally craft different kinds of narratives.
“Ultimately, I don’t dictate content. Writers are free to explore any narrative. I do, however, reserve the right to analyze and critique their work.”
“Indeed, I agree about misinterpretation. But I also believe that writers and critics, regardless of their insights, don’t solely own the meaning of their books. They are inherently collaborative. And compelling fiction, in particular, inevitably contains conflicting ideas.”
“My slight hesitation arises from a potentially simplistic view of literary causality—the notion that by telling ‘the right stories,’ we can prevent these individuals from making detrimental choices. I question whether art functions in that direct manner.”
“Artists can be susceptible to a form of artistic exceptionalism, overemphasizing their work’s direct political impact. Sometimes art is even conflated with activism, which I believe is a misunderstanding.”
“My sense is this: there isn’t a narrative that can dissuade someone predisposed – by their structural position and possibly their psychology – from pursuing wealth and power relentlessly. I doubt such a narrative exists.”
“This doesn’t diminish my interest in books that explore unique, marginalized, or radical perspectives. I am deeply interested, and if readers are inspired and radicalized, that’s excellent. But I don’t believe that is a primary, achievable goal.”
“Ideally, we would create more compelling narratives as a consequence of societal improvement. I don’t believe that altering our narratives alone will improve the world. I don’t see that direct causal link. Too many mediating factors exist between a book and broad social change.”
Upcoming Work and Concluding Thoughts
Shifting back to your own writing, there are rumors of a significant new book forthcoming. It’s anticipated next year?
“Yes, it will be released. The precise date is still pending, but it will be available before the end of next year. I’m currently finalizing it.”
Can you share anything about it?
“I can say that it’s been in development for twenty years – no exaggeration. It’s occupied more than half my adult life. Its impending release is profoundly significant for me, and I’m very enthusiastic about it.”
Social Media Critique
Any final thoughts you’d like to share?
“Considering this is for TechCrunch, isn’t it? I believe social media ranks among the most detrimental developments for humanity in recent times, a sentiment hardly radical. Everyone acknowledges its negative aspects and addictive nature. But I increasingly feel, ‘No, this is genuinely making us unwell. It’s damaging our cognitive functions.’”
“This isn’t a self-righteous stance against social media. I avoid it because I understand my likely engagement, and I’m grateful I established my identity before its pervasive rise.”