In "The Veteran" thread I said that I think that China Miéville's book "
The Scar" is nihilistic. Others disagreed. I am not particularly interested in trying prove or convince that I am right: This is a matter of interpretation, and there probably isn't any way to prove that the book is or is not nihilistic other than for Miéville to show up and tell us.
But I am very curious to know how others perceived the book, though, and what interpretive method they are using. To me, the story was so utterly bleak and hollow that–although I acknowledge the Miévill is a writer or great talent–I don't think I will ever read another of his books. It's nihilistic hopelessness hit me so hard that I felt
punished, like it had been written just to get me down. I wonder how others could have gotten something so different out of it.
So what do I mean by "nihilism?"
Here's what my (sometimes disputed) dictionary says: "The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless."
That's a good synopsis, I think, although the most important aspect of that definition is the end, the "life is meaningless" part, and that's the part I most refer to when I use the term. A work is nihilistic if it presents a worldview which says that it is impossible for humans to achieve anything relevant and that, ultimately, life itself is irrelevant. Nothing anybody says or does makes any difference in the end. Anybody who tries to achieve will find frustration because there isn't anything to achieve. To twist an oft-used aphorism: The journey is meaningless because there is no destination. That's nihilism.
Although most nihilistic works are depressing, nihilistic and depressing are not synonymous. For instance: "Of Mice and Men" is both nihilistic and depressing. "Animal Farm" is depressing, but not nihilistic. I interpret "Waiting for Godot" as being nihilistic, but it is meant to be funny, not depressing. I would list "The Scar" with "Mice and Men" as being both nihilistic and depressing.
On to The Scar itself: Why do I think it is nihilistic?
Essentially, I think this because every character in the story fails, and their failures are of such a nature that they do not serve to teach any lesson or illustrate any point. No matter what it is that anyone is trying to achieve (and their goals are highly varied), they don't get it, despite their best efforts. The moral therefore seems to be simply that failure is inevitable and striving is futile.
A list of
failures (pardon misspellings):
Shekel - Wants to live. After going through a detailed coming-of-age, he is gratuitously killed.
Tanner Sack - Wants to live. He is tricked into betraying his community, then looses the only person he loves. He ends up a lonely hermit, living in perpetual grief.
The Lovers - Want each other and to reach the Scar. They lose each other and do not reach the Scar.
Johannes Tearfly - Wants scientific understanding of the world. Is horribly murdered just before he can achieve his goal.
Krauk Aum - Ditto.
Silas Fennec - Wants to get his maps of the Gengris and himself back home. Both he and the maps are captured by the Gridylow.
New Crobuzon - Wants the maps. Half their military is destroyed tying to get them, but they fail.
Uther Doul - Wants to avoid all responsibility, but has to resort to elaborate charades in order to do so, revealing himself to be a hypocrite.
Bellis Coldwine - Tries to get to Nova Esperium, tries to save New Crobuzon. Is abducted by pirates and NC was never in danger. Her ignorant efforts to save it result only in massive death on all sides.
The Brucolac - Tries to save Armada. Starts a bloody civil war that ends up achieving nothing except the deaths of his own people.
The people Armada - Want to be left alone. Get sucked into a war that kills half of them.
The avanc - Poor dumb animal just wants to swim around. It gets hooked, cut to ribbons, and dies.
Probably others I'm forgetting, and certainly many minor characters who only get brief mention. in sum, everyone gets the shaft somehow. Regardless of their goals, their motives, or their intentions, everyone fails and everyone ends up suffering terribly, and none of them learn much, if anything, from their experiences. They don't come away better or wiser, just older and sadder. The story itself accomplishes nothing: In the end, the status quo in Bas-Lag is maintained, only with a few thousand fresh corpses added to it.
Successes:
The savage Grindylow get to keep their nightmarish swamp kingdom. .....And, that's it.
-----------------
It seems to me that a story all about ubiquitous and universal failure, futility, suffering and death is nihilistic. What other moral could there be? It was certainly very depressing.
Anyway, that was a long rant. I'm curious to know why other people did not find the The Scar to be either nihilistic or depressing, and how they interpret it so as to come to those conclusions.
