edward rathke's Reviews > Embassytown

Embassytown by China Miéville

by
5657249
's review
Jul 21, 11

Read from July 17 to 20, 2011

This, I think, will be a novel that you will either love or hate or land somewhere in between.

But, really, it's certainly not for everyone, and not even necessarily for those who loved his previous novels [I've only read the Bas-lag ones, which are fantastic for so many reasons]. It's a book that escapes easy classification. It's complex and challenging and incredibly ambitious, and, even its failings, are causal and inherent to the style. I'll try not to compare Mieville to himself until a bit later, but, in many ways, this is a very different book.

I think part of the difficulty of the novel stems from its complete otherness. It takes place in a different time, in a different galaxy [possibly universe--there's a single sentence within that leads me to believe this is about three universe cycles after our own], charactered by some aliens who're taken more or less for granted as being present, by people who're, in certain ways, very different than us [post-homodiaspora--self-defined--and so certain of these humans cannot, for unexplained quickly brushed over reasons, have sex with one another (and this is maybe a failing in the characterisation of the novel, excluding this pivotal aspect of human relationship and interaction or at least not treating it with the respect some may assume it demands)], and a certain species--Hosts--who the novel really centers around, who're so vastly different than any creature created that I've ever encountered in fiction of any medium, and then a planet and city so other that defy easy categorisation or analogues. But, yes, so the novel takes place in this world, in this extremely other place populated by extremely other creatures. And what makes this difficult and, I think, what leaves many readers at arm's length is that Mieville has taken a character perspective.

There's, of course, nothing odd with telling a story in first person, but when the universe being explored is so vastly incomparable, it puts serious limitations on explanations and explication, which, certainly, Mieville likely has no intention of giving and sees this as a nonissue or at least a necessary risk in telling the story he wanted to tell. But, the practicalities of first person: to keep this narrative going, one can't get too bogged down in details and explanations, because, as this is our narrator's--Avice--homeworld, it wouldn't make sense, internally, to the character, to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining all the intricacies of life in Embassytown. And so it's a very gradual reveal, with much of the innerworkings dropped throughout the first half of the novel. Also, potentially frustrating are the many terms that go unexplained or undefined, though many of them become quite clear due to context and so on. What gives the narrative a little leeway to explicate and give things to the reader is the tense and the way Avice goes about telling the story. She is, literally, explaining what happened to the rest of the universe, maybe--to herself, certainly. But so we get more from her than would normally be allowed, but it puts the narrative at a distance and also her own self at a distance. The things she glosses over, such as sex and motivations, are not always divulged in straightforward terms, some of them, likely, because she doesn't know how to explain it to herself why or what or how.

So this leads to further difficulty in relating to the who and the what of the novel. And in many ways, the characters are filled out by what's not said, by what's not even assumed or guessed, but by the briefness of their actions, the way they speak, the way they do not act, the tears that fill their eyes, and even the outrage simmering beneath. And, yes, these issues certainly do not make it easy for the reader to understand or to care, but I did.

And I think Mieville should be commended for his bravado here. In choosing carefully what the reader learns and how she learns it, the reader gets a picture that she must fill up or get lost in. The complete otherness of everything leaves all to chance, but it gives the reader that greater sense of agency, where a book is more than an artefact, but something built collaboratively with the author.

And this is a hugely ambitious novel, which, I think, is saying something when considering Mieville's work [even just the few I've read]. This is a novel about so much. About colonialism/imperialism, about language, about thought, about obsession, about religion, about revolution, and even about the devolution of class and society. A lot of attention is paid to language within the novel, for obvious reasons [or, they'll become obvious once read], but it's more than simply an interesting concept or a peculiar way to examine language. It's about culture and how language is fundamental to the way in which we view the world/how the way we view the world informs culture/identity.

The colonial/imperial aspect of the novel is certainly the most curious to me, if only because of its moral ambiguity. This is the only novel written in a long time that addresses colonialism from the perspective of the imperialiser. And that opinion may be my own ignorance, but, in much fiction of the last couple decades, imperialists have only been seen as the evil invader. Embassytown addresses this issue in no clear terms. The Hosts are the culture imperialised, but, in many ways, it's a postcolonial conscious effort. Meaning, they are deferred to and respected, possibly because of their otherness, and no attempt to really exploit them is clearly evident, though there are certainly some implications early on, but they seem trivial. What the humans gain from the Hosts is vastly superior to what's traded, but the Hosts seem, in all ways, completely ambivalent of human existence on their planet. They see humans as a peculiar curiosity and, due to their language, can only communicate with specially trained humans called Ambassadors [joint clones, really]. The Hosts have only a vague curiosity for human customs and do not recognise most humans as beings with any agency or thought. So alien to them are we that we barely register. And so the usual paradigm of the invader is, not tossed away, but almost neutralised at the beginning of the novel. Things begin to unravel and then quickly collapse and the humans are forced to make some tough choices, including lethal experimentation on the indigenous population in order to understand how to solve the problem they've accidentally [carelessly] made. This act of vivisection is called brave by the narrator, herself a member of the invading population. It's here where I stopped for a moment and a few moments more, because this is not the kind of action one considers brave. It's the kind of nefarious predatory actions we've come to see as a trope of the imperialists. And so what we know to be true and what we feel to be almost true [that being, we know this is wrong, but we empathise with the human characters, if, for no other reason, because they're human] conflict and collide. And this is where our narrator, Avice, becomes especially important, for all of the limits built into her narration are essential at this crucial point of morality. We, the reader, may--and likely will--see this as monstrous, but we are explicitly told that it is brave. And so who Avice is begins to fill in surprising ways. And that's not to say we begin to hate Avice or see her as amoral or psychopathic, but we begin to understand [and this is, I think, a truly brave thing, for a writer to challenge us in this way] how ordinary people can do evil while not becoming evil.

This is not the only time these questions are raised to the reader, but it is certainly the most explicit, and maybe the only explicit one, as I can't seem to think of another one. However, the conclusion of this novel, which I will try not to spoil as I've mostly been speaking in vaguery, brings these questions of morality into sharp focus, even as they are pushed deeper and deeper into the narrative, away from the focus of what is happening.

As readers, we're looking for our conclusion before it gets there, always trying to anticipate it, always hoping to be surprised. And Embassytown succeeds here. And because it's so casual, we stop questioning what it does, what it truly means.

I would love to address this in clearer terms, but I think spoilers should be avoided in a review. I will say a few things, though.

This is very much about the push and pull of cultures, where both begin to give and take, but, as is usual, the imperialised culture is at the most risk and, eventually, is the one that suffers or changes the most. Both of these are true in Embassytown as they are in reality. What's important about the change undergone by the Hosts is that its implications are not addressed objectively, ever. We watch a culture become no longer what it was in order to survive what was done to it by bad policy/careless experimentation of the imperialists. But we only ever get Avice's voice in full. A voice we've spent the whole novel with, learning to love and care about, or, at the very least, trust. And so we trust and believe her conclusion, which is a conclusion that doesn't address the questions about cultural significance and what it means for that culture that it can never actually be what it was originally, even on a linguistic level.

And that, I think, more than the language, is the center of this novel. What and who and how we are, and what those all mean, collectively, individually.

And, like I said, it's hugely ambitious, even for Melville, but it lacks some of his narrative flair, such as his strong sense of worldbuilding. But, I think, again, that's completely due to the otherness of the world and the closeness of the narrator to that world. Whereas New Corbuzon and the Armada of the Scar are so clear in the reader's mind that we can see every nook and cranny, even smell the streets and the sweat [because of our realworld analogues that we've been inundated with visuals of through film and television and histories--because, even though vastly different, these places are very much modelled on the world of the past], Embassytown and its world are so distinctly without analogue to anything we know or have experienced that it cannot be given in easy terms, and the problem is exacerbated by the narration of Avice, who has lived there most of her life. However, we do feel this place as a reality, even if seeing it is difficult.

I'd love to give this five stars if only for its ambition and bravado, just as I'd love to recommend it to the world, but there are some averse affects to all of this. It is not, I don't think, what we've come to expect from Mieville, which, to me, is pushing it further up in value.

It's a risky novel and it is not always successful. But those risks are important and should be encouraged, because even when failing, they lead to future promises of success.

And so, in this long review, I've convinced myself of its five stars. And so there that is.

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Embassytown.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-12 of 12) (12 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

Boden Steiner What you call bravado, I call lazy. I figured you would like it. Of course, now I feel a need to drop another star just to put more balance into the world.


edward rathke I'd say that's a fair criticism, too, and wholly justifiable. And it's quite possible that I'm giving him more credit for this move because I'm already a fan and trust him as a writer.

It very well could be an unintentional blunder that I'm seeing as vaguely heroic rather than insipid.

I do think that the appeal of this book is not the narrative or even necessarily the characters that inhabit it, but the ideas and the many questions raised but not answered. And I do think that the mark of good fiction is that it raises questions of all types and refuses to clearly answer any of them, which Embassytown surely does. I really can't stop thinking about this colonial aspect of the novel, though, which seems to be de-emphasised by most reviews I've read or even completely overlooked.

I had no trouble with the pacing or anything like that, though, so maybe I like boring fiction. Seems to be what many would call much of the avant garde.

I do think you'd really like Perdido Street Station. It's full of ideas, but much more story oriented, and The Scar's even better, with Iron Council being best of the three and close to Embassytown in terms of pure ambition [a western, a romance, a civil war, a political treatise, a revolutionary epic, and, you know, doing those things without losing the cool monsters].


Boden Steiner I think you kind of nailed my philosophy on this in that last line. Maybe not the extreme of "cool monsters", but, you know, I want both; I believe that both are within the grasp of a great novelist working on all cylinders.

An issue I should probably mention, is that I was doing a re-read of Snow Crash at the same time as my run of Embassytown. There is a contrast between these novels that was particularly jarring for me. Stephenson manages crazy fun with his characters and narrative, but I don't think for a second that Snow Crash is lacking in interesting commentary, ideas, or world immersion.

The contrast extends to the discussion of unfiltered language and the roots of change, stuff I should do better to elaborate, but regardless, both authors are using their ideas here to further the stories. The point being, Stephenson managed both the sugar and the medicine, and for me, that just shows me he is working harder and making a better piece of fiction.

Given everything Mieville has going on with Embassytown, I'd say that this second level was possible for the story, but it's my feeling that the character choices prevented that brand of engagement. I think I said somewhere that, keeping the narrative movement of story away from the reader, Mieville was able to take a risk that an unestablished author could never hope to try. Cool narrative risk, but a failure for my reading.

The colonial imperialism: I don't know if that thread of thought was given the underlining it deserved, which is to say, it feels like the same narrative choices prevent the subject from resonating fully. The subject itself isn't so strange to science fiction. At least it feels like I've been there.

Regardless, great to hear about the Bas Lag novels, and I'm sure, at some point, I'll pick up Perdido with an open mind and high hopes. Also, given my thoughts, I'm kind of curious to dig into Anathem, to see how Stephenson approaches his strange world.


edward rathke See, and I think this is a big difference in us as readers:
'the sugar and the medicine'

I feel that Mieville, by relying less on pyrotechnics, is getting at what he wants to say in a clearer and more concise way. It's kind of like the difference between, say, Christopher Nolan and Darren Aronofsky. Both great directors, but Nolan will always be far more successful, in terms of sales, because he synthesises his grand ideas with marketable violence. Aronofsky is more direct and more unflinching. And, see, I prefer Aronofsky, too.

I thought, honestly, it was a purposeful and important step forward for him as a writer, to no longer rely on violence to keep a reader engaged.

And the colonial aspect is certainly not strange to science fiction [Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card does this exceptionally], or any fiction. But what was most interesting to me was that it begins from the unpopular perspective and does not do the Pocahontas thing, which is what most do, I think. He remains on the side of the oppressor, of the evil empire, and then leaves the morality wholly ambiguous. Yes, the Hosts were saved, but at what cost? And the fact that it's never examined or stressed is wildly impressive to me.

He leaves so much in the readers hands and I think that's where fiction should be. I think that's the point of fiction: not to tell, but to make us decide.

Of course, I mean, I think you hit it quite squarely in your review on what makes it less enjoyable for the reader. I didn't have trouble with it, was wholly engrossed, but I also like all those avant gardists of the 20th century, and even all that business in Moby Dick that's mainly just a manual on whaling--actually some of the best parts, I thought.

Speaking Stephenson, I was reading Quicksilver a few months ago on my kindle, but I accidentally hit the skip [or, I don't know what to call it, but it moves you to the next designated reading break], which caused me to lose my place about 1/4th of the way through it without hope of finding it again.

But, man, he's gone a completely different direction since those frenetic novels like Snow Crash, but I suppose that's why they're called the Baroque Cycle. Very interesting and so cool, but glacial.


Boden Steiner Good points, all. I think it's interesting to see where certain dynamics overlap between us.

I did manage about 25 pages of Anathem last night and, maybe I'm biased toward Stephenson, but it's just a night and day style of storytelling for me (at least with regard to my small Mieville sample, which I already assume isn't complete). Nothing much happening, but I'm fully engaged, have a sense that Anathem will state its case in a manner that I enjoy, will earn the stars of an author firing on all cylinders. Hopefully.

I got about half way into Quicksilver, and was enjoying it very much, but set it aside for something that distracted me. I do look forward to reading the entire Cycle someday, but it's a lot of pages looking at me. The new one, Reamde, also figures to be around 800-900 pages, so no shortage of words by Stephenson on the shelf.

Aronofsky was looking pretty hard at doing one of the superhero films a little while ago. Would have been curious to see how he handled the dynamic. I do love his work, but yeah, I think Inception is brilliant, and has so much to say about the psyche of relationship. I'll take a hundred of those style of films if Hollywood will fund them.


Aric Re: Imperialist perspective on colonization. Cf. A Passage to India. One of the weird dynamics in Embassytown is that the indigenes are godlike. When they rise up against the humans, even with their impaired communication ability, the humans have no chance of survival. This in itself sets it off from the typical imperialist/indigenous struggle. Along a similar line (to the post-colonial themes), I was struck by Avice advocating for "progress" against Scile's attitude, which would be more typical for a Terre anthropologist --- don't change the culture (which is, on some level, impossible post-contact).


Aric It's funny to see a disc'n contrasting Stephenson with Miéville, since they are so different. (Though M has given S huge props, in one interview at least.) I love both, but it seems the Neal's writing is getting more bloated, while China's is getting more terse (if not faster-paced). The Baroque Cycle is awesome, but I felt it didn't really kick in until the 120th page of Quicksilver. The Confusion is the most fun of the three. I think Neal channeled the Golden Age SF style for Anathem, but China channeled the New Wave for Embassytown. Very different, but I find my fanboy obsessions favoring the linguistic/sociological/political emphases of the latter. Or maybe it's just because I read it more recently. ;)


Boden Steiner Yeah, Aric, it's a strange comparison, but I think that contrast is actually why I brought it into the discussion. Given that the authors have both written novels that create immersive worlds and inventive societies, I think it's a fair exploration with regard to the style discussion. I'll be sure to return to this thread discussion whenever I get my way through Anathem.

The contrast between Avice and Scile was interesting (until Scile disappeared from the narrative). :)


message 9: by edward (last edited Jul 22, 2011 10:00pm) (new) - rated it 5 stars

edward rathke A Passage to India is an interesting novel to bring up, especially because I disagree with you on it being really from the miperialist's perspective. It's told by an imperialist, but it largely deals with Dr Aziz and he's the character with whom we sympathise with, rather than the english. It's similar, in a way, to Heart of Darkness in that the sympathies go with the indigenous populations. Also, those were written almost a century ago and over a century ago, respectively.

What Mieville's doing, in my mind, is giving a kind of postcolonial imperialist novel where morality's implied but never stated. I think Conrad and Forester were very much trying to make a point and spreading the actualities of imperialism to the public. I think Mieville is more concerned with how these aspects of imperialism that we decry can happen, how normal people do them, in some cases, with no political or ethical motivations.

I think the godlike characteristics of the Hosts is interesting, too. They have that judeochristian god aspect, where what they say must be objectively true, and, in some cases, them saying it makes it true. Their technologies are never explained, but I imagine it is through Language that they create their biogear and so on.

That is one criticism I have for the novel, though, losing track of Scile, who plays foil to Avice, in certain ways, like the one you bring up. He's kind of like those colonists who 'went native' and gave up their usual life and tried to become like the natives. Although, here, it's more like he did a sort of religious thing, almost like a pilgrimage to the land of god.

But, yeah, it's a very impressive book, I think, if even only because so much can be discussed concerning it. And, yeah, Aric, I'm very much a fan of the linguistic and sociopolitical aspects of Mieville's novels. I do need to get more Stephenson in me, though.


message 10: by Aric (new) - rated it 5 stars

Aric Good point about narrator's perspective.... I wonder if M is after the "authenticity" of the fact that he is not really in the shoes of the colonized, so how could he represent them? Or perhaps just after the ambiguities of a situation like that -- which we continue to relive over and over, it seems.


message 11: by Kyle (last edited Jul 18, 2012 01:32pm) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kyle Muntz This review makes the book sound so massively awesome (like Mieville is investigating the same territory as Levi-Strauss or Foucault, which... yeah). I got a copy of this yesterday and I think I'm going to be starting soon. The genuinely alien world especially interests me. The only one I can think of who's done full-immersion that well is Gene Wolfe, sort of leaving it unfiltered for the reader and leaving them to sort it out.


message 12: by Joseph (new) - added it

Joseph Michael "It's a risky novel and it is not always successful. But those risks are important and should be encouraged, because even when failing, they lead to future promises of success."

I like what you wrote here and I think this is true in/of a lot of China Miéville's work. He's really interested in pushing the boundaries of what's been historically accepted as possible. It definitely takes a sense of fearlessness to say "Fuck it, I'm trying this!" . . . and it really seems to work for Miéville more often than not.

Completely aside -- though tangentially-related: Miéville's vocabulary almost never ceases to amaze me. Not only that, the way he incorporates the vocabulary, stylistically, never pulls the reader (i.e. at least for me) out of the narrative, but rather it instead works with the story rhythmically. It's an evolution of Twain's "lighting/ lightning bug" analogy -- the words Miéville chooses are not only impressive, they're the right choice for the sentence.

Perdido Street Station is just impressing the hell out of me right now!!


back to top