The End Of Mieville: HERE BE SPOILERS!!!

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Argali

I just finished Perdido Street Station, and I have to say that the deus ex machina of Jack Half-a-Prayer absolutely ruined the book for me. Was he even mentioned at all before he materialized in that final firefight? His appearance was just one giant WTF for me. Can anyone help me out and explain him?

Actually, Jack is mentioned several times in the course of the book; he's a sort of folk hero that battles against the Parliament, undermining their authority, very much a New Crobuzon-style Dick Turpin. But, since he's so elusive, several of the characters believe he's nothing but a folk myth, until they encounter him there at the end. He's the figure that is seen standing in the distance whenever they are dealing with the constructs in the junkyard, so he's obviously been keeping an eye on this bunch a long time....

[Foxtale]

As a quick mention, I think the time golem survives eternally because it stands outside of time and therefore draws its energy source from everywhen of Joshua's existence.

[tori_bingham]

SPOILER







Yag's crime should, however, be understood in the context of his people. The victim doesn't consider herself a victim, but rather someone who was wronged. There doesn't seem to be the same stigma attached to the act. That's not to say the act isn't wrong, but that it's wrong in a different way. Indeed, half the suffering of rape is psychological--and psychological suffering is largely contextual. If you've never believed rape diminishes you or makes you a victim, but that it is the same as, say, theft, you'd not have half the hang-ups about it. I often feel our society is unfair in labelling people victims, because, unwittingly, they're telling that person to feel ashamed, weak and dirty.

[Thrax]

Now I've read the ending and see where people are coming from. My problem is not so much with revelation and with the outcome as how the logic is presented. It's presented as an unsolvable dilemma, but only because Miéville discards of "mercy", "redemption" (narrowly understood in theological terms) and makes a punishment unimpeachable by being seen as a culture's pure expression of a judgement of guilt (culture narrowly seen with superstitious awe), and unconnected to factors of proportion, personal rights, side effects (banishment itself can be seen as a punishment), time... I think there is no problem at all, and simply by looking at the cruelty of the act, Isaac could have made a very moral decision to grant him what is in his powers and thereby to stand by his contract.