Clarification from Miéville

I got a nice email from China Miéville this morning. The key:

I am not remotely surprised that you are enraged at the thought that I lifted material from you without attribution. I would be absolutely livid in your situation.

You are right that I had read your work, as part of my long-running fascination with and research on ocean-based polities. Please know that I take the principle of attribution extremely seriously, and for that reason your book _is_ credited (and lauded) in the essay.

It appears to be _In These Times_'s policy to dispense with references. The original, longer essay, in the book (Evil Paradises, New Press 2007), however, cites all sources. Page 254 contains the clause that commences - not coincidentally - 'the archives of seasteading are irresistible reading' concludes with Endnote 11, which on p.314 is expanded: 'See in particular <seastead.org/commented/paper/review.html>' The note also refers to James Lee's 'Castles in the Sea', at your site.

While I obviously still have substantial disagreements with Mr. Miéville's perspectives as expressed in his piece, it was the attribution issue that I was most angry about. It sucked to feel like my work was being used to make seasteading look bad, without people having a pointer to go read it and see a different take on it themselves. I'm relieved to know that that isn't true, or at least, wasn't intended and isn't true for the original piece.

So we may still disagree, (quite violently so, I'd say), but at least we disagree as gentlemen, and as writers who understand the importance of attribution.

Yet another triumph for the internet, and its marvelous way of connecting people so that things like this can be cleared up overnight. What an age we live in!

Share this